Sitting of 27 January 1994

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

    Milk Marketing Board
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she will next meet the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board to discuss the dairy sector.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I last met the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board before Christmas and I expect to meet him again shortly.
    Sir David Knox: Will my right hon. Friend give the House the assurances that if the national milk records become the responsibility of the milk residuary board, dairy farmers will comprise a majority of that board, and that she will consult the Milk Marketing Board before making the initial appointments?
    Mrs. Shephard: I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that, because of the duties laid on me by the Agriculture Act 1993, I cannot prejudge any decision or comment on any proposal that might come from the Milk Marketing Board. Suffice it to say that I intend to ensure that the interests of the 29,000 producers are at the fore of any scheme that is eventually approved, whichever aspect of it might be in my hon. Friend's mind.
    Mr. Tyler: Is the Minister aware that there is widespread consternation at the delay in bringing into effect the marketing scheme? Is she also aware that there is a perception among dairy farmers, in particular, that she has been listening to the interests of the processors and the Dairy Trade Federation, but not to either the producers' or the consumers' interests? Will the Minister give us an undertaking that no new obstacles will be introduced into the discussions now, given the assurances that we were given by her predecessor in the Chamber arid in Committee?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman has perhaps not familiarised himself with the Department's announcements, made on 10 December and 24 January. If he examines those announcements, he should be perfectly reassured that the interests of the 29,000 producers are absolutely top priority, that the interests of 50 million consumers also have been taken into account and that we are talking about many billions of pounds worth of business. They are big decisions; I am absolutely aware of
    404
    the concern about the delay, but what matters more than any deadline is getting the scheme right, and that I intend to do.
    Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most milk producers in the west country are delighted that she is ensuring that there will be proper lead time before the scheme comes into operation? Will she ensure for the benefit of the consumer and producers that Milk Marque and other organisations will have the capital structure and the transport to deliver the goods?
    Mrs. Shephard: As my right hon. Friend may have noticed from the announcements from the Ministry, the availability of capital, particularly to meet the board's existing liabilities, and transport matters are being closely examined.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I tentatively congratulate the Minister on appearing to adopt the approach taken by the Labour Opposition in the Committee considering the Agriculture Bill with regard to the construction of Milk Marque? Given that Milk Marque will be a very different animal from that proposed by the Milk Marketing Board, would it not be right for the Milk Marketing Board to release all those farmers from the contracts that they have signed, thereby enabling them to take a new decision that may well be different from the one they have already made?
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations—tentative or otherwise. May I say that I—like, I am sure, everybody on the Government Benches—regret his departure as Front-Bench spokesman on agriculture, fisheries and food? On the important matter of contracts, we shall, of course, consult on any revised reorganisation scheme that the Milk Marketing Board suggests. An important question for that consultation will be whether producers who have already signed contracts with Milk Marque should be allowed a period to consider their position.
    Mr. Brandreth: I thank my right hon. Friend for the prompt replies on that issue that she has given farmers in my constituency. Does she share the concern that Mr. Gerry Fair and other distinghished farmers have expressed at the delay in the new arrangements? If the deadline of 1 April is passed, what might the new deadline be, given that we all agree that it is important to get it right rather than quick?
    Mrs. Shephard: The board has stated that it proposes a new vesting day of 1 November.
    Dr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that the Government must accept full responsibility for the disarray that has been created in the milk industry? If she has read the parliamentary proceedings of the Committee that considered the Agriculture Bill, she will have seen that the Opposition repeatedly attacked the Government for giving the Milk Marketing Board responsibility for bringing forward the new scheme when, clearly, the Government should have brought forward the revised arrangement after full consultation with the industry. Will she now apologise to the thousands of dairy farmers and the many thousands of other people who work in the industry for the quite unnecessary lack of confidence and insecurity that the Government created?
    Mrs. Shephard: I consider that I have already explained the position perfectly satisfactorily to the House. I reiterate to the hon. Gentleman that it was always the case that the board would come forward with its proposals, there would be full consultation with producers and other parts of the industry, that we would consider those proposals and, if necessary, amendments to the proposals would be made. That is the position that we are now in. I should have thought that, from the position that the hon. Gentleman occupies, he would welcome the thorough examination that has been given to that extremely important question. I would at least have expected him to admit that it is right to take time in something that is as important as this.

    Farmers
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she is taking to ensure that the needs of consumers are being met by United Kingdom farming.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Minister, and all the other agriculture Ministers, are actively involved with Government marketing initiatives aimed at helping United Kingdom producers to identify and satisfy consumer needs.
    Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend is undoubtedly the best of advertisements for the quality and goodness of English food. What further action might his Department take to persuade the British housewife to buy more British home-produced produce? How much would that benefit the British farmer?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he knows, the British consumer today has a choice and variety of food unthought of even 20 years ago. It is of magnificent quality and is produced in a seamless chain from the field to the table. It is a food industry of which we can rightly be extremely proud, which employs 14 per cent. of the work force and produces 9 per cent. of the gross domestic product of the United Kingdom. The British housewife has benefited enormously from the sophistication and development of the British food manufacturing industry. I can assure my hon. Friend that none of us loses any opportunity to promote British food. Perhaps in the months to come, my hon. Friend will have a chance to see the fruit of the Minister's marketing initiatives as they develop, for the benefit of everyone in this country and our balance of payments.

    Efficiency
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she is taking to improve the efficiency of her Department.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Department publishes and reviews annually its targets and achievements.
    Mr. Thurnham: You, Madam Speaker, know how we in the north pride ourselves on our thrift, but will my right hon. Friend confirm the contribution made by MAFF
    406
    regional centres to the efficient running of her Department, and ensure the continued promotion of regional specialties such as Bolton's famous black puddings?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am reminded by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that the black puddings are made by Jack Morris, but whoever makes them they are an excellent product of the north-west. I congratulate the north-west on its thrift and I reassure my hon. Friend that the regional service centre in the north-west is the mirror of the community that it serves.
    Mr. Ainger: Why is the Minister party to the bureaucratic nightmare of arable regionalisation in Wales in which, parish by parish, there is a differentiation—some would say a discrimination? Farmers in one parish may receive £191 in subsidy and farmers in the neighbouring parish, producing exactly the same tonnage of cereal per hectare, may receive £93. The Minister will recall that I wrote to her on 10 December asking why she has not yet explained to the farmers of Wales why she is rejecting the suggestion made, I understand, by the Secretary of State for Wales that England and Wales should be a single region with a single payment. I should like a reply.
    Mrs. Shephard: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but the matter that he raises is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

    Farm Holdings
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farm holdings in the less-favoured areas she considers to be full-time commercial businesses.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farm holdings in the less-favoured areas she considers to be full-time commercial businesses.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): There are 11,764 in England and 10,901 in Wales.
    Mr. Jones: Is not the farm business survey a poor measure of the actual incomes of farms in less-favoured areas such as mine? Should not the Minister try to rectify that, because farms in my area have a much lower income, probably closer to £7,000 a year, than the £19,000 or £20,000 shown in the survey?
    Mr. Jack: I thought that the hon. Gentleman might ask his question from the Front Bench, so, in anticipation, I welcome him to his new role and I join my right hon. and hon. Friends in expressing sadness that the forensic skills of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will be lost to us.
    The survey to which the hon. Gentleman referred was agreed by all farming organisations to be based on a truly representative sample of farm incomes. I looked carefully to see whether, in its constituent elements, proper and due weight had been given to all types of full-time farming and I was satisfied that the sample did just that.
    Mrs. Jackson: Does the Minister agree that, if there is some doubt about the figures, cuts in the hill livestock compensatory allowance are unjustified? Is he aware that in my constituency alone at least 30 hill farmers depend on

    407
    that allowance to make ends meet and to keep their farms going, and that they are extremely concerned about the proposed cuts in allowances, which are not justified on these mistaken figures?
    Mr. Jack: I first remind the hon. Lady that, had it not been for the Government, in 1985, extending hill livestock compensatory amounts to the full range of less-favoured areas, the farmers to whom she refers would not be receiving any benefit. The figures of which I am certain are the £550 million of direct subsidies that will go to the cattle and sheep producers in the less-favoured areas and the rise in real terms by one third of farmers' incomes in 1992–93. I am equally certain that, in 1993–94 there will be a further increase of 28 per cent. in those incomes.
    Sir Jim Spicer: The sectors about which my hon. Friend has been talking are receiving subsidy, but what about those that: do not receive subsidy? In particular, what about the pig industry, which is facing a major crisis and in which many hundreds of our producers will be going out of business unless something positive is done by the United Kingdom Government, alongside all that is being done, often in an underhand way, within the EC?
    Mr. Jack: I am certainly aware of some of the concern that is felt—in particular, the concern about subsidies from the French Government—and that concern is being taken up.
    I am also aware of the pig industry problem. It is very cyclical, but our pig producers are among the most efficient in the Community. Developments such as the signicant reduction in interest rates are benefiting those in the pig production industry as well as hill farmers.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing anxiety among hill farmers in my constituency that the payment of HLCAs and ewe premium will be linked, in some way, with a substantial reduction in sheep stocking levels on the hills? Will my hon. Friend assure me that, if he uses that weapon, it will be linked with a headage payment, so that we can continue to guarantee the livelihood of hill farmers?
    Mr. Jack: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point. I became aware of its significance recently, when I visited Cumbria and discussed with regional representatives some of the problems that poor moorland management can cause in regard to grazing land.
    As my hon. Friend will know, all farmers in receipt of HLCAs have received a code of good upland management. He will also know that over-grazing is a major problem. When such matters are drawn to our attention, however, a report dealing with all the aspects will be requested from the Agricultural Development Advisory Service. That report will be discussed with sheep farmers, in particular, before any action is taken.
    Mr. Llwyd: There have been huge cuts in HLCA support for less-favoured areas. Has it occurred to the Minister that—by coincidence or otherwise—many of those areas are also environmentally sensitive? Is it not time to consider extending environmentally sensitive area status throughout the United Kingdom? There is certainly a valid case for extending it throughout wales.
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to what I said. The decision on HLCAs took into account the substantial increases in farmers' total income, as I made
    408
    clear a moment ago when I read out the figures. Some £550 million is spent on direct subsidies for cattle and sheep farmers in less-favoured areas.
    The hon. Gentleman will know that six more environmentally sensitive areas are to be announced this year, bringing the total to 15 per cent. of the entire United Kingdom land area. We take our responsibilities very seriously. Moreover, in addition to the subsidies that I mentioned, further payments associated with ESAs will benefit precisely the hill farmers whom the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

    Scientific Advisers
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what role her scientific advisers play in developing more environmentally sensitive forms of farming.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The science advisers in my Department and agencies play a key role in developing our policy on more environmentally sensitive forms of farming.
    Mr. Devlin: In view of the welcome announcement of the biodiversity reports on Tuesday, will my right hon. Friend and her scientific advisers now set specific targets to aid the conservation of wildlife, which is dependent on farming?
    Mrs. Shephard: The Government's biodiversity action plan has set broad targets for action; we have also announced a proposal to establish a biodiversity action plan steering group, which will include representatives of major conservation bodies. The group will advise the Government on the development of a range of environmental management policies. My Department will play a full part in the achievement of those targets.
    Mr. Loyden: What advice is the Secretary of State currently receiving about the use of bovine somatotropin to improve the milk yield of dairy herds?
    Mrs. Shephard: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the use of BST is currently subject to an EC moratorium of one year. We have urged the EC to take note of scientific advice, and also to profit from the lifting of the ban in the United States. The Commission will now be able to study the effect of that move.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, regardless of whether some of our upland areas are ESAs, there is an agreement, especially in national parks such as those in North York moors, not to overstock with sheep and cattle? Does she therefore agree that it is crucial that the differential created by the hill livestock compensatory allowance for farmers in those upland areas is maintained because without it they cannot farm, whether in environmentally sensitively or others?
    Mrs. Shephard: We remain committed to HLCAs, but I remind my hon. Friend that 67,000 upland farmers will this year benefit from a total of £550 million in grants, which is quite some commitment.
    Mr. Morley: Did the Minister's scientific advisers point out the importance of field margins in supporting plants and animal species? Is she aware that in the past 15 years nearly a quarter of all hedgerows have disappeared?

    409
    Is she also aware that the biodiversity action plan contains no mention of a hedgerow protection Bill, although such a Bill was a Government manifesto commitment? Will she use her influence in the Cabinet to press for that manifesto commitment to be honoured, or is that to be yet another broken Tory promise?
    Mrs. Shephard: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I try to use my influence in the Cabinet in a number of ways. As for field margins, the hon. Gentleman is expert in these matters so I am sure that it will not have escaped his notice that many of the ESA schemes, the number of which is of course shortly to be increased to 22, include the careful and sensitive use of field margins.
    Mr. Paice: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that she talks to the Department of Health and takes the very best scientific advice before formulating new policies on farming and food? Does she agree that simply because modern technology means that we can detect the minutest traces of nitrates or pesticides, it does not automatically follow that such traces are bad for our health, and that we must have a sense of proportion in these matters?
    Mrs. Shephard: We certainly work closely with the Department of Health on those matters. I am a firm advocate of common sense and old enough to remember the saying about "eating pecks of dirt before you die".

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she last met representatives of the United Kingdom fishing industry to discuss conservation measures.
    Mr. Jack: Conservation measures were discussed with the industry on 14 December, in the context of a meeting to discuss the agenda for the December Fisheries Council.
    Mr. McFall: How will the Minister meet the legally binding requirements of the multi-annual guidance programme now that his iniquitous tie-up scheme has been sent to the European Court of Justice? Does he not realise that a properly funded and sensible decommissioning scheme is necessary? Will he therefore reply to the Scottish fishermen who produced a document on alternative conservation which they sent to him in September and on which they are still awaiting a reply? Will he delay any decisions until meaningful consultation has taken place with the industry?
    Mr. Jack: I very much welcome the tone of the hon. Gentleman's question because he is right to emphasise the importance of meaningful discussion with the industry. I did not rule out a role for decommissioning in our plans, but the House agreed that, to be effective, decommissioning required an element of effort control and, clearly, days at sea was part of our original plan. We still have the benefits of licence aggregation which forms part of our policy and, following a meeting with Commissioner Paleokrassas, I am considering the role that technical conservation measures can play. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall discuss that with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is his Department's policy not to close
    410
    fisheries unless it is absolutely necessary? Will he join me in condemning those who take a short-term view of fish stocks? Does he agree that there is no point in allowing boats to overfish today if it means the end of the entire industry tomorrow?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point. A full scientific assessment was certainly part of our discussions at the December Fisheries Council to determine the overall allowable catch and quota, not only for our fishermen but for those of other Community countries. It is important in terms of day-by-day, month-by-month quota management to take into account the long-term implications, because if too much fish is taken in the short term, there will, as my hon. Friend says, be none left in the long.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: I hope that the Minister will now accept that he was warned by hon. Members on both sides of the House not to go down that road of days at sea limitations and that, having gone down that dead-end street, the responsibility is his for curing the industry's problem by introducing a more effective and more generous decommissioning scheme to limit effort and by introducing a wider range of conservation measures in consultation with the industry. Has not the time come to stop dithering and to get on with introducing competition?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Member will know that my style has always been to try to talk with the industry. The hon. Gentleman says that it is our job to sort out the industry. To put it simply, unless there is dialogue and partnership, no edicts from me will sort out the fundamental problem of too much fishing capacity in relation to the quantities of fish in the sea. There has to be a responsible attitude on both sides of the equation. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I will continue to discuss with the industry other ways of conserving fish and reducing effort, and technical conservation measures will be among them.

    Milk Quotas
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when United Kingdom farmers were first informed of new EC advice on milk quotas.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Ministry issued a supplementary guidance note on 6 December, reflecting the European Commission's clarification of the circumstances in which producers may retain their existing butterfat base when converting direct sales quota to wholesale quota.
    Mr. Clapham: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is she aware, however, that that supplementary guidance note is backdated to July and that it has caused great hardship? Let me give her an example from my constituency. I met farmers at my surgery a fortnight ago and I was told by one farmer that he had applied to change his milk quota from direct sales to wholesale and he expected that the measured butterfat level would be applied, only to find in December, when he received the supplementary note, that a level of 3·8 per cent. was applied, which meant that he had to provide another 70,000 litres of milk to meet the quota.
    Does the Minister agree that that is unsatisfactory and that the 1993–94 guidance note should continue until the end of the milk year? Will she also tell the House whether

    411
    dairy farmers in other EC countries received their supplementary advice note at an earlier date than dairy farmers in the United Kingdom?
    Mrs. Shephard: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that it was unacceptable that the European Commission issued a note of clarification eight months into the quota year. We issued our note of clarification following the Commission's as soon as we could. The Commission's note came to us on 25 November and I have taken up the issue of that lateness with it, and with the Commissioner himself, in the strongest terms.
    I know that the hon. Gentleman has been in touch about his individual constituents. Three hundred and eighty producers are affected; 53 have applied to retain their existing butterfat base and, of those, 41 have been approved. We are handling the matter as sympathetically as we can. I think the hon. Gentleman also knows that we responded to the British National Farmers Union request to extend the deadline for quota leasing until the end of December. The situation is absolutely unsatisfactory and I shall continue to point that out to the Commissioner.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is some concern among farmers in my constituency of Mid-Staffordshire about the intent of the Council of Ministers and the possible cutting of milk quotas in the United Kingdom? Will she confirm that she will resist all attempts by the Council of Ministers to cut those quotas?
    Mrs. Shephard: We avoided a quota cut for the current quota year—indeed, we achieved an increase of 0·6 per cent.—and we will certainly resist any proposal for a quota cut in Britain in the coming year.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Can the right hon. Lady assure me that United Kingdom farmers who live in Northern Ireland will not be placed at a disadvantage under the present modified scheme, as they definitely were when milk quotas were first announced and introduced, and subsequently?
    Mrs. Shephard: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will have heard that I said that the whole matter was being dealt with as sympathetically as possible. I shall draw his concern to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I am sure that equal sympathy will be extended to producers in Northern Ireland.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of the potential impact of the accession of Spain and Portugal to the common fisheries policy; and if she will make a statement.
    Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she last met representatives of the fishing industry to discuss the questions arising from the Spanish and Portuguese treaty of accession.
    Mr. Jack: Following the conclusion of the Fisheries Council on 21 December, I remained in Brussels to give a full explanation to representatives of the United Kingdom industry on the proposals to deal with Spanish and
    412
    Portuguese accession. The full impact of those proposals will depend on Council decisions which have yet to be taken.
    Mr. Kennedy: I appreciate the efforts that the Minister made to keep the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and other groups up to speed with what was developing in December. Will he confirm that he will bear in mind the genuine deep-seated anxiety, not least among west coast fishermen, at the possible impact of the accession, and will he comment on the Department's and the Government's thinking on the legality of the accession under European law?
    Mr. Jack: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I did my best to keep the fishermen well informed. It was right that they should be given a full statement on what was occurring, for the avoidance of doubt. On legality, we established at an early stage that both the original Commission and the subsequent presidency compromise text was consistent with the appropriate parts of the European treaty. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the western approaches, and we made it clear that we gave equal weight to the western approaches and the North sea. On Monday, when I visited Commissioner Paleokrassas, I restated our firm position on the matter and the concerns of fishermen throughout the United Kingdom.
    Dame Jill Knight: May I invite my hon. Friend to use this opportunity to reaffirm his determination to protect the interests of fishermen in the North sea and elsewhere? I congratulate him on sidelining the unsatisfactory proposals from the Commission and assure him that on both sides of the House there is support for the interests of British fishermen—and, for that matter, for the interests of British fish eaters, of whom there are many in Birmingham, notably at our splendid Harry Ramsden's.
    Mr. Jack: As somebody who came from Yorkshire, I know about Harry Ramsden's, and I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned that aspect. I am also glad that my hon. Friend, as a Birmingham Member, has spoken on this subject, because I had the pleasure of visiting Birmingham fish market last Friday, and a goodly supply of fish was seen. It is indeed important that in the negotiations on Spanish and Portuguese accession we preserve the fishing rights of our fishermen in order to ensure that people in Birmingham, especially those who buy their fish and chips from Harry Ramsden's, can continue to enjoy all the fish that they enjoy at present.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Minister aware that wherever the Spanish fleet has operated, whether in Namibian or United Kingdom waters, it has fished in gross violation and total disregard of the rules? Whatever agreements or arrangements may be made for the accession, there must be adequate policing to ensure that the Spaniards do not simply rape our waters, as they have done throughout their history.
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Enforcement is the key to the effectiveness of the common fisheries policy. I have made it clear at the European Fisheries Council and to the Commissioner that unless enforcement is taken seriously, he will not have a credible policy for our fishermen. From 1 January this year, a new control regulation has been in force that introduces, for example, random inspection by Community inspectors.

    413
    When I raised the matter with Commissioner Paleokrassas, he was seized of the need to strengthen yet further those inspection procedures.
    Mr. Harris: Is my hon. Friend aware that a leading member of the fishing industry has said to me how pleased he was at the way in which my hon. Friend defended British interests at the Fisheries Council meeting? Does he agree that the threat is still there, and will he re-emphasise the fact that the interests of west coast fishermen will not be sacrificed in any way to those of North sea fishermen, because the real threat is in the western approaches, rather than the North sea?
    Mr. Jack: As I said a moment ago, in all my discussions I laid equal emphasis on the problems in the North sea and in the western approaches. However, I also commend to my hon. Friend the stepping stone approach which the proposed Commission regulation took on the matter. After tough negotiating from the United Kingdom, it was made absolutely certain that there would be no sacrifice of the principle of free access to Community waters without sound polices to replace the present regime. The interests of fishermen are uppermost in my mind in negotiating those details.
    Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister give a commitment that he will study in great detail the recent report from the European Parliament's directorate of research which shows quite clearly that in the 19 agreements which have been reached with other countries, Spain has taken the lion's share? Indeed, I believe that Spain has 520 boats out of the 736 that operate in those international waters. That belies the fact that Spain claims that, unless it has access to the North sea, the fishing industry in Spain would be in dire straits. May we have a clear commitment that the Government will study that report very carefully and review once more the legality of access to the North sea in particular, given its importance for Scottish fishermen?
    Mr. Jack: I will certainly study that document. I am very aware of the sensitivities in respect of Spain. Any changes will have to take into account individual track records of particular countries. The option to do nothing is not there. I have checked the legality of what is before us and I am satisfied that it conforms with European law.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much the CAP is costing per head of the United Kingdom in 1993–94.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: There is a significant net cost to United Kingdom consumers and to United Kingdom taxpayers from the CAP. For a number of reasons, of which my hon. Friend will be aware, it is not possible to be precise about the figure.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she realise that my wife Janice tells me that the average family is paying £28 to support the CAP? Does my right hon. Friend also agree with Janice that if the leader of the lot opposite, the wriggler from Monklands, East, and Romeo from Yeovil, the leader of the other lot opposite, ever got their hands—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is moving very far away from his wife at the moment. Will he please stay with Janice?
    Mr. Evans: If they ever got their hands on the Brussels cheque book, the £80 a week by which the average family is better off after 14 years of Conservative Government would disappear like rats up a drainpipe.
    Mrs. Shephard: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend not only on his question—whatever that was—but on Janice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] Janice is making a very good recovery from an extremely serious operation and it is good to know that the operation is enabling her to be as right minded as she normally is, and as right minded as my hon. Friend.
    My hon. Friend is correct to say that Labour's grasp of the fact that public spending plans affect tax is a little tenuous. However, I agree with my hon. Friend—and believe that this was the point that he and Janice were making—that the cost of the CAP is too high. That is why the United Kingdom has consistently pressed for a reduction in that cost and why we will continue to do that.
    Dr. Strang: Is it not a disgrace that the intervention board in this country alone will be spending around £2,000 million this year on open-ended market support? Does the right hon. Lady recall her predecessor's statement that he had got rid of the MacSharry proposals and replaced them with the Government's own reforms? Following the admission by the Commissioner yesterday that EU agricultural spending this year will exceed its already enormous budget, will she now accept that the Government have failed to secure an adequate reform of the CAP?
    Mrs. Shephard: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to our cause of prudent public spending, and I hope very much that he manages to find some support within the shadow Cabinet.

    Sheepmeat Regime
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to assist sheep producers who have been denied access to quota by the recent change in the EC sheepmeat regime; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Jack: The national quota reserve for sheep annual premium is designed to assist certain categories of producers who, because of the changes in the sheepmeat regime, are not able to receive enough quota for their needs.
    Mr. Kirkwood: What is the Minister doing to identify cases of genuine hardship? People are caught in some of the emerging transitional traps and, through no fault of their own, are left with little or no quota at all. Would he be prepared to consider tribunals reviewing genuine cases of hardship, as happened in respect of milk quotas? Is the Minister aware that the alternative of buying or leasing a Government quota is not a real alternative because it is too expensive?
    Mr. Jack: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point: 18·7 million units of quota have already been allocated, and we have the reserve of 740,000 units still to go. Each category in the national reserve was very carefully thought out to deal with, I hope, precisely the type of hardship case

    415
    that he mentioned. We do not have any plans to buy up quota; nor do we have power to deal with some of the cases that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Garrett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.
    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. Garrett: In all the ministerial dodging and weaving on "back to basics" and in all the Prime Minister's vapid speeches on social policy I have never heard anything about child poverty. Has the Prime Minister read the recent report that 3 million children in this country live in poverty, that most of them are undernourished and that this country has the fastest growing rate of child poverty in western Europe? What is more basic than nurturing and cherishing our children?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that Conservative Members need any lectures from the hon. Gentleman on nurturing and protecting children. We have not only ensured and enshrined the system of child benefit but introduced family credit and a range of other benefits specifically to help people who face particular difficulties. That has been so over many years, it is an intrinsic of social policy, and the hon. Gentleman in his heart knows that that is the case.
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to have lasting economic recovery, any promises of public expenditure must be subject to the closest possible scrutiny, whether they are made inside or outside the House and whether they are made by blank cheque socialists or by the man who has made more false starts in British politics than a jockey in the Grand National—the leader of the Liberal Democrats?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, of course I agree with my hon. Friend. As for pledges inside or outside the House, that point might have been better directed to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) than to me. I am not at all sure about pledges from the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends. A large number have been made and a large number now seem to have been denied by the hon. Gentleman. It now seems that there is a new doctrine: if a promise is made by the Opposition outside the House, even at their party conference, even to business men, anywhere, nobody should believe a word they say, according to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. John Smith: How does the Prime Minister explain the devasting catalogue of incompetence, mismanagement
    416
    and waste of public money by his Government and their agencies announced today in the Public Accounts Committee report?
    The Prime Minister: I welcome the report issued by the PAC today. It provides a useful check list. It suggests that there has been no decline in standards. It quite rightly says that improving the efficiency of the public sector is not inconsistent with propriety. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's question surprises me, because the bodies in question are run by public servants. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not criticising public servants.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister welcome the fact that the situation is so grave that the Public Accounts Committee felt compelled to make such a report for the first time in its 130-year history? Does the Prime Minister welcome the fact that the report reveals that the national health service management executive wasted more than £100 million in the mismanagement of a hospital project; that the Property Services Agency wasted £65 million, detected by the PAC; and that millions of pounds have been wasted in the health service, in named examples—in Wessex and West Midlands? What does the Prime Minister say about those and the many other fiascos revealed in the report?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is in his general role of making all-purpose charges. He clearly has not studied the report with the care with which he would wish people to believe he has. It states clearly that there has been no decline in standards. The PAC quite rightly criticises breaches, but says that there is no suggestion of deficiency in the public sector financial framework itself. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that that is the case?
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister not understand that the report says that there has been a departure from public standards that have been observed for 140 years? Does he not understand that the British public now clearly understand that one of the reasons why his Government are a Government of high taxation is that they are also a Government of waste and incompetence?
    The Prime Minister: On the contrary, the report supports our drive for efficiency. Either the right hon. and learned Gentleman has misread or he is misrepresenting the substance of the report. He should look at it more carefully and come to the House and correct what he has said this afternoon. Perhaps he believes that he can convince people that the public service in this country is not, as I believe it to be, of the highest calibre of any public service anywhere in the world. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not share that view, he should.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the House has to endure the ritual gibes of Opposition Members about reductions in the number of hospital beds, the truth is that more and more elective surgery is carried out in general practitioners' surgeries, in

    417
    out-patient departments and, most important of all, on a day surgery basis? The Royal College of Surgeons predicts a figure of 50 per cent. in the near future. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that proves that the Opposition are as out of date as ever? Is it not about time that they got behind the Government's reforms and stopped alarming patients?
    The Prime Minister: I would certainly agree with that. We know from what has been said in the past 24 hours that there would be no more spending on the national health service from the Labour party, even though that is described as "obvious rubbish" by leading members of the Opposition. The reality is as my hon. Friend suggests: record numbers of patients are now being treated in the health service and there are record numbers of day cases. Not only is there better value for money in the health service but it is providing what patients and their families want. That is the reality of what is happening under our reforms. They have been an enormous success and they will continue.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister understand the anger that will be felt by many ordinary people who are asked to pay unprecedented levels of taxation only to see his Government hand that money over to quangos and executive agencies to throw away on waste, corruption and fraud?
    The Prime Minister: I hope the right hon. Gentleman can substantiate what he has just said and will be prepared to do it. I hope also that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that it is his party's stated position to increase taxation.
    Mr. Harris: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the report issued to Members of Parliament today by the Trustee Savings bank on the affordability of mortgages? The report says that the typical first-time buyer of a house now pays no less than £110 a month less than he did a year ago because of the dramatic fall in interest rates. It also says that the fear of negative equity has virtually disappeared.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right about that. Indeed, the saving on the average mortgage from the peak level of interest rates to today is about £160 to £170 a month. The result is shown quite clearly in the extent of the personal expenditure that has helped to steer the recovery. We are now recovering, and recovering more comprehensively than any other European economy.
    Mr. Cummings: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cummings: What words of advice and comfort can the Prime Minister give to my constituent who has a child of 10 with double curvature of the spine whose operation has been cancelled because the joint health commissioning board has run short of cash? Does he not find it extraordinary that while there is a cash shortage for patient care, loads of money can be found for loads of posh cars and loads of managers with hugely inflated salaries in a needlessly expanding national health service bureaucracy?
    The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Gentleman knows as well as any other Member of the House the extent to which patient care has expanded and improved in the national health service. We now know that there is going to be no more money for the health service from the Labour party. We can have no more of this nonsense week after week from Labour Members whenever anything happens, saying that there will be more money, because all their promises are "obvious rubbish," as the Opposition Front Bench has told us.
    Mr. Lait: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Lait: Does my right hon. Friend accept that I, along with millions of parents, welcome the new emphasis that he wants put on competitive sports at school? Does he agree that such sports teach children not only team skills but the competitive skills that children need to succeed in their future lives?
    The Prime Minister: I strongly agree with what my hon. Friend has to say. I think children need to learn about competition. I have no doubt that team sports instil that spirit of competition in children, quite apart from enhancing their school days and their childhood generally. Any revision of the curriculum is a matter initially for independent advice from Sir Ron Dearing. He is considering the future place of team games in the school curriculum. When we receive his report, we shall study it very carefully.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Prime Minister join me in asking the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) to pay back to the ratepayers of Westminster the £50,000 profit that he made when he arranged through an intermediary to buy the council house next door? Will he join me in asking for the repayment of that money?
    The Prime Minister: I have no intention of going down that road with the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in The Guardian today commenting on remarks by the German Economics Minister, who says that our Government's policy of deregulation and privatisation is outstanding and that, indeed, he is going to copy it? Does my right hon. Friend know that Black and Decker has moved its international headquarters from Europe to Durham? Does not that demonstrate that the United Kingdom is the leading country in which to do business, and does not it show the folly of the Opposition's policy of supporting the social chapter, which is bad for industry and bad for this country?
    The Prime Minister: There is absolutely no doubt about that. If we want jobs in this country, we certainly must not add costs through the social chapter or in any other way. Black and Decker is just the latest in a long line of companies leaving other countries and setting up in the

    419
    United Kingdom because of its tax structure and its prospects, which make it a very competitive place to do
    420
    business. Companies like our industrial relations, they like our system of business tax and they like the fact that we have no social chapter.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: 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): Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 31 JANUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill (First Day).
TUESDAY 1 FEBRUARY—Completion of Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 2 FEBRUARY—Until Seven o'clock, motions on the Biotechnology and Biological Services Research Council Order, the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council Order and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Order.
Motion on the Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations.
THURSDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Until about Ten o'clock, motion on the English Revenue Support Grant Reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Until about seven o'clock, private Members' motions.
There will be a debate entitled "Taking Rio Forward" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee 'A' will meet on Wednesday 2 February at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents No. 5953/91 and 7506/93 relating to landfill of waste.
[Wednesday 2 February:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: (a) 5953/91 and (b) 7506/93, Landfill of Waste. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: (a) HC 29-xxvii (1990–91 and HC 79–i (1992–93); (b) HC 79-xxxvi (1992–93) and HC 48-iv (1993–94).]
Mrs. Beckett: Does the Lord President recall that, during business questions, I have, with strong support from his side of the House, repeatedly requested a full day's debate on the Child Support Agency before approval of the orders giving effect to a package that no one but the Government thinks is adequate? Is not it disgraceful that, as soon as we told the Government that we proposed to use the half day of Opposition time that they had offered to the Labour party for such a debate, making it possible for the House to have a full day's debate on the Child Support Agency next week, that offer was withdrawn?
Is it not particularly odd that the Government are determined to have a decision before full debate when the Prime Minister is dropping hints in the Yorkshire Post that there might be further changes in the package on offer? Or is this yet another example of the Prime Minister's saying something that he does not mean?
Does the Lord President recall our continual pressure for an early decision on the boundaries on which the European elections will be fought in June? Is not it true that the French and the British Governments are almost alone in their failure to ratify the arrangements? Is the Leader of the House aware of the ugly rumour that the delay here arises because the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) wishes to stand for one of the new seats and the
422
Government are afraid that this will reopen divisions in the Conservative party? As the French Government have made it quite plain that their delay is deliberate, will the Lord President reassure us that, in the case of the British Government, it is a matter of incompetence rather than of malice?
May I, finally, draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that today's Daily Mail tells us that the Prime Minister is yet again relaunching his philosophy this weekend? Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for the Prime Minister to tell the House what "back to basics" now means? Is there any chance that it will include "back to a standard of good government"?
Mr. Newton: The suggestion in the hon. Lady's second point is pretty far-fetched, even by the standards of Her Majesty's Opposition. There is absolutely no truth in it. We shall bring forward the parliamentary orders required to confirm the new European constituency boundaries at the earliest possible date—in good time to enable them to take effect for the elections this June.
As to the Daily Mail, perhaps the right hon. Lady would be wiser to wait for my right hon. Friend's speech. I am able to tell her, without breaking the doctrine of collective responsibility and all the rest of it, that that speech will be concerned with one of the things which we have been most anxious to bring about and which we are successfully bringing about—greater competitiveness for the country. Much of that competitiveness will rest, as my right hon. Friend said in his Question Time earlier, on our record of maintaining the lowest tax rates in Europe for both individuals and businesses and making this an attractive place for others to do business.
I noted what the right hon. Lady said about the Child Support Agency and I rather welcomed the suggestion that she is edging back towards the usual channels in her approach to business. That was the impression that she gave and perhaps she can confirm that that is the case. We intend to provide more than the one and a half hours that such regulations are normally allocated, because we recognise the desire to debate them.
The reason for the business that I have proposed for next Wednesday is that, yesterday afternoon, the Opposition, led by the Leader of the Opposition, demanded that those regulations should be debated on the Floor of the House. I have provided the time for just that.
Mr. Simon Burns: Can my right hon. Friend find time, if not next week, fairly soon afterwards, for a debate on early-day motion 459, which is entitled, "Liberal Democratic Party and Racist Literature"?
[That this House notes that the latest official Activists Handbook of the Liberal Democratic Party addresses the problems of delivering Liberal Democratic leaflets to 'unintelligible inhabitants who appear to speak only in Punjabi, broad Cockney or Scouse or, worst of all, Glaswegian'; notes that this is only the latest example of the Liberal Democratic Party using racially offensive language or language that mocks regional accents; notes that it follows the publication by the Liberal Democratic Party of overtly racist literature in a local government election in Tower Hamlets, together with racist remarks by the Liberal Democratic Councillor Tom Dommett in Somerset; and calls on the Right honourable Member for Yeovil yet again to expel Councillor Dommett from the Liberal Democratic Party and to withdraw the Activists Handbook forthwith.]

423
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome the opportunity to discuss the sleazy tactics of the Liberal Democrats and expose their fraudulent racist message, which they give where it suits them?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend knows well that the Government deplore as much as anyone else offensive comments of the kind that have been attributed in this case. He will be aware that the Public Order Act 1986 makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words if it is likely that racial hatred will be stirred up. I am sure that those at whom my hon. Friend's remarks are directed will reflect on that. Perhaps I might take his remarks as a request for a half day for the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I should be very pleased to hear that we are going to get a half day, and the sooner the better. If the Government are so confident that they have a good record on the proper conduct of public business, will they allow a full day's debate in Government time next week on that subject?
Mr. Newton: The right way for the Government to respond, as the hon. Gentleman certainly knows, is first to respond to the report of the Public Accounts Committee. That will be done at the proper time and in the proper way, but on the basis that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister outlined in exchanges earlier today.
Mr. Peter Luff: Will my right hon. Friend follow the instincts that he expressed last week and arrange for a debate soon on the waste of public expenditure by public authorities? Does he agree that that would be a marvellous opportunity for Conservative Members to expose the waste, corruption and inefficiency of Labour-controlled authorities, such as my own authority of Worcester, where an unnecessary footbridge was built, at vast expense, across the River Severn? The cost of that has now been transferred to the Labour and Liberal-controlled county council.
Mr. Newton: I certainly agree that such a debate would provide myriad opportunities for examples of waste by Labour local authorities to be cited. As I said before, I will certainly pursue my efforts to find time for those examples to be discussed.
Mr. Harry Barnes: We are faced with massive family debt, the break-up of families, divorce, suicides and children in second families who are deprived and under stress, while parents no longer visit their children in first families because they cannot afford to do so. May we have a full debate on the Child Support Agency and what it has done to respectable and responsible second families?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have already issued proposals on that matter and that, as I have announced, they will be debated next week. That will give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to make his points.
Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that, although the Opposition Front-Bench team is terrorised by the Bolsover dinosaurs on the subject of the thoroughly sensible all-party Jopling reform of Parliament, there is no reason for the Government to be so terrorised? Is there any
424
reason why we should not have a debate and thereby expose to the public just how antediluvian the Labour party is on that subject?
Mr. Newton: I assure my hon. Friend that I neither feel nor am terrorised by the hon. Members below the Gangway to whom he referred. I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments and those that my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure has made in a not dissimilar sense on a number of occasions. It may be that yesterday's episode, when the Leader of the Labour party led his party in an attempt to disrupt the orderly conduct of business in the House, will strengthen public support for the report.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Leader of the House must know from his constituents of the enormous chaos and unhappiness that are being caused by the Child Support Agency. He must also be aware that the package that is being proposed is totally inadequate and has not even taken account of the problems highlighted by a Select Committee. I ask him seriously to allow a full day's debate on the matter, because it is the children, whether they be the product of first or second marriages, who are our concern—and they are suffering.
Mr. Newton: I have already said that my right hon. Friend has understood and sought to respond to that concern and that time will be provided for a debate next week. I should observe, however, that, after carefully reading the Select Committee's report, my understanding is that the Government's package almost entirely implemented the Committee's proposals.
Sir Anthony Durant: Will my right hon. Friend study early-day motion 434?
[That this House believes that a system should be agreed between the political parties allowing honourable Members who are involved in international institutions, recognised by the UK, such as the Parliamentary Assemblies of the Council of Europe and Western European Union, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to deposit their votes with their respective whips, to be used according to their instructions or that attendance at those bodies which advance international co-operation are not dependent on domestic party relations, which can, at times, deteriorate, even to the extent of suspending pairing arrangements, leading to the exclusion of UK representatives from such bodies to the disadvantate of both the UK and the institutions.]
It shows that we can no longer send representatives to international organisations because of the breakdown of links between the two parties. That is extremely bad for Britain and means that we had to apologise at the Council of Europe for our conduct. Such a situation should be stopped as soon as possible so that Britain can be properly represented.
Mr. Newton: I take those remarks, with which I agree, as being primarily directed at Opposition Front-Bench Members. As I said last week, they may think that their current behaviour in the House is directed at the Government, but the effect of the attack is increasingly on Parliament.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: In view of today's Public Accounts Committee report, may I reiterate the request for a debate on the standards of public conduct?

425
That report cites several examples of the serious decline in standards, including that of the Foreign Office accounting system, which was conducive to fraud and theft. Is not the case for such a debate reinforced by the evidence to the Scott inquiry, by the Pergau dam fiasco, and by the general stench of corruption emanating from the Government, who are fast sinking in a sea of sleaze?
Mr. Newton: I think that part of not being terrorised by hon. Members below the Gangway is not to respond to the overheated, overstated language that they use on occasions of this sort. I do not for one moment accept one word that the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent early debate on the national minimum wage, which would cost this country £1·5 billion and which is a policy supported and endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Newton: I think that my hon. Friend will welcome our continuing efforts to provide opportunities for such a debate, which will bring out both the down side of the policies that Her Majesty's Opposition are pursuing, and—this is no less important—the positive advantages that our very different policies have brought to the competitiveness of this nation.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House ask for a statement from the Foreign Secretary or a Minister next week on the situation developing in Iran, where the Superintendent of the Assemblies of God went missing in the past week following the execution of another pastor allegedly for apostasy? Many people in our nation are concerned about that. I have already written to the Foreign Secretary. May we have a statement on what action the Government are taking?
Mr. Newton: I shall bring that request to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mrs. Edwina Curry: May I urge the Leader of the House to consider giving us an early day for the debate that has already been promised on the age of consent? Does he recall that the Minister of State, Home Office said that such a debate would be held in the House with a free vote.
"at a relatively early stage in the Committee proceedings"?— [Official Report, 11 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 115.]
The Committee has now been meeting for a fortnight and the matter is becoming urgent. I should be most grateful if the Leader of the House would consider the matter.
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly seek to provide time as soon as possible for the matters that we have undertaken to arrange to be discussed on the Floor of the House in the way that my hon. Friend described, but I am not in a position this afternoon to give a date.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we please have an early debate on the extraordinary and crazy decision of Leicestershire social services to ban my constituent Sharon Isett and her husband from adopting a second child because Sharon Isett smokes between six and 10 cigarettes a day, even though she has undertaken that she will not smoke in the presence of the baby? I do not know whether the Minister is, as I am, a reformed smoker
426
who hates the habit, but surely what matters to a child is that it is placed in a loving, warm and stable home, such as that of the Isetts. This decision should be revoked.
Mr. Newton: I shall forbear from commenting on that part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question that was perhaps directed at me. He asks about adoption. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend has recently published a White Paper dealing with some of the questions of who should or should not be regarded as appropriate in this area. I shall bring the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend probably realises that June is the 50th anniversary of the landings in Normandy. I am sure that the whole House will want to celebrate the wonderful sacrifice by our troops and their allies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am extremely worried—which is why I ask my right hon. Friend to arrange a day's debate—that some local authorities, and certainly my Labour-controlled council in Southampton, Test, are virtually ignoring that historic landing. I want them to do more to alert the public, and that is why we should have a debate.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will have heard the murmurs in the House at what he said. I am sure that the whole House hopes that all parts of the United Kingdom, and especially those coastal parts that have strong connections with the sea, will consider the impropriety of ignoring this historic and significant anniversary.
Mr. Tony Benn: Has the Leader of the House seen the reports that western Governments are seeking to persuade the Secretary-General of the United Nations that air strikes against Serbia could be launched without going to the Security Council? Will he assure us that he will seek a statement from the Foreign Secretary or the Defence Secretary before British service personnel are engaged in offensive action in Serbia that could endanger our troops who are already there and undermine the humanitarian work that is going on? May we have a statement before any action is taken that might involve our service personnel?
Mr. Newton: I will bring the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend, who will be in the House at Question Time next Wednesday. The right hon. Gentleman will know of the measured approach and tone that the Government have always sought to adopt in this matter, in contrast with some of the things that have been pressed on the Government by Liberal Democrat Members and by some of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: In view of the debate earlier this week on the Finance Bill, can my right hon. Friend make time for yet further debates on public expenditure so that we can discuss the £14 billion additional promises made by the Labour party only this week on health, overseas development and housing? Such a debate would give us the opportunity to remind the people of this country that when Labour was last in government it ran a regular budget deficit of 7·5 per cent. of GDP, which led to an average rate of inflation of 15·5 per cent. and stagnant living standards. Does not that show what a hypocritical bunch they are now?
Mr. Newton: The possibility of a whole Opposition supply day, let alone a half day, would be even more attractive to us all if we thought that we would get any clear explanation of precisely what the Opposition are saying about public expenditure.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Will the Leader of the House consider putting aside some time to debating manufacturing industry, particularly in the north-west? Will he discard his rose-coloured glasses and note that, in the past seven days, 1,500 manufacturing jobs have been declared redundant from Chorley through Bolton to my constituency? In three small towns, 1,500 good, solid, well-paid, highly skilled manufacturing jobs have gone. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about it?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that, when one looks at the whole picture, there is no doubt that British manufacturing industry has been strengthening, not weakening. Perhaps the motor car industry is a classic case. We shall continue fundamentally strengthening the British economic base on which manufacturing rests.
Mr. John Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend provide time for an early debate on the relationship between drugs and the growth in violent crime in our cities? Has he noticed recent reports showing that a particular vicious group of drug barons, known as the Yardies, are being expelled from New York city but are setting up shop in British cities? Should we not have a fairly urgent debate on that, given that the task force set up to counter the Yardies some years ago was disbanded and I understand that the police are now considering re-forming it?
Mr. Newton: I have seen those reports. My hon. Friend will be well aware of the importance that the Government attach to those issues. I shall bring my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the Home Secretary. He will be aware that, only a few weeks ago, my right hon. and learned Friend announced the creation of a new unit to make even more effective the Government's efforts both in the prevention and the control of drug abuse.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Many people will have agreed with the Prime Minister's comments about the importance of organised games and sport for our young people. Is the Leader of the House aware that, in any constituency represented here and in others, hundreds or perhaps thousands of families are unable to buy such items as football boots unless they are fortunate enough to find them in a jumble sale? Can we have a debate on the social effects of poverty on millions of families in Britain?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should look at the figures that have emerged today, showing that, contrary to some of the myths that Opposition Members seek to spread, in the past decade or 15 years, there has been a substantial rise in the disposable incomes of every sector in the population.
Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend will know that yesterday we held a complete day's debate on an Opposition motion on housing, yet the Opposition took no opportunity to explain why hundreds of millions of pounds in rent remains uncollected in Labour-controlled authorities throughout the country. In view of that, will my right hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement to the House
428
about that appalling waste of public funds, and about whether those authorities could now be reported en bloc to the Audit Commission?
Mr. Newton: That appears to me to be a suggestion well worth considering. I was more tempted than perhaps I should have been by the suggestion from the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), as it is clear that any debate on waste would embrace the matters to which my hon. Friend referred.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: If the Leader of the House agrees to a debate about the Jopling report, will he put it on record that a number of Government Ministers and, in particular, Government Whips are not keen on having a four-day week in Parliament? If we are interested in having a four-day week here, we should consider first a four-day week for those who produce wealth outside this building so that we can mop up the 4 million unemployed and give hope to the thousands of young kids leaving school without the hope of a job. When Parliament has done that, we can start talking about a four-day week for Members of Parliament.
Mr. Newton: I have to say, not for the first time, that I detect some division above and below the Opposition Gangway. That sounds to me exactly the sort of proposition that caused the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) to find— [Interruption.] I am talking about the four-day working week in the population. That is the proposition which the right hon. and learned Gentleman ran a mile from as soon as he found that he had signed up to it in Europe.
Mr. George Kynoch: Will my right hon. Friend find time in the near future for a debate on employment practices within Labour-controlled councils, so that Conservative Members can fully debate what is going on in Monklands district council? That is a particular reference to the redundancy of Mr. Tom McFarlane, a constituent of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), and the subject of letters between myself and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, to which I have had no reply, and now a letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), which I hope will get a better response.
Mr. Newton: I certainly feel that it would be appropriate for the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East to comment on what has been appearing in the newspapers. I hope that he will reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch).
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House clarify his intentions on the reform of the age of consent? Am I right in thinking that he said a few moments ago that he intends to have a Committee of the whole House before the Standing Committee on the Bill has completed its work, and before that Standing Committee may choose to have a debate on the age of consent?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I put it in those terms, but that is the proposition that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) was advancing and is the prospect that I think that most hon. Members are expecting. I see that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) confirms that.
Mr. Keith Mans: During the debate on the revenue support grant orders, will my right hon. Friend ensure that we have sufficient time to debate rate capping and, particularly, the Labour party's commitment to it, which would imply extra expenditure of between £3 billion and £4 billion?
Mr. Newton: That is another interesting point for the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to consider against the background of the declared Brown doctrine of which we have read in the newspapers. As to the rest of my hon. Friend's question, we intend to provide, as I have said, a full day on the revenue support grant reports. I think that that might provide him with the opportunity that he seeks.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Leader of the House not see it as an urgent priority that we debate the destruction of one of our most precious treasured national institutions—the civil service? What is going on, and what the Public Accounts Committee has drawn attention to, is the growth of quangos. The contractorisation and privatisation of the civil service are introducing into that body the lower ethics of commerce. The civil service took a century to build up. Once those high standards are gone, they can never be re-created. When will we have a debate on that?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps you could advise me, Madam Speaker, on whether the word "codswallop" is a parliamentary term. If it is, may it be put on the record?
Madam Speaker: It is on the record.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend consider again the request made by our hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and to link the debate with early-day motion 341?
[That this House calls upon the Right honourable Member for Yeovil to disassociate himself from the description by Tom Dommett, a Liberal Democrat County Councillor, of his constituents in Somerset, as 'Yids, Nig-nogs, Ities and Pakis…no better than New Age scum and vermin'; believes that the use of such grossly offensive language about people of other nationalities and races is wholly unacceptable in public life; notes that this is yet the latest example of blatant racism within the Liberal Democrat Party; and calls upon the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, the Right honourable Member for Yeovil, to expel Councillor Dommett from the party forthwith.]
It has been signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and draws attention to the racist language used by a Liberal councillor in Somerset. The debate would also give the House the opportunity to debate the credibility of a party whose leader can describe one of his councillors as inexperienced and stupid, but still offer him up to the electorate as a credible purveyor of Liberal party policy.
Mr. Newton: I see that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), perhaps predicting what might occur during these exchanges, has fled, but perhaps the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip will take the message to him.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House accept the demand for a debate on the drugs problem, particularly in the light of the statement by the chief investigation officer of Customs and Excise, Mr. Douglas Tweddle, that the drugs problem is worse than at
430
any other time in this country's history and is linked with a record of violence, including a number of inner-city murders? During the debate, we could assess how the single European market, which has been imposed on this country, has removed a great deal of protection at our borders and is allowing the freer movement of drugs, guns and criminal activities across our borders, with diminished supervision. Surely that is a serious problem and we should have time to debate it.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows well the importance that the Government attach to those matters and their determination to tackle any such problems as those that the hon. Gentleman has described. However, he might wish to consider whether he has accurately stated the position.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on student support, in particular student loans, in order to examine the cost of student loans to Britain with a view to establishing the apparent cost that the nation will have to face if the words of the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies), in quoting the leader of the Labour party in the House on 19 January as being opposed to student loans, are carried out? That would be a severe cost to the nation and we need to know what it would be.
Mr. Newton: That is a helpful addition to the list of questions that need to be answered by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).
Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the success or otherwise of the experimental charterline service that is operating in Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, bearing in mind that the service, which cost £2 million to set up, had received, at the end of last year, a total of 3,199 calls and that of the 201 in relation to Nottingham, only four were complaints and a large proportion of the others had to be redirected because they had been wrongly directed in the first place? Such a debate would enable us to clarify whether, at a cost of £625·20 per call, that is one of the measures against which the Government would wish to be judged in terms of the value for money of the services that they offer.
Mr. Newton: The service should be judged in the context of the undoubted improvements that the citizens charter initiative have brought to the standards of many services. However, I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Mr. James Paice: May we have a debate on crime and, in particular, police numbers so that I can expose the hypocrisy of Cambridgeshire county council, run by the Liberal and Labour parties, which, having asked for 68 more police officers because of increasing crime problem, has been given substantial extra resources this year—an extra £19 million—and has now rejected the Conservative proposal for those extra officers?
Mr. Newton: That sounds like another rather good point for the debate on the revenue support grant orders next week. My hon. Friend might seek to catch your eye, Madam Speaker.
Mr. John McFall: May we have a debate on the matter raised in early-day motions 378 and 379 in my name regarding the Sheriff Court Fees Amendment (No. 2) Order?
[That this House notes the comments of the Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, Scottish Minister of Home Affairs, that with the introduction of increased court fees resulting from the Sheriff Court Fees Amendment (No. 2) Order judicial costs will be recovered from fee income; notes that the principle of equality of access to courts will be eroded both by the scale and rate of increase in charges; and questions why individuals on a weekly income of £150 per week should be paying towards a judge's salary of over £1,150 a week.]
To illustrate the urgent need for such a debate, I refer the right hon. Gentleman to a constituent of mine who, before 31 December, would have been required to pay £40 to go to court to get her husband out of the house, but is now required to pay £123, which is 80 per cent. of her income. She cannot afford that and, as a result, her progress in the matter has been impeded. Given the problems that exist all over Scotland as a result of the order, will the Leader of the House urge on the Secretary of State for Scotland the need for such a debate?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend and, as always, in my own constructive way, consider them myself.
Mr. James Clappison: When my right hon. Friend considers the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and others for a debate on early-day motion 459 on Liberal Democrat literature, will he bear in mind the concerns and fears that many British people have about the activities and influence of extreme and racist political forces in Europe and their wish not to see those forces imported in this country in any way whatever?
Mr. Newton: I am increasingly tempted to think that one of the innovations that should be introduced into our proceedings is an opportunity for Liberal Democrat Members to answer questions.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week about the underhand, coercive pressures imposed on teachers? That would enable us to draw attention to the threats issued by Liberal and Labour-controlled Kent county council to primary and other school head teachers who are considering applying for grant-maintained status. They are being told that if they support such action, they cannot expect ever to be considered for vacancies in any of the council's schools.
Mr. Newton: It would clearly be very disturbing if that were demonstrated to be the case. No doubt Opposition Members who may have influence over those to whom my hon. Friend refers will consider what he has said.
Mr. Michael Bates: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate next week on early-day motion 461?
[That this House condemns unreservedly the remarks of the honourable Member of Glasgow, Hillhead in praising the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in Baghdad; regrets that these remarks have provided a propaganda coup for the Iraqi dictator; notes his statement made personally to Saddam Hussein; 'Sir, allow me to salute your courage, power and indefatigability. I would like you to know that we are with you until the nasir (victory)'; and regrets the distress which these remarks will have caused to the families of British service men and women who were killed or injured in the Gulf War and families of those British civilians imprisoned by Saddam Hussein.]
The motion relates to the conduct of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). On a recent visit to Baghdad, he paid tribute to the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those remarks will have caused deep distress to the courageous British service men and women who fought in the Gulf war, and to their families? The debate would also give us an opportunity to express our dismay at the inadequacy of the discipline imposed on the hon. Gentleman by his party.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to feel that those remarks caused deep offence in every quarter of the country.
4.5 pm

Points of Order
4.5 pm
Mr. Andrew Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that the Committee of Selection has appointed five hon. Members representing English constituencies to the Standing Committee considering the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill. Standing Order No. 86(2) imposes on the Committee of Selection a duty to
"have regard to the qualifications of Members"
to serve on Committees.
The Committee of Selection receives specific information about hon. Members' participation in debates before the Committee stage of a Bill, which is a major criterion in the selection of Standing Committee members. In this instance, not one of those English Members spoke or actively participated in such debates. They have not an ounce of mandate in the form of a Scottish vote; yet, in consideration of a purely Scottish Bill, they will constitute the majority that determines the future of Scottish local government.
I know, Madam Speaker, that you emphasise the fact that ours is a United Kingdom Parliament, and that hon. Members can speak on any matter. It is, however, very unfair and blatantly undemocratic for the future of Scottish local government to be decided in this way, against the wishes of the Scottish people. Will you examine the matter, and advise us on how the Chairman of the Committee of Selection could explain, on the Floor of the House, the reasoning behind a decision that has scunnered people in Scotland and re-emphasised the current democratic deficit in relation to Scottish matters?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I shall take one more point of order from each side.
Mr. John Butcher: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) said about the democratic deficit. You will know, Madam Speaker, that the Labour party, the Conservative party and, I believe, the Liberal party have selected large numbers of Scots to represent English constituencies; as far as I am aware, the reverse has not occurred. As we have been generous and decent in this regard, should not reciprocal arrangements exist in Scotland? That would also deal with the hon. Gentleman's point.
Madam Speaker: I think that, after all, I have heard enough points of order on that particular matter.
Mr. Paul Flynn rose—
Madam Speaker: No, I have heard enough. We are not going to have a debate about procedure. I can now help the House, and through the House—as the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) suggested—the people of Scotland.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order, which allows me to make two points clear. First, appointments to Standing Committees made by the Committee of Selection are final, and do not require the House's approval. Secondly, as page 618 of "Erskine May" makes clear,
"The interpretation of the order of reference of a select committee is … a matter for the committee."
It would therefore be wrong for me to comment on the judgment of the Committee of Selection, its Chairman or any of its members about the qualifications of the Standing Committee members that it selects. The House has entrusted the responsibility to the Committee of Selection, and must leave it with that Committee.

Royal Air Force
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—Mr. Michael Brown.]
4.9 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): It was this time last year that the House debated the Royal Air Force in the context of its activities in the Gulf. Despite steps which have been taken towards peace in that region since then, the RAF presence remains necessary; but that is but one of a number of operations around the world to which the RAF is contributing.
In opening today' s debate, I shall focus on how the RAF is continuing to meet its many commitments while at the same time rising to the challenge of substantial reorganisation and change, which will make it a leaner organisation still fully capable of meeting Britain's future defence needs.
Hon. Members will recall the publication of last year's White Paper, "Defending Our Future", which included a new and fundamental analysis of the way in which defence assets are and will need to be employed to meet our various commitments around the world. The framework for the analysis is provided by the three overlapping defence roles to which the RAF makes significant and key contributions.
Our defence strategy continues to be underpinned by our nuclear capabilities, strategic and substrategic. While our longer-term intention is to transfer the substrategic role to the Trident force, this vital link in the chain of nuclear deterrence will continue to be provided by Tornado GR1 aircraft, armed with the WE177 free-fall bomb, well into the first decade of the next century.
Defence role one provides for the protection of the United Kingdom and dependent territories. The integrity of British airspace in peacetime is maintained by the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment, supplemented by the Sentry airborne early warning force—AEW—and Tornado F3 fighters. We should remember, too, the significant role played by the RAF in Northern Ireland where it provides crucial helicopter support for the Army in extremely testing conditions. The RAF Regiment also provides specialist airfield ground defence. Nor should we forget that the RAF continues to make vital contributions to our forces in Cyprus, Hong Kong, Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands.
The second of the three defence roles provides insurance against a major external threat to the United Kingdom and our allies. This role is discharged through our membership of NATO. NATO has three new force categories: immediate and rapid reaction forces, main defence forces, and augmentation forces. The RAF contributes to all three and, of course, its nuclear capability, which I have already mentioned, is double-hatted here. Tornado F3 air defence aircraft and Rapier fire units are declared to NATO's immediate reaction force and some 80 Harrier, Tornado and Jaguar aircraft are declared to the rapied reaction force in the critical areas of offensive air support, tactical reconnaissance and interdiction.
In addition, a further 190 aircraft are assigned to main defence forces, including tankers, transport aircraft and helicopters. Finally, a composite force of Chinook and Puma helicopters is assigned to the Allied Command Europe rapid reaction corps.
I deal now with the third defence role—the armed forces' contribution to promoting the United Kingdom's
436
wider security interests. It is, of course, under this defence role that our armed forces, and the RAF in particular, have in recent years seen most active employment.
The area of current operations in which the RAF is most publicly visible continues to be in the former Yugoslavia. There, the RAF is maintaining its considerable, and key, contribution to United Nations operations. As part of the multinational NATO airborne early warning force, the RAF's Sentry AEW1 aircraft fly daily over Hungary to monitor the airspace of the former Yugoslavia. These aircraft were joined in April of last year by eight Tornado F3s, which deployed to Gioia del Colle in Italy when the emphasis of Operation Deny Flight changed from surveillance to enforcement of the no-fly zone. Since then the Tornado F3s have flown more than 800 operational sorties, and the Sentry AEWs have flown more than 650 since their deployment to the area.
On 16 July, eight Jaguar aircraft also deployed to Gioia del Colle to mount close air support and reconnaissance operations in support of UN forces operating under United Nations Security Council resolution 836, covering the provision of safe areas.
The Jaguars, since December 1993 comprising eight aircraft in the theatre with four ready to reinforce at short notice from the United Kingdom, are drawn from squadrons based at RAF Coltishall and have flown more than 650 operational sorties since their arrival in theatre.
Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft have also flown more than 110 sorties in support of arms embargo and sanctions monitoring operations in the Adriatic, and Canberra photographic reconnaissance aircraft have provided vital intelligence for our forces on the ground.
Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend must be aware, in the context of the support of the RAF for the various operations that he describes, that the Secretary of State told the Defence Select Committee on 1 December that there was a need to procure additional large support helicopters for the RAF. My hon. Friend must be aware of the importance to the industry of Somerset and Dorset and the west country of securing an order for the Westland EH101, but many hon. Members are increasingly baffled by the long delay in obtaining a decision on the matter. Will my hon. Friend say whether it will be possible very soon to make a decision under NAPNOC—no agreed price, no contract—arrangements to appraise the contract by the summer?
Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right to mention the issue and tonight is as good a time as any to do so, although perhaps it is a bit premature for a definitive answer to be given. I am accompanied on the Front Bench, not only by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, but also by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who will answer the procurement question later when he winds up the debate. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that for the time being.
The element of the RAF's contribution that has perhaps the highest public profile is the flights into Sarajevo by Hercules aircraft, which have been carrying on since July 1992. The danger to our aircrew is of paramount concern, and flights are suspended when aircraft have come under ground fire, or when the risk from the warring factions surrounding Sarajevo has been too great. However, the operation is never free of uncertainty and sometimes very great danger.

437
The RAF humanitarian airlift into Sarajevo has now totalled more than 1,100 sorties and has delivered nearly 15,000 tonnes of aid. When requested by the United Nations, the RAF will continue, where possible, to assist with the evacuation of medical casualties, as we have seen on television and in the press. There can be no doubt that the RAF's presence in the region has helped, and is helping, to save the lives of thousands of innocent victims. All the members of the defence team here know from their own experience that all the personnel involved continue to demonstrate great skill and courage in successfully carrying out the United Nations mandate.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My hon. Friend mentioned a few moments ago the role of the Hercules aircraft. I think that he will know of the significance of Centrax, a company in my Teignbridge constituency, and the role which it has played in joining the industrial support group for Hercules. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that programme offers significant industrial benefits to the country as a whole and that, interestingly enough, it offers them in the short and medium term and not simply in the long term?
Mr. Hanley: Not only are we aware of Centrax and are grateful for its efforts in the past, but I can confirm that the Hercules is extremely important in carrying out successfully our current defence commitments. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) earlier, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will refer to the procurement aspect of matters later, at a more appropriate time, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the subject.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I wish to ask the Minister about an operational matter, understanding that he will be inhibited from giving an answer which might have the effect of putting information which should be classified into the public domain. He spoke about the dangers inherent in the operations into Sarajevo airport. There was an apprehension that those operations might be at risk from the use of surface-to-air missiles and especially the hand-portable surface-to-air missile, which can be mounted on the shoulder and may be effective up to as much as 5,000m. Without giving away any classified information, is the hon. Gentleman able to tell us whether there have been any incidents when British aircraft have come under attack from such weapon systems?
Mr. Hanley: I am not aware of any instances of our aircraft coming under attack from missiles from the ground, but anyone who flies into Sarajevo in a Hercules sees regularly when ground-based radar is locked on to the aircraft, which shows that there is a possibility of a SAM2 being aimed at the plane. Of course, there are ways of dispelling that threat, should it occur. The fact that that happens regularly, although it might be discouraging to anyone in the House, means that RAF crews regard it as a matter of course. Nevertheless, it demonstrates the danger involved in carrying out the humanitarian task.
This would be a good opportunity for the whole House to join me in praising the efforts of all the RAF personnel who have done their very best in difficult and risky circumstances to bring what relief they can to the area. I am
438
aware that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), too, has had the opportunity of seeing that work in action.
Mr. Winston Churchill: I join my hon. Friend's tribute to the men and women of the Royal Air Force, but is he aware that the slashing of the front-line strength of the Tornado strike squadrons since the Gulf war from 11 to a mere six represents a devastating reduction in the capability of the RAF? Given the extreme instability in the former Soviet Union today, and the fact that more than a dozen non-NATO countries actively have programmes in place for acquiring weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivery of such weapons, is there not an urgent need for the RAF to acquire a stand-off missile with a dual capability, both nuclear and conventional?
Mr. Hanley: I agree with my hon. Friend that under both "Options for Change" and Prospect there has indeed been a restructuring and reduction of our front-line forces. I accept that as a result of "Options for Change" 15 front-line squadrons will have been withdrawn from service by 1995, when the programme comes to an end. That has been calculated by reference to our need for front-line offensive forces, to the reduced threat from the former Soviet Union, and to the fact that the cold war is over. It has been carefully calculated according to our defence needs—
Mr. Churchill: Treasury threats.
Mr. Hanley: I hear my hon. Friend murmuring that the reductions were demanded by the Treasury. I can assure him that that is not so. I am proud to be able to say that we have calculated our needs according to our defence requirements.
Mr. Peter Hardy: As well as the Tornado squadrons being reduced, is it not clear that the phasing out of the Buccaneer will mean that Tornado squadrons, in smaller numbers, will have to accept an additional role? Does the Minister not feel that if Tornado squadrons are to take on the role of the Buccaneer the reductions should be reconsidered?
Mr. Hanley: The withdrawal of the Buccaneer has been decided upon for perfectly sensible strategic reasons. There is no reason on earth to believe that at this moment we, in conjunction with our allies—any operation within the area of our NATO responsibilities is of course likely to be undertaken in conjunction with our allies—cannot make a sizeable contribution to an international force. There is no reason to believe that we cannot carry out our wider defence roles, including the most important role—the defence of our shores—with the aircraft that we have, and the men and women who serve in the RAF.
Therefore, I have no hesitation in making that claim for what we have now. There may be many in the House who wish that we had more, but there are also some who wish that we had less—that was the posture of Labour and Liberal Democrat policy in their overall party conference statements. Perhaps we shall hear more about those as the debate goes on.
Mr. Keith Mans: Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend the Minister has just said, is he saying that what we have at the moment is the minimum that we require, in terms of front-line forces, to meet our commitments?
Mr. Hanley: At this moment, we have a carefully calculated number of aircraft. The White Paper, "Defending our Future", produced last year by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence explains our commitments and how we meet them with our existing forces.
Mr. Bob Cryer: As it sounds as though the 40 Tornados already in store are to be joined by a rather larger number, does it not behove the Minister to look, in relation to the defence procurement industry, at future needs bearing in mind the reduced demand for fighter aircraft from our armed forces and the need for our highly technically capable industry to develop alternative products and means of employment? Should not the Government be doing something about that because market forces clearly will not make any provision?
Mr. Hanley: If Labour party policy, approved by almost an 80 per cent. majority at last year's Labour party conference as it was approved in the five years before that, were to be introduced, it would slash our defence industry. The amount of money which would have to be taken out of the defence budget would be equal to the whole budget for the Army, the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy or the whole of the defence industry. Some 500,000 people could lose their jobs if Labour's plans were introduced.
Mr. Cryer: Answer the question.
Mr. Hanley: As a direct answer to the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him that our policy would not do that to the defence industry.
Certainly some defence companies are reducing in size as the need for our defence forces reduces. However, very substantial contracts are keeping the defence industry going and ensuring that our research and development is of the highest quality. I remind the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that defence industry exports last year amounted to £5 billion. That was 20 per cent. of world sales and was a record amount for the United Kingdom. Instead of the doom and gloom referred to by the hon. Member for Bradford, South, I believe that the story is one of success and expansion.
As well as a continuing presence in the Adriatic theatre, the United Kingdom remains committed to providing aircraft to enforce both the northern and southern no-fly zones over Iraq. Tornado GR1 s drawn from bases in the United Kingdom and Germany have now flown nearly 1,500 operational sorties in the surveillance role over southern Iraq. In the north, Harrier GR7s, which replaced the Jaguars originally assigned to the task, have flown more than 1,000 reconnaissance missions in support of the United Nations operation over northern Iraq.
Of course we should not forget that crucial to the success of all those operations are the perhaps less glamorous tasks performed by the air transport and air-to-air refuelling forces. I need hardly remind the House of the extent to which the RAF's ability to react effectively to the full range of potential tasks depends on the skill and professionalism of those personnel. In all those operations—
Mr. Nick Ainger: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hanley: I have answered a number of interventions. I will take a few more interventions, but I would like to make progress.
Mr. Ainger: On the Minister's point about trying to match resources with perceived need and demand, will he explain why, in respect of search and rescue where the perceived need is increasing, the Government plan to reduce resources from 16 RAF aircraft devoted to search and rescue in 1992 to 12 aircraft in 1996?
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that our capability is increasing. If we have better helicopters carrying out the task, perhaps we do not need as many bases. Operationally, we believe that we will be covering the existing area as efficiently and even better. The hon. Gentleman may be referring particularly to RAF Brawdy. The proposal to move the search and rescue facility from RAF Brawdy to RAF Chivenor has been taken for operational and other reasons.
In all those operations, it continues to be the speed of response, flexibility and relative ease with which aircraft can be deployed that so often enables the RAF to be in the forefront in its ability to respond to international crises or to requests for help. Indeed, in the past few months, it has helped in Somalia, Guatemala and the Lebanon.
So that we are able to meet the challenges of the future, we remain committed to a Royal Air Force which is well equipped. I have said that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will wish to say more about the future equipment programme. He will show how that reflects the changes in the strategic environment which have taken place in the past few years. Although the direct threat to the United Kingdom has decreased, uncertainties still remain, and, as events in the former Yugoslavia have demonstrated, we must stay sufficiently flexible to react to any new threats to our security and to more general threats.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is a Minister of State. I understand that the hon. Gentleman to his left is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Forgive me, I got that wrong. However, from what the Minister was saying, I understand that, as Minister of State, he has some responsibility for defence sales. [HON. MEMBERS: "No. Wrong again."] He does not have that responsibility then. We now know that he has no responsibility for procurement or defence sales.
Having clearly been made aware of what is going on at the Scott inquiry, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could tell us whether, in view of the ethos of secrecy which pervaded his Department in the late 1980s, outside the two aspects to which I referred, and in the light of what has come out of the inquiry, changes are being made in the way in which Ministers go about revealing to the wider public what is happening.
Mr. Hanley: Clearly the hon. Gentleman is not aware—the information is not secret—that I am the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) is the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. We both serve loyally our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who is seated further to my left. My hon. Friend is responsible for defence procurement, which includes defence sales. My area of operation is responsibility for the worldwide operations of the armed forces. They are the

441
best possible advertisement—both them and their equipment—for defence sales worldwide. Therefore, their capability is vital.
As for the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question, that matter is secret—but I will tell him later on, if he wants.
At this stage—I do not want to pre-empt anything that my hon. Friend may say later—the scale and nature of the forward equipment programme clearly demonstrates the Government's intention to retain all the capabilities that the RAF needs if it is to continue to play the full role that will be necessary to meet the challenges that this uncertain world presents. At a time of public expenditure stringency, it is essential that we achieve the greatest possible defence output from available resources.
As you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has established a major study entitled "Front Line First", under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. That study is a radical and searching scrutiny of defence support functions. The prime aim of the study is to find savings so that we can best preserve our front-line capabilities. That must be the most important aim. The study is progressing well, and we have received more than 3,000 efficiency suggestions from all aspects and levels of the Ministry and the services. We have received a substantial number from the Royal Air Force as well as from the other services.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) seems surprised by that figure—surprised that people are being so constructive in the initiative. Some suggestions are, of course, being very seriously considered, some might not be relevant to the current studies, but the vast majority show not only the quality of the staff, both military and civilian, but that they are thinking hard about their responsibility for providing the United Kingdom's defence for the future. That certainly demonstrates their commitment to ensuring that the organisation in which they work and to which they dedicate their lives needs to adapt to meet the needs of the 21st century.
Dr. David Clark: I admit that I was somewhat bemused. Can the Minister tell the House when it was not the Government's policy to put the front line first?
Mr. Hanley: As the hon. Gentleman said, "front line first" has always been our policy: successive Governments have concentrated on the front line. The new initiative will involve our examining every single area of our defence estate to ensure that the funds available for the years ahead are fully committed in the most important area, which is our front line capability, and that we do not waste a single penny on anything else. That surely must be sensible.
Mr. Eric Martlew: The Minister talked about the co-operation of the staff, many of whom are civilians. Would he not see more co-operation from the staff if he made the reports public so that they could debate the conclusions?
Mr. Hanley: The reports are management reports. From the suggestions in them will come policies and from those policies will come changes in the way in which we provide support. I should emphasise that we already take
442
our staff with us and keep them informed—as a matter of good management ethics and because we believe that the Ministry of Defence is an excellent employer.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) will not be aware of the situation at RAF Carlisle. Within two days of making an announcement, I invited representatives of the trade union side to come to see me, which they did, accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean), the Minister of State, Home Office. Following our discussions, I extended the consultation period by more than a month. I have offered two meetings, at which the trade unions will receive full information about the decisions that have led to our proposal.
So we are, indeed, keeping our staff fully informed. Some information is bound to be commercially confidential and it is important that only the information relevant to a particular matter is dealt with, but I believe that we are doing exactly what the hon. Gentleman requires of us.
We should not let the new initiative overshadow much of the hard work that has already been done to make the services and the Ministry of Defence leaner and more efficient—all of which is fully consistent with the aims of "Front Line First". The RAF has played a leading role in that work. Let me take the opportunity to outline some of the respects in which the RAF has made and continues to make considerable progress, showing an imagination and initiative that I do not find at all surprising.
As explained in last year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates", from 1 April a new RAF logistics command will take over the functions of the current organisation of the Air Member for Supply and Organisation, and part of RAF Support Command, and will be located at Brampton/Wyton. A new RAF Personnel and Training Command, to be located at RAF Innsworth, will absorb the functions of the organisation of the Air Member for Personnel and parts of RAF Support Command, bringing together recruitment, training and personnel management functions. We are confident that the creation of those two separate commands will make for a more effective RAF support organisation and make the best use of the defence budget.
The existing policy of rationalising the RAF estate in order to concentrate assets was given added impetus by "Options for Change" and has continued to be a major consideration in the years since the initial post-cold war appraisal. The original "Options for Change" announcements, made in July 1990, identified five RAF stations in the United Kingdom and two in Germany that were to be closed. Studies since then have identified further locations that can be made available for disposal or reduced to minor enclaves. Since 1991, 15 stations have been closed. Estate rationalisation initiatives have made and will continue to make a significant contribution to the drive to provide a slimmer service to meet the changed international situation.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): When the Minister examines the future of Royal Air Force bases, will he pay due regard to the importance of maintaining a sufficient number of usable airfields, which could be required in time of expansion, emergency or war? It is essential for the successful conduct of air operations that our air assets should be satisfactorily dispersed. If the Minister proposes to close stations, will he please close

443
those where there is no runway or airfield and transfer facilities that need to be transferred as a consequence of closures to stations with airfields, in order to keep them open?
Mr. Hanley: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. Of course, we are aware of the need to keep spare runways in good condition for use in an emergency. A care and maintenance regime is in force on several bases. It is clearly important to meet not only our own requirements but those of NATO. I shall certainly examine what my hon. Friend has suggested.
Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister note that quite a few of the RAF bases that have been closed seem almost immediately to have been taken over by one of the other services? That may help to reduce expenditure on the Air Force budget, but it may not make much difference to the total defence budget.
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman's experience in these matters is well known. Obviously, our first requirement when we remove a particular RAF unit from, say, an RAF base is to find an alternative defence use for it. If a use could not be found, we would negotiate with local councils and planning authorities as to the best use for the site. I assure the hon. Gentleman that where we use an RAF base for which there is no longer a Royal Air Force need, say, to accommodate an Army battalion, we do so merely because otherwise we should have to put that battalion in a place that might be more expensive or build new accommodation. The problem arises particularly with the draw-down of forces from Germany, Belize and Hong Kong.
There has been a great need, particularly with the draw-down from Germany, to find alternative accommodation. Therefore, RAF bases, with their excellent accommodation and housing, have been used fairly regularly. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we seek to use the estate efficiently and effectively. Our policy is that, if there is no defence need, we sell the site to the broader community.
In accordance with the change in the front line outlined in the White Paper, the RAF has continued to examine the possibilities for rationalisation, particularly in the support area. That has resulted in recent proposals on the rationalisation of equipment supply depots, avionics and communications and flying training. Those proposals are all currently the subject of consultation with the trade unions and other interested parties.
A study of equipment supply depots recommended that the focus of the technical storage function should be at RAF Stafford. That decision relates to the proposal to close RAF Carlisle by 31 March 1997, to which the hon. Member for Carlisle referred. It also relates to the progressive run-down of RAF Quedgeley and its ultimate closure by 31 March 1998. RAF Stafford is the most cost-effective option for the task because of its greater warehouse capacity and lower upgrade costs. The proposals will save some £85 million over 10 years—a considerable figure. We shall, of course, make every effort to minimise or, if at all possible, avoid redundancies among the civilian staff who have served us so well over the years.
Mr. Martlew: I did not mean to interrupt the Minister again, but he implied that the decision on RAF Carlisle and
444
RAF Quedgeley had been taken. Is it not the case that we are in the middle of a consultation period? I wish that the Minister would make it clear that no final decision has yet been taken.
Mr. Hanley: We have made a proposal based on carefully calculated information and data. We have put that proposal out for consultation. That does not mean that the decision is absolutely final. It means that we are showing that we have confidence in our proposals. We are allowing those who wish to comment to do so and to see not only me but officials personally to discuss the matter. As I said, I have extended the consultation period by four weeks so that we can ensure that the meetings occur. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to the meeting that I shall have at Carlisle in March.
Mr. Douglas French: If my hon. Friend has confidence in his Department's proposals, he presumably also wishes that those affected by the decision should have confidence in the basis on which he has made them. Will he, therefore, give the House an undertaking that all the information that he uses to reach his decisions will be made available to those who are affected by them?
Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend has been assiduous in representing the interests of his constituents who are affected by the decision on RAF Quedgeley. I am grateful to him for bringing a delegation to me only this week. However, I must say to him that "management in confidence" and "commercial in confidence" mean just that. We cannot supply every piece of information that my hon. Friend might require, but we can provide sufficient information to allow people to decide whether we have made the right decision. The decisions will be tested by the accounting officer at the Ministry of Defence and I am sure that we shall not be found wanting.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister has just raised an issue that takes my mind back to a report that the Public Accounts Committee made on the Castle Donington fire. A large amount of unduplicated defence equipment was stored at a single location. Are Ministers saying that there will be one depot for all this RAF equipment, which will be unduplicated? That would mean that if there was a repeat of the incident at Castle Donington, we could wipe out the spare parts which might be needed in an emergency. Is that what is likely to happen?
Mr. Hanley: If the hon. Gentleman was more aware of the pattern of stores holding that prevails in the modern world—everything is not held centrally—perhaps he would have more confidence. It is clearly right that we should collocate on one site and gain economies of scale, for a reduced size of stores holding.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I accept that.
Mr. Hanley: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman admits that that is a sensible move. He may not be aware that, when the Donington conflagration occurred, I was one of the Members of Parliament who complained vociferously about it. I believed that the security was totally inadequate. The amount of spares carried now is much smaller. As a result of other management initiatives and quicker turn-round of the requirement for spares, the amount of spares carried as a whole is smaller.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The amount of spares as a whole may be smaller, but the point is that if one needs a vital component in an emergency and it is not available on another site because it is not duplicated, the equipment will be non-operational whatever the management changes that have been made to provide greater efficiency. Surely that is dangerous in terms of national defence policy.
Mr. Hanley: Under the hon. Gentleman's policy, we would have two sets of Crown jewels in case one was damaged. We need to keep the best security if we keep expensive equipment at one site. We believe that we are carrying out the changes. The "Front Line First" studies will continue to examine that matter.
The review of avionics and communication electronics has recommended that the ground radio servicing centre should relocate from RAF North Luffenham No. 30 maintenance unit at RAF Sealand.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Does my hon. Friend accept that, if RAF North Luffenham closes, thought must be given to how the large area on which it is based will be used afterwards? North Luffenham is in an idyllic part of rural Rutland and it must be allowed to preserve its identity. Will he give an assurance that thought will be given even now to how the land might be disposed of, how business might be brought in and, for example, how trees and shrubs might be planted? Will he undertake to work with Rutland district council to ensure that we have an imaginative transition to civilian use?
Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right that there would be uncertainty in the proposals if we had not said that the RAF North Luffenham site would be closed by 1 October 1996. Other units currently located there will be relocated elsewhere. Indeed, the Ministry will save about £15 million over 10 years. However, we shall co-operate fully with the local council and the planning authorities—that is always our intention—and, with the guidance of my hon. Friend and of the planning authorities, shall ensure that people's time with the RAF is remembered with happiness rather than with the misery that many Opposition Members have expressed today.
A wide-ranging review of RAF maintenance group as a whole is currently being undertaken. This should identify a more cost-effective location for the ground radio servicing centre. So far as Sealand is concerned, there are still decisions to be made, but we are proceeding on the basis of the assumption that North Luffenham will close. A new RAF Personnel and Training Command will be created at the same time.
The third major study—the one on the future of RAF flying training—has recently reported a first stage of rationalisation. It has recommended that fast jet advanced flying training should be rationalised from the current two stations—RAF Chivenor and RAF Valley—into just RAF Valley. Chivenor would cease flying from 1 October 1994 and would be put on a care-and-maintenance basis from 1 October 1995. This proposal, which is out to consultation, would save £130 million, at net present value, over a period of 10 years.
Mr. Ainger: Is the Minister aware that today is the 51st anniversary of the Royal Air Force mountain rescue service? I should like to refer to the reorganisation of flight training along the west coast. The mountain rescue team that is currently covering the Snowdonia range is
446
extremely concerned that, as a result of the proposed transfer of Flight 202 from Brawdy to Chivenor, which, as the Minister has announced, is due to close, it will not be able to respond quickly enough when climbers and walkers fall and, because of severe injury, face hypothermia.
Mr. Hanley: I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the search and rescue teams, which do a tremendous job around the country. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the decision to move this service from Brawdy to Chivenor was made on logistical grounds. It is an entirely sensible move. The hon. Gentleman may, for constituency reasons, regret it very much—though he has not today welcomed the move of the Royal Welch Fusiliers to Brawdy, which is an example of the best use of facilities—but every silver lining has a cloud.
I was dealing a moment ago with the question of flying training and the move from Chivenor to Valley. Further work on the pattern of flying training is being done to determine whether there is scope for more rationalisation of flying training.
All the matters that I have mentioned involve difficult and painful decisions. We have carried out our appraisals to secure cost-effective solutions for the taxpayer while meeting the changed requirements in the new defence environment. As I have stressed to Opposition Front Bench Members, we are in full consultation with the trade unions. I have met hon. Members from both sides of the House whose constituencies are affected, as well as representatives of local authorities. It is important that the need for these changes be understood.
Market testing is another recent initiative which the RAF has pursued with great vigour and success. Current savings from the RAF's market testing programme are positive and encouraging. The achievement of the Royal Air Force in meeting the challenge of its market testing targets and time scales is perhaps best illustrated in a snapshot of recently completed market tests. Savings of more than £8 million in annual support costs were realised through market testing between 1992 and 1993. The activities in respect of which savings were made formerly cost the public more than £22·5 million. They range from the elementary flying training school at RAF Topcliffe, where training for ab initio pilots entering the RAF and the Royal Navy is undertaken, to the engineering maintenance and supply support of training aircraft at RAF Scampton.
The RAF is also adopting new working practices, one of which is known as support chain management—SCM. Under SCM it is possible to detect previously hidden inefficiencies caused by bottlenecks in the flow of information or material. Within the RAF, SCM will move the service away from its traditional dependence on depot stocks, which are costly to maintain, and will introduce more responsive and flexible supply management. SCM will also complement the RAF logistics information technology strategy, which aims to introduce an integrated system serving the whole logistics community. Together, they should generate net savings, in spares and repair costs, of at least £500 million.
The "Front Line First" study is, of course, looking again at all these rationalisations and initiatives in the support area with a view to seeing whether even greater reductions in costs can be achieved. But, as I hope I have demonstrated, the RAF is now engaged in making many of the fundamental changes that are necessary if it is to be in the best possible shape to meet the varied challenges that

447
will face us all in the coming years. The changes in its organisation could not, of course, be sustained if it were not for the professionalism displayed by its men and women, together with—and this is so often forgotten—the support of the families who remain at home.
Mr. Wilkinson: Can my hon. Friend say whether it is still Her Majesty's Government's policy that members of the armed forces—men and women—must be ready to undertake any duty on behalf of the Crown, in peace or in war? If a member of the Women's Royal Air Force becomes pregnant, she is paid off to the tune of several tens of thousands of pounds. Is this an appropriate use of taxpayers' money?
Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend raises an issue that has caused some concern recently. A situation that existed for a time has now been overtaken by events and by changed contracts of employment. I believe that the changes took place in 1990. The situation is of a finite nature. The vast majority of the women involved settled their claims quickly and efficiently, although some are taking a long time in their efforts to secure very large sums. I have to admit that, whatever their rights may be, and whatever compensation is decided legally, this has given offence to certain people. However, as I have indicated, I hope that it has been changed by events.
There is a great deal of uncertainty in the hearts and minds of the families, but I am tremendously impressed by the commitment and enthusiasm that both civilian and service personnel—at headquarters, at other establishments and in the field—have demonstrated.
Sir Harold Walker: The Minister has quite properly paid tribute to the professionalism of the men and women of the Royal Air Force. I hope that he has in mind the professionalism of and the service given by those who preceded the present generation. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that 1994 is the 50th anniversary of the introduction of the jet fighter aircraft—the Meteor having gone into service with the South Yorkshire Squadron 616, flying out of Doncaster in 1944. What does the Minister intend to do to commemorate that significant event?
Mr. Hanley: I am one of those who wrote to the Royal Mail asking that a stamp be issued to commemorate the event. In addition, I was in south Yorkshire this morning, and I pay tribute to the RAF—in particular, 33 Squadron—for getting me back in time for this debate.
The entire Ministry of Defence team, under the Secretary of State, is impressed by the professionalism and the stoic good humour of the people we meet as we travel around. It is a great credit to the RAF that it is approaching the hurdles—many of them financial—with the skill and determination that it has displayed so often. This attitude continues in many places around the world. I appreciate that current operations in some areas are placing heavy demands on personnel, but their enthusiasm and attention to duty is inspirational.
With the 75th anniversary of the RAF and the 50th anniversary of the jet aircraft, it Is appropriate and it gives me great pleasure to be able to announce to the House that Her Majesty the Queen has graciously approved the introduction of a medal to recognise aggregated campaign service since 14 August 1969 in those theatres where the General Service medal (1962), with clasp, has been
448
awarded. The medal will be known as the Accumulated Campaign Service medal and it recognises 36 months or more of service, which qualify for a clasp or clasps to the General Service medal (1962).
The medal is for services in awkward and difficult theatres of operation in which our service men and women work around the world. I am delighted that that service will now be formally recognised. The details of the award are set out in a Command Paper, which was presented to the House earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. The regulations for the award of the medal are different for each force, because the qualifying periods are different for each of the forces. They are slightly complicated, but they are available to hon. Members in the Library.
I am sincerely grateful to the men and women of the RAF who continue to serve their country with such distinction and courage. I am also grateful to the civilians who help them out in the field and to the civil servants at the Ministry of Defence, whose efforts often go unsung. I assure them that they are all worthy upholders of the traditions of their proud service, which has lasted for the past 75 years.
5.1 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the announcement about the new medal, which is perhaps overdue. I should also like to associate myself with the final words of the Minister, but I am not sure about the parts in between.
I pay tribute to the men and women of the RAF who have continued to serve the country loyally in the year since the previous debate on the RAF. In 1993, in addition to their continuing role of defending the United Kingdom, RAF personnel have assisted efforts in Sarajevo aimed at lifting the siege so as to ensure that the local people are not starved into submission. They have assisted the United Nations by policing the no-fly zone in Bosnia and undertaking the early-warning monitoring role over Hungary and the Adriatic. Aircrews have also done a magnificent job in assisting the rescue efforts in Bosnia and the Adriatic.
The RAF is also policing the no-fly zone in southern Iraq to deter the Iraqi air force from attempting the genocide of the marsh Arabs. It continues to protect the Kurdish people of northern Iraq. It also continues to provide security cover in the Falklands, Hong Kong and other outposts around the world, while playing a major part in assisting the security forces in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that millions of people throughout the world have reason to be thankful for the skills and dedication of the RAF.
We must also remember the thousands of MOD civilian workers and the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the defence industry, who play a vital role in our defences.
In many ways this has been a good year for the RAF, but as Charles Dickens wrote:
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times".
The reason for that is the shabby way in which the forces, and in particular the RAF, have been treated by the Government. I can recall no other occasion in recent history when there has been such a lack of confidence in the commitment of a British Government to maintain credible armed forces.

449
As a result of "Options for Change", the RAF has suffered the loss of 15 squadrons, a 33 per cent. reduction in the number of combat aircraft and a reduction in the number of service personnel from 91,000 in 1989 to 77,000 in 1993. "Options for Change" anticipates that, by 1995, that number will be down to 70,000. Rumours are already circulating around the RAF, however, that even greater cuts will be made. I know that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who will reply to the debate, is not responsible for manpower, but perhaps he can comment on it.
Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman has accurately recorded the changes that have taken place in the past few years. I hope that he will spell out exactly Labour party policy towards manpower, equipment and RAF commitments across the world. We will then be able to measure more accurately whether Opposition rhetoric is matched by facts.
Mr. Martlew: That is fine by me. I will return to that issue later. The short answer is that—[Laughter.] Hon. Members should not start laughing. The Labour party will consider our overseas commitments and the necessary role for the forces, including the RAF. We will then decide, subject to a full defence review, what we need to meet those commitments. We shall provide the money to ensure that they are met.
The Government have failed to carry out a defence review, but they have continued to make cuts in the forces, like a blind man. They have not reduced our defence commitments, but they have cut the personnel, which has put an extra strain on service men and women. Conservative Members are aware of that. I am sure that, before the debate is over, we will hear a call for a defence review from many Conservative Members.
Mr. Julian Brazier: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am one of those who has called for a defence review, and I have been doing so for some time. I want to be absolutely clear about what the hon. Gentleman said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). Am I correct to assume that, at the end of that review, the Labour party will match commitments with resources? Can we therefore assume that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will not be bound by several recent Labour party conference motions?
Mr. Martlew: We shall be bound by our manifesto commitment that we will fund whatever defence requirements were needed.
The Government have broken their promises to the RAF on many occasions, not least with regard to the RAF's continuing nuclear role. During the debate on the defence estimates, the Secretary of State announced that the tactical air-to-surface missile, TASM, would be cancelled. We welcomed that decision, but the RAF did not. I spoke to several senior officers before that debate and they did not believe that the Government would leave the RAF without a nuclear role in the next century. That is exactly what they have done.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): The hon. Gentleman has made a most important policy statement about the Labour party's defence policy. May I ask him to clarify it? Is he now
450
saying he would make funds available for any future defence commitments entered into by the Labour party, in defiance of the binding resolution—passed by 79 per cent. of the voters at the Labour party conference—in composite motion No. 49, the effect of which would be to reduce Britain's defence spending by £7·5 billion? That is equivalent to wiping out the entire spending on one of our three services. Is he overruling the motion that his own conference passed by a binding majority of more than two thirds, 79 per cent., of the voters at that conference?
Mr. Martlew: The Government should remember that they have already made massive cuts in defence spending. It does not sit well on the Minister's shoulders to talk about other parties cutting defence expenditure. We made a commitment at the election to the electorate that we would provide the necessary resources to protect the United Kingdom. It is obviously dawning on the British electorate that that cannot be said of the Government, because the most recent opinion poll on the subject, which asked people in whose hands the defence of Britain would be safest, revealed that the majority believed that it would be safest in the hands of the Labour party. That is some reference not only to the good work of my hon. Friends but to the dismal performance of Ministers.
Mr. Edward Garnier: The hon. Gentleman talked about the defence of the realm being safe in somebody's hands. Is the base at RAF Carlisle safe in the Labour party's hands? Would it be kept open if the Labour party were to form the Government?
Mr. Martlew: The point is that it is not safe in the Government's hands. The Minister said today from the Dispatch Box that he intends to ignore consultations. It is a disgrace for Conservative Members to make political capital out of 850 people's jobs.[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) will remain seated.
Conservative Members do not want to hear about the other broken promises, including those on air bases. However, the Government said that they have closed 14 air bases. That has been done with scant regard to consultation with the people who work there and even less regard to the effect of the closure on the local economy. It seems strange that the majority of the bases that have been closed are in the north, in what could be called the Celtic region of the country, and that those that are kept open are around the south of England.
Mr. Nicholls: A very good thing.
Mr. Martlew: The Government have broken their promises on pay and conditions for service people. They said that they would allow a wage increase last year of only 1·5 per cent. If we believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they will not receive any pay increase this year.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I think that I should draw his attention to a comment made from a sedentary position by a former Minister on the Government Back Benches. When my hon. Friend referred to the fact that the Government kept closing bases in the north but not those in the south, that former Minister said, "A very good thing." Does not that show that there is a problem in defence policy of bias against the north of England?
Mr. Martlew: There is a feeling that the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) was only reiterating what Government Front-Bench Members believe.
Mr. Nicholls: It may not have escaped the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has absolutely no sense of humour. If he had ever doubted that, he will appreciate it now.
Mr. Martlew: I do not find the loss of 850 jobs, wherever they occur, a laughing matter. I disagree with the hon. Member for Teignbridge on that point.
The Government's total mismanagement has meant that they have had to pay £7 million in compensation to women who were unfairly dismissed because they were pregnant. I shall return to that matter. As the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is to wind up the debate, shall mention one or two items on that subject as well.
Eurofighter 2000 is a very important project both in military and industrial terms. It is a scandal that the Government have allowed the timetable for that programme to slip by two years. I have been pressing for it to get back on stream as it is essential, especially to people working in the north-west. No one hopes more than me that Eurofighter 2000 will fly in April this year. Events surrounding the Eurohelicopter 101 are an absolute scandal. We have waited eight years for that project and the Minister, in reply to me during previous Defence questions, could not give a date for when the project was likely to come about.
The Government have treated the RAF badly over the past year. Morale in the RAF is low. It is so bad that last November Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon, Chief of the Air Staff, launched an unprecedented public attack on the Government, saying that Treasury Ministers had campaigned deliberately to discredit the RAF.
Mr. Mans: I was in the audience when the Air Chief Marshal made that speech and I assure the hon. Gentleman that his remarks were directed not at any Treasury Minister, but elsewhere. If he were to read the text of the speech, he wound understand that. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw his last remark.
Mr. Martlew: The problem is that the speech is classified: We rang the Air Chief Marshal's office and he referred us to the Secretary of State. We rang the Secretary of State's office and he refused to give us the report of the speech, which has never been published. If the Secretary of State were to intervene now and say that he will put a copy of it in the Library, I should be delighted.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Martlew: I am waiting for the Secretary of State to intervene.
We have not seen a copy of the Air Chief Marshal's speech. We go by the press reports. We have been told by the Secretary of State that we cannot have a copy of that speech and we msut presume, therefore, that it is classified.
Mr. Walker: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), I attended that open meeting, which took place at the Royal Aeronautical Society. At no point in his speech did the Chief of the Air Staff say specifically that anyone in the Government was spreading damaging information about the RAF. He did say that he and the RAF
452
knew who had been putting out that information. That is not the same as what the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said.
Mr. Martlew: I would be more convinced by the hon. Gentleman's argument if the Secretary of State had not made the Chief of the Air Staff write a letter of apology to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.The Guardian carried the headline:
"Air Chief says sorry to Portillo".
If the Chief of the Air Staff did not say anything, why did he have to apologise?
Mr. Hanley: I should like to help the hon. Gentleman with a little matter that he mentioned earlier. He is clearly speaking with prejudice or in ignorance—or both. In either case, it is breathtaking. Of the last 15 base closures, two were in Germany, 10 were located under a line south of Birmingham and only three were in the north. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is wrong and I hope that that helps to clarify the position.
Mr. Martlew: I am sure that, if one considers the proportion of job losses and the proportion of bases to the area, one will find that what I said was correct.
May I now get to the meat of my speech? Obviously, hon. Members have enjoyed the starter, but perhaps we can get on to the main course. There has not been a great deal of disagreement between the Opposition and Government Front-Bench Members on Bosnia. I am aware that Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House have differing views. From my last visit to Bosnia in the autumn, I came away convinced that it was suffering a human tragedy and a civil war, and that the United Nations, or any other outside organisation, should not get involved on one side or another. It would be disastrous if we were seen to be taking sides.
The present role of developing humanitarian aid and policing the no-fly zone has made a considerable contribution in reducing the number of innocent casualties. I am critical, however—this is where there is some discord—of recent statements made by the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence, who appear to be threatening to pull out British forces unilaterally. I have no doubt that that would lead to a considerable loss of innocent lives. I wish that we could give the commitment to the United Nations that we would remain in Bosnia as long as necessary and that, if and when a firm peace agreement is signed, we would stay to police it and, if necessary, make extra forces available.
At this time, we should be telling the United Nations what forces we shall have available. I hope that we can get away from the idea that we should keep on pretending that we may pull our people out. It does no good to the morale of our people on the ground and I am sure that the innocent people in Bosnia are not happy about that scenario.
I spoke earlier about service pay, but no Conservative Member sought to intervene. They did not seem to be bothered too much that service pay is being cut in real terms. Last year, the Government enforced a pay increase of 1·5 per cent. on all service personnel. That was equal to a cut in take-home pay of up to 2 per cent. because members of the armed forces are not normally mortgage holders and did not benefit from the dramatic drop in interest rates. As a result, they lost more than anybody else.
In November, the Chancellor told them that they would get no increase whatever unless it was earned by

453
productivity. The mind boggles. How does one measure the productivity of an RAF fighter pilot or an infantry man? One measure that could be applied is the reduction of 15 squadrons and a cut of 22 per cent. in RAF service personnel. In view of that and of the fact that few roles are being reduced, it could be argued that they are entitled to a 22 or 33 per cent. increase.
I had hoped that the Minister would say that the armed forces were to receive a pay increase this year. It has been rumoured in the press that senior officers will get a pay award of 2·8 per cent. That does not seem out of line, especially as Members of Parliament got 2·9 per cent. However, it would be regrettable, and it would be opposed by the Labour party, if senior officers received 2·8 per cent. and other ranks did not. There is no doubt that the pay difference between officers and other ranks has been growing steadily.
A page of the Tory party manifesto had the quaint heading "Taking responsibility for Britain". As the Prime Minister has been to the Scott inquiry, he is probably asking for that heading to be withdrawn so that he can take responsibility for nothing. The Government have broken their pledge because under that heading the manifesto states:
"Our Services deserve the excellent pay and conditions which we have secured for them and will maintain."
The Government failed to carry out that promise last year and I suspect that they will fail again this year.
A Select Committee report in 1991 concluded that the forces were having great difficulty in recruiting skilled technical staff, and in 1991 we were in the teeth of a recession. If there is the recovery for which we all hope, and service pay has not kept pace with the private sector, the forces will not be able to recruit and there will be an exodus and a severe skills shortage. I hope that the Minister will address that issue.
The Minister spoke about the closure of bases—I am sorry that he is not in his place. He said that it had been decided to close RAF Carlisle and RAF Quedgeley. He could have given many other examples of closures. There are great doubts as to whether the transfer of MOD establishments is in the best interests of the country in defence and in money terms. An example of that is the transfer of the MOD establishment in Harrogate, Yorkshire. Great resentment was felt, especially by the work force in that area, because the work went to RAF Wyton and RAF Brampton, which are in the Prime Minister's constituency. I am told that that could not be justified on grounds of cost saving or improvement in the national defences.
There is no doubt that there were major flaws in the way that consultation with the Harrogate work force was carried out. There is a belief in the country, which I do not say that I accept, that the RAF and other services do not like to be based in the north. Therefore, they slant their reports towards recommending the closure of such bases.
If we are not careful, my part of the country will be left with nothing but jets flying low over the Lake District. There will be no jobs. The Government should look at the economic impact of relocating bases.
Harrogate is a good example, and the Minister mentioned RAF Carlisle. I am sure the House would expect me to speak about that and, in doing so, I shall examine how the MOD works. It was rumoured that the
454
decision to close RAF Carlisle would be taken during the equipment supply study in December, and that was confirmed when I phoned the Minister's office. I was told that a decision had been made but that it had not been decided when to announce it.
On 13 December the Government leaked the fact that they would announce a decision the following day on the thermal oxide reprocessing plant in Cumbria. Lo and behold, there was a planted question that day by the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) about the equipment supply study, and he was kind enough to give me a copy of the reply. On the day that the Government announced that the THORP plant was to be opened in Cumbria, they decided to close RAF Carlisle.
Some of us thought that that was a piece of media manipulation. The Government knew that the local and national media would pay attention to the THORP announcement and, of course, they did because that decision had been leaked whereas the one on RAF Carlisle had not. I phoned the Minister's office to find out when I would be informed and I was told that a letter would be placed on the Board at 3 pm. I was at the Board at that time but no letter arrived. By 3.30 there was still no letter and at 3.45 pm I was told by a Lobby correspondent that RAF Carlisle was to close.
At 4.15 pm I met the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary who told me that there had been a mix-up and the letters had not been placed on the Board. I am sorry that the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary is not in his place. I have had a letter explaining the situation and I accept that there was a genuine mistake. However, it is strange that the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who was also to get a letter, sent a fax to RAF Carlisle at 3.30 pm, 45 minutes before the letters arrived. It was obvious that the Government had leaked the information to hon. Members on the basis of their political persuasion. Such happenings occur when a party has been in government too long and no longer has respect for the House.
As the Minister said, it was arranged that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, would meet union representatives on the Friday. That was announced on the Wednesday, and it was made known to me that I would not be welcome at the meeting. I suppose that is politics. Perhaps it was a little early for them to get the full facts, but the union representatives went to the meeting and were told by the Minister that it seemed a good idea to publish the study and that he would look into it. He also agreed that it would be a good idea for the National Audit Office to study the recommendations, and he said that he would see what could be done.
On 21 December, the unions wrote to the Minister to confirm that, and on 18 January, well through the consultation period, they received a letter from the Minister saying that he would not release the report and would not call in the National Audit Office. That dashed union hopes because they believed that a full study would reveal a good argument for saving RAF Carlisle because over six years £50 million had been spent on it. There was no argument against some job losses, but they believe that they can be cost effective and put a good case to the Government. They may have been naive, but they believed that the Government simply wanted to save money. That belief was shattered by the Minister's letter in January.
The Minister must consider reversing his decision not to make the study available to trade unions or to call in the

455
National Audit Office. It is a disgrace that 800 people in Carlisle will lose their jobs because of a secret report. They were loyal workers throughout the Falklands conflict and the Gulf, and they have been treated very shabbily.
Yesterday, I met trade union representatives from RAF Quedgeley. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) is in his place. They had asked for the report and were devasted when they were told they could not have it. They also thought that it was a good idea that the National Audit Office should examine the findings of the report as they did not believe them to be correct.
As the Minister said, RAF Quedgeley is not earmarked for closure until 1998. The depot had been allowed to tender for furniture repair contracts. It has been successful on three occasions in winning against outside competition repair and maintenance contracts for furniture, yet this month the depot received a letter saying that it would not be able to tender in future. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gloucester will also raise that point, but I must ask the Minister to reconsider his decision.
The Minister made some fairly derogatory comments in answer to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) about women being unfairly dismissed from the forces because they had become pregnant. It is a moral disgrace that has been going on for many years.
The real problem is that the bill is coming home. Until now, according to parliamentary questions, the Government have paid £7,800,000 in compensation to women who were unfairly dismissed. That sum covers 1,679 cases. Two women who took their cases to the tribunal won large sums. One was awarded nearly £200,000, and only this week a Wren was awarded £130,000. There are 3,700 outstanding cases. If we assume that that amount is exceptional and accept the norm as £10,000, that represents a bill of £37 million. If we take the norm as £100,000, the bill will be £370 million and the MOD will be paying out more than Littlewoods.
Where is the money to come from? Is it to come out of the defence budget or from contingency funds? If it were to be spent by local government, no doubt the councillors in charge would have been surcharged. It is a large sum of money and the House needs to know where it is to come from.
The Opposition were pleased when the Secretary of State announced the cancellation of the sub-strategic tactical air-to-surface missile, but there are still outstanding questions to be answered. When will the sub-strategic capability be placed on Trident? If it is to happen in the near future, as people are predicting, why are we keeping the free-fall bomb in service with the RAF until 2006?
Mention has been made of helicopters. Let us go through the disgraceful saga of the Westland helicopter, the EH101. In April 1987, the then Secretary of State announced that he would order 25 EH101 helicopters. In October 1992, after considerable pressure, the President of the Board of Trade visited Westland. In November 1992, Westland presented to the MOD the specifications, price and cost effectiveness. On 20 May 1993, draft specifications were received by the MOD. In July 1993, Westland responded, providing unit prices and support costs. On 27 July 1993, the matter was raised during the Consolidated Fund debate in which the Minister and I took part—I thought that the Government were going to try to win the by-election, but by that time it was obvious that Christchurch was a lost cause anyway.
456
In early October 1993, despite assurances from the Minister that he had had a word with his Dutch counterpart, the Dutch placed an order for a French helicopter. On 13 October 1993, the Secretary of State for Defence visited Westland and on 5 November 1993 the Prime Minister visited Westland. Last week in Defence questions, when I asked when the Government were likely to place an order, the Minister said that he did not know. The Chairman of the Select Committee said that the order would not be placed until after the Budget. However, he did not say what Budget and I hope that the Minister will make an announcement tonight that he will place the helicopter order with Westland. Many jobs depend on it and it is an excellent helicopter.
Another defence procurement issue involves the Eurofighter 2000. There are no stronger supporters of the Eurofighter 2000 than myself and my hon. Friends. There has been some slippage on that, but I shall concentrate on the number of aircraft that we are likely to order. The Government are sticking to their statement that they will order 250. My understanding is that it is to replace the Tornado F-3 and the Jaguar. If I am kind and add the numbers together, there are 140 aircraft—some would say that we do not have 100 Tornados—but are we really talking about placing an order for 250 Eurofighter aircraft to replace 140 Tornados and Jaguars? I hope that we can have some clarification.
Mr. Mans: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman with those figures. He is comparing the front-line strength of the Jaguar and Tornado F-3 force with the total buy and has not taken into account the number of back-up aircraft that the Eurofighter would also have to replace.
Mr. Martlew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I hope that Minister will give us some clarification on the exact figures. It would be wrong to continue to pretend to the industry that the Government are going to order 250 if they know that is not likely.[Interruption.] I understand that I have been speaking for some time. I see that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has woken up.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I was falling asleep; the hon. Gentleman's speech is so boring.
Mr. Martlew: The hon. Gentleman falls asleep during everyone's speech.
There is a complete breakdown of trust between the armed forces and the Conservative Government. It is best summed up by a report from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 January, under the heading:
"Back to Basics: Portillo on fighting the new British disease of cynicism about institutions".
The Minister said:
"Tonight I am going to talk about one of the greatest threats that have ever confronted the British nation. It does not come from the Soviet Union, nor from…Nuclear weapons, not even from domestic terrorism. It is more insidious and therefore harder to counter and even to defeat. It is not an external threat but an internal one. It comes from amongst us.".
That was made two months after Sir Michael Graydon, Chief of Air Staff, said in a speech to the Air League that there had been a deliberate campaign to discredit the RAF and the other services. He added that they knew who had instigated it and why and no doubt a number are the same people who basked in the reflected glory of the Gulf war. The next day's headlines said that Sir Michael was

457
carpeted by the Secretary of State for Defence, and that the air chief "said sorry to Portillo". That is what the quote says. I am not drifting from protocol.
I wrote to the Prime Minister, asking him to confirm whether Sir Michael was referring to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and, if so, would he sack him? Of course, the Prime Minister did not reply. I presume that the letter went across his desk, but he never noticed it. Ten days later I got a reply from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, saying that it was all misplaced media comment. We did ask for that speech but were refused by the Ministers.
Dr. David Clark: What were they afraid of?
Mr. Martlew: Obviously, only Conservative Members are invited to the Air League. Perhaps the Air League will take some cognisance of that fact. We would then have had the true picture in the House.
So much for the Chief Secretary fighting those who attack fine British institutions. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that there is no finer British institution than the Royal Air Force. The scandal does not stop there. As though that was not bad enough—a Treasury Minister trying to undermine the armed forces—it must be untenable when advisers to the Secretary of State for Defence are implicated. On 10 November, The Daily Telegraph said:
"Last night it emerged that an article written by Mr. David Hart, right-wing adviser to Mr. Rifkind, may have triggered off a recent press report which claimed there are too many generals, admirals and air marshals and also making unfavourable comparisons between the RAF and the Israeli Air Force."
That was by an adviser to the Secretary of State. What did the Secretary of State do? Did he get him in and carpet him? Did he sack him? Did he get him to write an apology to the air marshal? Not a bit. He is still advising the Secretary of State. He is still allowed to spread his poison.
Mr. Hardy: Is not that the second example of political failure to defend the armed forces? The armed forces cannot be responsible for fighting a political battle, in a direct sense. The Government allow a savage attack on the history and tradition of the Royal Air Force, as they did at the time of the Harris memorial, and allow repeated and quite ill-informed or mischievous articles comparing the Royal Air Force with the Israeli Air Force, when the comparison is simply preposterous. It is irritating for the services when their political masters sit on their hands instead of speaking up clearly for them.
Mr. Martlew: My hon. Friend is right. If the Secretary of State had any decency, he would have sacked his adviser and then taken his resignation to the Prime Minister. I shall quote again from "A Tale of Two Cities". Perhaps he could have said:
"It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done".
That is what we should have done. I have seen the video. Unlike the hon. Member for Harrow, East, I do not have problems with big words. It is time for the Government to resign. The country and its armed forces need a Government who will review foreign policy objectives, then reveal our defence commitments and needs and provide the necessary resources and support to those who are given responsibility for the defence of the nation. What we need is a Labour Government—and Parliamentary Private Secretaries who can deliver letters on time.
5.44 pm
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I have not yet intervened in the speeches from the two Front Benches, so I feel unusually virtuous. Having begun to feel, like other Conservative Members, that perhaps some newspapers were right recently and that the Government's classic mid-term unpopularity, which we are going through temporarily, was perhaps slightly more than that and was a deeper trough, and having heard the so-called savage attack of the Labour Front Bench on defence, I do not think that the Government have anything to worry about on this matter, or in any other broad main policy areas.
I have never heard such a feeble speech as that from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). It is preposterous nonsense, first, to suggest that senior service chiefs, rather than politicians, should decide policy matters concerning the size of our armed forces. I have never yet met a general or air marshall who said that his forces should be smaller. We all know that to be the classic truth of defence history. Secondly, as a result of the end of the cold war, the Government would have been rightly criticised if they had not taken important measures of cost reduction and economies in various fields as a result of that changing reality.
For the Labour party suddenly overnight to pretend to be the friend of our defence forces and service men and women is a preposterous piece of nonsense. Most people in the services know that, and therefore we can dismiss its arguments with the contempt that they deserve.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will be able to reply later on the subject of the local closure of a base in my constituency. There have been good references in the speeches so far to the debt that we owe the Royal Air Force and its marvellous history and role, which we are celebrating this year as well as next year, and all the things that we owe those men and women who serve in it. I am second to none in adding my words to that.
In my constituency, everybody has been immensely proud to have had for many years two RAF bases—Bentley Priory and Stanmore Park. The Battle of Britain was directed from Bentley Priory. I think that my hon. Friends the Ministers of State for Defence Procurement and for the Armed Forces have visited it. It is an historic and moving site, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), who has also visited it on a number of occasions, knows full well.
All base closures are regrettable, particularly if job losses are involved and if they involve civilians. I do not say that in any anti-service men and women sense, but there is a risk now that the cold war has ended that the number of service jobs will decline. Many people in the defence forces realistically accept that, but the trouble is that we are in a time of high unemployment nationally, so it is a painful thing for anybody to contemplate.
A number of closures have been referred to in the debate. In the case of the impending closure of RAF Stanmore Park, the situation is different. If my hon. Friend the Minister has a chance to refer to it in his winding-up speech, I hope that he will reassure us that there will be no job losses. I believe that the position with the RAF is that redeployment will take place. The affected numbers on that site have already been reduced.

459
As my hon. Friend the Minister and I know, as do others who follow this closely, there will be redeployment to Bentley Priory, whose functions will be augmented by taking some of the Stanmore Park activity. In that case, the local community is not reacting in a sense of traditional dismay at the closure of a much-loved RAF base, although it has a long history and there is considerable pride in it in the area, not least because the RAF personnel there in recent years have been doing a lot of hearts and minds work of a lasting quality—charity work, helping with the local community and helping disabled people. There are many other examples, but I will not go into them because of the time. They have had a close relationship with the local community.
Apart from that, the acceptance of the closure in the area is positive, and slightly wider, too. It makes sense to have the rationalisation of the base closure with RAF Bentley Priory, as it is so close—it is up Stanmore hill. It is a large green belt site, where it is possible to expand some of the facilities. I will refer to that in a moment. There is a welcome for the closure of the site, because its alternative use in future will be exciting for our local community in the borough of Harrow and in Harrow, East.
Apart from five or six acres of open space and recreational ground, the site will be designated for housing, which I hope will be high-quality housing. I have to hand the development brief for RAF Stanmore Park, with which, being a local authority matter, I shall not tax my hon. Friend the Minister of State too much because it would not be his job to respond to such points.
I wish to ask my hon. Friend to reassure me, generally and on the background and the latest developments, about the closure plans of the RAF, MOD and Property Services Agency and to bring us up to date on that and, in particular, individual considerations.
First, I wish to mention the historical background because the closure of RAF Stanmore Park means that that large and attractive site will, at long last, after almost 60 years, be returned to the local community. It was first taken for defence use by the then Air Ministry in 1936 as the war clouds were looming and gathering over Europe and Britain.
In those days, because controls were inadequate, the marvellous old Stanmore Park house on that site was torn down overnight, a famous and notorious occasion, by Ministry of Defence operatives. When the inhabitants of Stanmore, in those days a leafy village of great beauty, woke up the following morning, the whole magic house at Stanmore Park had been torn down virtually without warning. Mercifully, that kind of thing does not happen nowadays.
The local community is gathering back this important site for housing, and that is much to be welcomed. The borough plan has the objective and target of 4,500 houses during the next 10 years, so this will provide an important site for housing in the borough.
In the meantime, the RAF, MOD and PSA have a responsibility, which the Minister of State therefore also enjoys, to ensure that the site, when it is transferred from defence to civilian hands, whatever applicant purchaser eventually ends up with it—it may be more than one entity or development company—is handed over in good order and properly. That is of considerable concern to people in the local community. There is an agreement between the local authority and RAF representatives to preserve trees
460
on the site and to ensure that no damage is done in the realisation, disposal and evacuation of the site, which should take place by November 1995.
Those and other matters, and the dismantling of the existing RAF buildings, some of which are quite large, should be clarified. I should be grateful if the Minister would do that either today, or partly today, because I have not given him prior notice of this, and perhaps in subsequent correspondence if I deem it right to send him a letter, depending on what he has a chance to say in the debate.
Reverberating from the closure of RAF Stanmore Park is the augmentation of facilities at RAF Bentley Priory, which is much to be welcomed. That is a great boost to the morale of RAF personnel on the Bentley Priory site, an important strategic site, now with underground facilities about which, for obvious reasons, I shall not go into detail here. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to deal with the job increases that will occur as a result and the configuration of RAF plans and activities that will be outlined in the expansion of Bentley Priory.
Above all, from the point of view of my constituents, I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that the transitional work of augmentation, and the conclusion for that base when it is expanded, does not mean a significant increase in the nuisance effect for local residents. In fact, no increase at all would be acceptable. The residents have been patient. So far, physical facilities on the site have been expanded, including two radio masts whose location and size have resulted in some controversy, and there are other aspects as well.
The site is problematical in that, although there is plenty of acreage, certain pockets are already beginning to look full. For some reason, the RAF seems to be concentrating its new installations and physical buildings on the edges, near the roads and the residential houses that surround that site, rather than further in where they would be less of a nuisance in terms of noise.
Will there be a significant increase in helicopter sites? I accept that they are essential to the RAF's function, but they have already been somewhat of a nuisance, at least to residents and sometimes more widely than that. Therefore, the more that my hon. Friend can reassure me on the closure of RAF Stanmore Park and on the expansion of RAF Bentley Priory—once again, I pay tribute to the RAF for what it has achieved over the years on both sites—the happier I shall be. I shall be in further touch with my hon. Friend, and I shall return later to the debate—I have another engagement—to hear what he has to say about these matters.
5.54 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: It was my intention to begin by extolling the virtues of single service debates, but when I look around—I do not exclude my party from what I am about to say—those advantages appear to be rather less obvious to all but the 18 or 19 of us who are present at this stage.
The single service debate provides a particular advantage with regard to procurement. It is apposite that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement should reply to the debate. I doubt whether there has ever been a time in the history of the RAF when the procurement decisions that had to be made were more acute and were likely to have longer lasting effect.

461
For example, the Eurofighter 2000 is expected to see service for at least 30 years into the next century. I sometimes think that the procurement decisions are of much greater long-term significance than manpower decisions because, for example, the recruitment and training of fast jet pilots can be much more easily and quickly accomplished than the development or production of a fast jet for them to fly.
Procurement decisions become more and more difficult to reverse because such is the pace of technical advance that, if a particular capability is given up, it is almost impossible to regain it, or regaining it would be possible only at disproportionate cost.
Where a capability is given up and reliance is placed on foreign manufacture, the continued availability of equipment and spares will depend on the political attitudes of the supplying country. Some may remember that, in the immediate post-election period when the debate about the future of the European fighter aircraft, as it was then known, was at its height, some argued for the purchase of the SU27. There is no question but that that is an outstanding aircraft, but one would have to anticipate rather more optimistically what was likely to happen in Russia before one would believe that one could guarantee the spare parts and the equipment that would be necessary if one adopted that aircraft as fulfilling the needs of the RAF.
The reference to Eurofighter 2000 provides an obvious opportunity on which to restate the case for that aircraft. The arguments in favour of it remain as persuasive as ever. It is right that we should maintain the manufacturing capability that Eurofighter 2000 necessarily represents. We must also remember that some of the technology may have a civilian application and be worth while for that. But the primary need is for an agile fighter with which the RAF can fulfil the air defence-ground attack role, particularly when one has regard to the third task which is identified in the defence estimates for the current year.
In future operations outside the United Kingdom, in which we may increasingly be called upon to participate, the RAF's task will be to protect friendly forces against hostile air attack. One thing is certain and that is that there is no shortage of modern combat aircraft on the international market which will make it possible for the air forces in unstable parts of the world to be extremely well equipped.
We know that derivatives of the SU27 and the MiG29 are already under development. It does not take any particular political perception to conclude that, if Russia is anxious, first, to continue a sphere of influence, and, secondly, to acquire hard currency, the uninhibited export of aircraft of that calibre to those who are willing to purchase them is likely to be a policy that Russia will follow. If we expect to be able to participate in international operations—including United Nations operations—the RAF must have an aircraft that is capable of matching its potential opponents. Anything less would create a considerable disadvantage for the aircrew on which we would call.
As the Minister will know, some apprehension is felt about the project. Already, after four speeches, he has been asked to reply to a substantial number of questions, but I hope that, if he cannot deal with the points that I am about
462
to raise in his response this evening, he will be able to do so by means of a letter, or some other method of communication.
Can the Minister tell us the current estimated cost per copy of the aircraft? There is some dispute about that in the technical press. Is it true that there have been cost overruns of as much as DM500 million in the development phase? Following the software difficulties experienced by the Gripen—which, at one stage, was considered to be a candidate for the RAF—what is the up-to-date position with regard to the flight-control software for the Eurofighter? I believe that the predicted flight date is April 1994. Is that still a firm date?
I do not wish to leave the question of procurement without referring to either the Hercules replacement or the support helicopter, both of which have been mentioned today in speeches and interventions. If we are to do more in what might be briefly described as the United Nations area, the greater the out-of-area activity, the greater will be the strain on the transport resources of the RAF.
Marshalls of Cambridge is carrying out a study to determine whether the Hercules should be refurbished or replaced, and it is only right to await the results of that study; however, I would require considerable persuasion to accept that we should wait until the year 2000, or beyond, for the future large aircraft. I say that as one who is on record as arguing—in the House—the case for common defence procurement within Europe. I believe that to continue until the year 2000 without moving to an alternative aircraft would place unnecessary strain on the RAF's transport resources.
Mr. Mans: Would not that virtually guarantee that, beyond the year 2000, the RAF will be equipped with an aircraft whose basic airframe was designed in the 1950s? Would not the study do better to compare the costs of the C 130J throughout its life—up to the year 2030, or even 2040—with the costs of refurbishing existing aircraft, enabling them to last until the FLA was available?
Mr. Campbell: I do not argue with anything that the hon. Gentleman has said; he has considerable knowledge and experience of these matters. I will say, however, that the Hercules has a reliable and proven design, and—as has been pointed out—British companies such as Westland and Dowty would have an important part to play in the development of the C130J.
Important industrial issues are also involved. We should consider the extent to which Government funding forms a component of the discussion and, indeed, the ultimate decision. I am keeping an open mind, although what I am about to say may contradict that claim: I do not believe that we should wait until the year 2000, given that there is no guarantee that the FLA will actually fly.
Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be relieved to learn that I agree with what he is saying.
I do not think that development costs can be ignored in any future aircraft considerations. No one knows what the costs of developing the new aircraft will be. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the possible overrun on the Eurofighter 2000. All experience of modern military aircraft suggests that considerable extra costs can be incurred during the development phase. Clearly, putting an aircraft "on the shelf' will not involve that problem.
Mr. Campbell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We should not pretend that the decision is easy, but I remain convinced that the onus is on those who argue for the FLA. It is up to them to prove beyond reasonable doubt—if I may use a legal phrase—that it is appropriate.
Mr. Hardy: May I join the chorus of agreement with the hon. and learned Gentleman's thesis? Surely, if there is to be a delay, we are entitled to hope that, on the frequent flights of the Hercules to Sarajevo airport when dramatic landings must be arranged, pilots and crew will be accompanied by Ministers of the Crown. On many occasions, we would welcome the resultant by-elections, and the reassurance of companionship that such flights would provide.
Mr. Campbell: I can do better than that; I can threaten them with the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
That leads me quite naturally to the issue of the support helicopter. When its history comes to be written, 1 doubt that it will be regarded as a paradigm of good procurement. The most recent chapter of the story is yet another study of the mix between the Chinook and the EH101. I doubt very much that Lord Younger—as he now is—anticipated the delay that has occurred since his announcement on a date in 1987, which has already been mentioned. I also suspect that little enthusiasm would be expressed in the armed services committee of the Senate or, indeed, in the House of Representatives on Capitol hill about a similar contest between Boeing and Westland.
I hope that the Government will take due account not only of capability but of the national interest that would be served if the EH101 were to predominate in the mix of 25, as opposed to the Chinook.
Let me deal briefly with two other matters connected with procurement. One is the low-level laser-guided bomb; the other is the conventionally armed stand-off missile, which has already been mentioned. The RAF requires those systems, for different reasons. I hope that an early decision can be made, so that firm contracts are available for both.
A further issue arises from the RAF's current operations in Bosnia. I suspect that the matter goes a little beyond the remit of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, but it has raised a number of anxieties. I refer to the means by which authorisation of air strikes in Bosnia would be effected and the time that it would take for permission to be given. I understand that the chain would be something like this. A request would come from forward air controllers on the ground with the troops; that request would go to the air operations co-ordination centre at Kisseljak. From there—with the good will of the commander of the Bosnia-Herzegovina command—it would go to the UNPROFOR commander in Zagreb. It would then go to the United Nations civilian head, also in Zagreb, and from there to the United Nations Secretary-General. That could reasonably be described as a rather extended order of command.
It has been suggested that a recent trial took six hours to produce a reply from New York. One of the outgoing United Nations generals has expressed considerable apprehension. Let me put the point in a domestic context, however. If United Nations forces—by which, of necessity, I mean British forces on the ground—required close air support for their defence, which is not
464
improbable, surely the availability of such support must be much more direct. We must do better than six hours' notice.
The matter may fall well outside the remit of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and I should not expect him to deal with something so technical, but we are entitled to expect the Government to deal with it, not only in the interests of the United Nations but for the sake of protecting our own forces on the ground.
I was pleased that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces referred to RAF operations in the northern and southern exclusion zones of Iraq. Little mention has been made of the aircrew there recently, but they are carrying out an extremely important United Nations mission, and I should not like to bet that they will never see action in either of those theatres. During a debate such as this, it is right to recognise their substantial contribution to the international order.
Once issues of procurement have been dealt with and constituency matters have been raised, it is right to turn our attention to the role that we envisage for the RAF. Until the end of the cold war, the RAF had prepared for two principal tasks: first, the air defence of the United Kingdom over the North sea and, secondly, low-level counter air offensive against airfields of the Warsaw pact. The first task has been greatly reduced and the second has been virtually eliminated, so what do we now envisage as the RAF's role?
Let us approach the matter first from a negative angle. I welcome the announcement, made not in the House but in a speech by the Secretary of State to an outside body, of the abandonment of the tactical air-to-surface missile. I checked when I had first raised the issue in the House and discovered that in June 1990 I made a speech in which I had questioned the need for it and its utility. Once the cold war was over and once NATO's nuclear doctrine became one of minimum deterrence and we had the assertion that nuclear weapons would be used as weapons of the last resort, the need for TASM was removed.
TASM was a system designed for the doctrine of flexible response and the need for it was predicated on the requirement to break up massive tank formations of the Warsaw pact if they streamed across the inner German border. Once Trident is operational, we shall have a tactical capability if we require it. That leads me to return to the point made by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew): what is the justification for continuing with the WE177 after Trident becomes fully operational with the tactical alternative that we know can be provided? Why is it necessary to continue with free-fall bombs to the year 2006—the most recent estimate—if we expect Trident to be in service by the year 2000 and providing the tactical element after 2006?
Another fundamental matter that should be considered is how strong is the justification for a continued RAF presence at its present level in Germany? If we are looking for savings that do not adversely affect capability, should we not now seriously consider reducing not the number of squadrons but the number of squadrons stationed in Germany? They were there to do damage to the countries of the Warsaw pact but, at the NATO summit last week, we were talking about a partnership for peace with virtually all those countries and to some of them we said that NATO membership might not be too far away. In those

465
circumstances, should not we examine with some rigour the justification for the continued stationing of RAF squadrons in Germany?
One thing that emerged from the RAF's experience in the Gulf war was that there was a compelling need for flexibility. Hon. Members with an interest in the matter will remember that low-level operations proved too costly and, as a result, tactics had to be varied. Thereafter, the operations were carried out from medium altitude. To be effective, however, we had to introduce the rather curious marriage between the Buccaneers and the Tornados until the thermal imaging airborne laser designator pods could be fitted to some of the Tornados. When considering the future role of the Royal Air Force, it is essential to build in the necessary flexibility rather than having to overcome obstacles to it once operations have commenced.
On this occasion, it is the convention to pay tribute to the men and women of the Royal Air Force. I have a particular reason for doing so because, apart from my duties as my party's defence spokesman, RAF Leuchars is located in my constituency where 43 and 111 Squadrons are stationed, although, sadly, that is no longer the case for the Wessex flight of 22 Squadron. That means that I have occasion to meet men and women of all ranks and I continue to be impressed by their qualities and skills. They are brave men and women who do dangerous things as a matter of routine. They are not saints and would not claim to be. At the moment, they seem to show a remarkable realism about their changing environment.
I think that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces spoke of the stoic good humour of the men and women in the RAF. He should understand that there is, nevertheless, greater apprehension than he acknowledged. I do not want to enter into the controversy over what the Commander-in-Chief said at a meeting of the Air League—that has been sufficiently aired for the purposes of this debate—but my contacts with the men and women of the RAF and, indeed, of the other services, lead me to believe that they have great sympathy for what the Commander-in-Chief was reported as having said. That reflects the fact that they are apprehensive about the way in which the RAF's role will develop in the future. It is our duty to pay more than lip service to the qualities of the man and women of the RAF. They deserve well of us, and it is the duty of the House to see that they get it.
6.16 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: This is the last debate on the Royal Air Force in which I shall speak as a serving member of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, not because I want to stop being a member but because I shall reach retirement on 20 February and will be put out to grass and have to hang up my boots, or whatever it is that one does. However, I shall not be hanging up my flying suit because I shall manage to find ways to get into the air.
I enter into the debate with a sad heart because I care very deeply about the Royal Air Force and, in present circumstances, it cannot be described as a happy service. Why do I say that? "Options for Change" was the result of changes that had taken place in the Soviet Union. We all know what those changes were, so I shall not go into detail.
466
"Options for Change" produced what has been described—by others, not by me—as a peace dividend. I am still looking around the world to see where the peace is.
Massive reductions in the RAF's operational capabilities resulted from "Options for Change". Many have already mentioned the massive 40 per cent. reduction in the strike capability and the reduction of about 30 per cent. in the air defence capability. They are massive reductions by any standards and they are linked to the closure of 15 major bases in Germany and the United Kingdom and a huge decrease in personnel. The changes have occurred in a relatively short time and anyone who has had any experience of dramatic changes in business or in the forces will know what impact they can have.
Because of the reductions in assets and personnel, the RAF of today is a substantially reduced force. No one can deny that "Options for Change" has created massive turbulence throughout the service and has greatly sapped morale. It would be wrong to pretend otherwise. Introducing the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister said that the RAF now had a carefully calculated capability, which was adequate to meet the envisaged possible threat. I shall have something to say later about that envisaged possible threat.
I assume that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and his colleagues believe that they are right in what they are doing. I do not share that belief, but, as my hon. Friend does, can he and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement give me a categorical assurance that he and his colleagues acknowledge that the RAF now needs a period of stability? That is needed more than anything.
In the early 1930s, as everyone knows, we experienced a period of peace. We were enjoying the dividends of peace. In 1930, no one had heard of Adolf Hitler, but, by 1940, Adolf Hitler had created a massive military machine—a huge luftwaffe—and had occupied most of Europe. Today, in the former Soviet Union, there exists a military machine with a nuclear and conventional capability that can only be described as horrendous. In Russia, the recent elections have produced a large number of narrow nationalist Members of Parliament and there is just a possibility that the leader of those narrow nationalists could be elected as the next President of Russia. That is a possibility—I do not put it any higher.
What is frightening, however, is that whoever is the next President of Russia will have massive powers that were created by the new constitution that was introduced by the existing President. Even Stalin would have envied the powers that he will achieve constitutionally. The Ukraine has the world's third largest nuclear force. Everyone is aware of the Russian narrow nationalist declaration—the aim of those nationalists to restore to Russia all the territory of the former USSR. That includes the Ukraine. When linked with the re-emergence of narrow right-wing nationalists in Germany—there is a real possibility that Nazis will be elected to the German Parliament this year—can anyone predict who will be in charge in the Kremlin next year or in two years' time, or what the Governments of the Ukraine and Germany, whoever they are, will feel about the circumstances at that time?
Yet we in the United Kingdom and our allies in north America continue to disarm. We continue to claim that the RAF can absorb the reductions imposed by "Options for Change", the reductions that followed "Options for

467
Change" and, worse still, the massive extra reductions that will be brought about, at least in year 3, by the recent Treasury-Ministry of Defence discussions.
Will current changes in the former Soviet Union bring about a new option—a rearmament option? Is that the reality of having a Royal Air Force that is equipped to meet the envisaged need or threat?
Earlier, it was said that one can train people more quickly and effectively than one can purchase the right type of equipment, and, of course, that is true, because the lead time for modern aircraft weapon systems is long. If we are to meet an envisaged threat in five years' time, we have to plan and equip today to meet it. It will be too late if we wait five years to see what happens. Will our children ever forgive us if we walk down the road of our predecessors of the 1930s? I doubt it.
That is why, in this debate, I cannot be upbeat, although I wish that I could be. Nor am I saying that we are being Treasury-led or repeating any of the other glib things that are said. The whole western world is living in a dream land. The world today is more unstable than it was during the cold war. The balance of terror actually gave us peace in Europe. It may not have been a very pleasant thing to contemplate, but the truth of it—the reality—was peace. That is unlikely to be the case in the near future or even in the medium term. We can say with certainty that there will be more territorial disputes and ethnic problems and that throughout the former Soviet Union, there will be continuing problems, carnage and war.
In those circumstances, because of what is happening today in Bosnia, we have glib talks about air strikes. As a former airman, I am always frightened when someone talks glibly about using RAF crews in what are not very carefully thought-out plans. I am reminded of the poor chaps who flew in the battles in 1940 against the bridges in France. Oh yes, they were courageous; oh yes, they went and attacked the bridges. The fact that they did not come back, and that they got Victoria crosses posthumously, seems to have been overlooked and forgotten. Are we asking our people in the RAF to look forward to a similar scenario? I hope not.
Let me discuss possible air strikes in Bosnia. No Member of Parliament would expect our forces on the ground, if circumstances demanded, not to have air support, but that is not what has been glibly spoken about in the corridors of power, at least at a recent North Atlantic Treaty Organisation meeting. People who spoke there were speaking about air strikes against others to deter. That is not quite what I envisage when we talk about air strikes to defend our chaps on the ground. Those are two quite different things. If one is talking about escalation—that is what it really is if one is talking about air strikes—one needs only to think back to what happened in Vietnam to recall the fact that constant escalation of air strikes did not resolve the problem on the ground.
I will not discuss that aspect in any more detail, other than to say that one should be careful about committing one's service men to circumstances and situations unless their actions have been properly thought out and carefully planned. The one thing that the Gulf war demonstrated clearly was that air power, used properly and effectively, with good planning, can bring about circumstances in which there will be light casualties on the ground. Let us, however, consider the resources that were deployed to achieve that—and no one can suggest to me that, wherever we wish to carry out an exercise of that type, we can deploy
468
such resources without the United States being there, both in the air and on the ground. It cannot be done. That is why we should be very careful when we speak about it.
I shall now discuss procurement. Of course, the Royal Air Force must have the Eurofighter 2000 and, of course, it will be required in the numbers that have been envisaged, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) pointed out in an intervention, it is replacing not one aircraft but a number of aircraft.
I too am worried about the problems that we have encountered over helicopter procurement. They should be resolved as soon as possible. Whatever decision is taken, it should be taken soon, because the delay is wrong for Westland, wrong for the RAF and wrong for anyone who has pledged that we will do something. Since 1987, we have failed to do so.
I believe that it was right, during our previous debate, to speak about the RAF and stand-off weapons. Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), I regret that the RAF will not have a stand-off nuclear capability, for the reasons that I have given about the instability in the former Soviet Union and the massive nuclear capability that will exist there, when we have no idea who will be in charge. It is a short-term, mistaken financial decision which we may live to regret.
I aslo believe that Ministers were right to say that we would continue with a conventional stand-off capability. In this modern age, as the Gulf war demonstrated, it is high-risk to fly at low level over the target. It is just possible that, especially when attacking targets near to each other, when the targets are all lit up, one will find oneself silhouetted against the sky—a sitting target for anyone with even conventional anti-aircraft equipment. Clearly, we want our chaps to have stand-off equipment, and it is right to keep the free-fall WE177 bomb until we have a replacement stand-off weapon.
As for the Hercules replacement, I recognise the concerns and fears. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) will acknowledge that no one has been a stronger advocate of buying British than I, but I am concerned with the situation in the Royal Air Force. I do not apologise for that. My first loyalty has always been, and always will be, to my friends and former colleagues who are serving in the RAF. I say to them that if I have any influence it will be directed towards ensuring that the Hercules replacement is the updated modernised Hercules. That can be bought off the shelf and will not cost anything like the probable cost of other replacements.
In 10 years' time, if we find that world circumstances demand something else—if there is a real threat or even a war going on—we can deal with that at the time. Today and tomorrow, we have to consider what we are likely to be doing with whatever aircraft the RAF has for that type of activity and duty. Today, that is the Hercules. The Hercules is getting long in the tooth, and it must be replaced. I have no hesitation in saying that the solution is to buy the new, modernised, updated version, the C130J. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement hears me say that.
Now I shall talk about the forces with which I have been directly involved—the auxiliaries and reserves. I can tell Ministers that it is bad, even desperate, when one chops and changes around with regulars, but it is calamitous if one does that with volunteers and auxiliaries. Many people do not understand about volunteers—although I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr.

469
Goodson-Wickes) does. It is one heck of a commitment to go and fly on behalf of the RAF most weekends, as I have done throughout most of my adult life. First, volunteers have to persuade their families that that is a good thing to do. When other people are going out with their families during the lovely summer days, a volunteer disappears and is not seen all weekend. To do that for one year is something, and so is to do it for five years. To do it for 10, 20 or 30 years is quite an achievement. I have been doing it for damn near 40 years—and I am astonished that my wife is still married to me. She is a remarkable lady. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] She is; any woman who is married to me has to be remarkable.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that by tinkering and chopping and changing, we kill the faith and confidence that are essential if a chap is to go home at weekends and say to his wife and family, "I am doing a good job for my country; I want to go on doing it." Once that individual is diverted, we shall not get him back. That applies to all territorials and auxiliaries. Those chaps will go off and use their energies elsewhere. Their families will not accept a second dose. In my experience of commanding volunteer units, one cannot get people back once the continuity has been broken, because family pressures will not allow it. There is a tremendous problem if we lose that faith, and we must never forget that when we are dealing with auxiliaries and reserves.
I am sad that we still do not have a proper auxiliary air force of the right sort. I wish that the people who write funny stories about the Israeli air force would remember that Israel is surrounded by enemies. It is not difficult to persuade Israeli employers to let people go away for four or five weeks, and often much longer, every year.
I wonder what British employers would feel if we had to have a conscript air force, largely made up of reservists to be called up at times of hostilities, and we insisted that they did four weeks' training every year. I rather think that there would be a long list of employers complaining; in fact, they would not accept it. That is why we require a volunteer force only, to back up regular forces that, at times of hostility, are capable of holding the line until the auxiliaries and reserves can come into play.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman knows much more about the reserves than I do. Does he see any lessons to be learnt from the United States experience? Are there any parallels to be drawn that we might usefully apply here?
Mr. Walker: Yes, I wish that the parallel drawn in the newspapers had been between the Royal Air Force and the United States air force. Then we would not have read all that nonsense and dross that has caused all the problems. The United States air force has a worldwide capability. Of course, it is a massive air force, but, like the RAF, it is subject to worldwide demands. The United States, therefore, requires the necessary structures and organisations to motivate and activate their people in all the different parts of the world.
That calls for a much greater back-up than does the Israeli air force. Israel does not do anything outside its own borders, except in connection with its neighbours, and all activity takes place from bases in Israel. Israel can therefore have a smaller back-up capability. I want to draw
470
attention to the nonsense that has been written, because people are not comparing like with like when they compare our air force with the Israeli air force. I hope that what I have said, and my letter to the newspapers, will deal with that fairy tale being spread by people who know little about real air force matters.
I had an Adjournment debate on the air cadets recently, and I hope that before we make any decisions affecting the air cadets under the programme for financial reductions we shall wait until we have carried out the complete review of all the other activities, including university air squadrons, air force base locations, and so on. If we try to make changes in a haphazard way we may damage the cadets, and we may find that we lose good people. I return to what I have already said about the loss of faith.
If I have a message for my right hon. and hon. Friends in government it is this: they have on their Back Benches a number of hon. Members who will support the Government on defence matters. In many ways, the best people on the Government Back Benches are the people who have a direct involvement and who care. Those individuals would have no difficulty in accepting an increase in expenditure in that one area of Government spending. Many of us feel strongly about balanced budgets, but not at the expense of national security.
I am not making a bid because I am wearing an air force lobby hat, or saying that the RAF should have more money because I love the RAF. I say what I say because I believe that world and European circumstances call for us to be extremely careful and prudent about any future reductions. I do not believe that we can meet the requirement of the third year of reductions without reducing the sharp end of our fighting forces, especially the RAF. I could not and would not support any further reductions in the operational front-line capacity of the Royal Air Force.
6.38 pm
Mr. Nick Ainger: In contrast to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), I will address a rather narrow issue. However, we all recognise his concern, interest and depth of knowledge in relation to the RAF.
I want to raise an issue which, since the Government set out their plans in "Options for Change", has been a cause of great concern in my constituency, throughout Wales and even in the Republic of Ireland. A range of wider issues are raised about the way in which the Ministry of Defence has managed the RAF's transition since the end of the cold war. A petition of 20,000 signatures in respect of the issue has been presented to the House and it has been raised by Members of the Dail. The issue concerns the closure of RAF Brawdy and the MOD's intention to transfer Brawdy's search and rescue facilities to north Devon.
Several defence bases in my constituency have been closed or announcements have been made to close them. The Milford mine depot has gone with the loss of 250 jobs. Royal Navy armaments depot Trecwn is to close in April 1996, with the loss of 500 jobs. There has been an announcement about Brawdy and the United States naval facility, which is located with RAF Brawdy, is to close in September 1995. However, in addition to the economic problems that we face, the most worrying point is the transfer of search-and-rescue flight B 202 squadron to north Devon.

471
In August 1992, tactical weapons training at RAF Brawdy ended and about 80 civilian jobs were lost;700 service men, with their £12 million worth of income, were transferred elsewhere. The local economy lost millions of pounds more as the operating expenditure of the base rapidly dwindled. The effect was felt immediately in Haverford west, the nearest town to the base. One hundred and one people joined the dole in August 1992, when the base closed.
That was obviously a large rise in the number of unemployed people in a town with a significant tourist area adjacent to it. The fact that a significant number of people joined the dole queue at the height of the tourist season was a symptom of the economic impact on the local economy of the closure and the ending of flight training at Brawdy.
Sadly, that effect continues to be felt. Unemployment in my constituency is still rising against the national trend. In August 1992, 4,695 people were unemployed in my constituency. Last month, 5,632 were unemployed. That is a very significant increase. When the United States Navy leaves Pembrokeshire in September 1995, 70 more civilian jobs will be lost and, perhaps more importantly, the spending power of 450 American service personnel and their families will disappear.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces announced late last year that the Royal Welch Fusiliers will use RAF Brawdy as temporary accommodation from August 1994 and that the base is being considered for future use as a long-term barracks plot. I welcome that commitment which, initially. will go some way towards putting urgently needed money back into the Pembrokeshire economy with the transfer of those 600 Welsh soldiers and their families to Brawdy this summer.
I was rather disappointed when the Minister said that I had not welcomed the fact that the Royal Welch Fusiliers were to be transferred to Brawdy. He knows very well that I have welcomed them. I wrote to him congratulating him on his decision in which he had considerable personal involvement. However, I urge Ministers to do their utmost to find a long-term use for the accommodation at Brawdy, because Pembrokeshire still desperately needs a long-term commitment in that direction and the income which that will provide.
I remain extremely concerned about the way in which the MOD has managed the affair. I am particularly concerned about the closely related issue of search and rescue. It might be helpful to the House if I explain the background. Prior to the redeployment of search and rescue announced in October 1992, the RAF operated 10 Sea King and six Wessex search and rescue helicopters from nine bases around the British coast. The Royal Navy has five helicopters at its three bases. In October 1992, the MOD said that the RAF operational fleet would be reduced to 12 aircraft, all Sea Kings, operating from six bases. The Navy's fleet was to remain unchanged.
Those changes began to be implemented in April 1993 when the Wessex flight at RAF Leuchars was withdrawn. By the middle of 1994, the flight at Manston in Kent is due to transfer to Wattisham in Suffolk while the flight at Coltishall in Norfolk is to be withdrawn. In July, Brawdy's Sea Kings will be transferred to RAF Chivenor in north Devon.
As a result of those changes, by the end of July 1994, four fewer aircraft will be operating from three fewer bases. However, we should be concerned not simply about the reduction in numbers. It is undoubtedly true that the
472
Sea King, with its auto-hover, all-weather and night flying capabilities, is superior to the Wessex. However, the advantages of the Sea King over the Wessex have been somewhat exaggerated in the MOD's open government document to disguise the consequences of cutting the fleet size.
The really worrying aspect of the changes is the way in which the aircraft are to be distributed. Moving the flight from Manston to Wattisham will lead to a significant deterioration in search-and-rescue cover in the east of the English channel, particularly in the Dover straits which are the busiest shipping lanes in the world—[Interruption.] I am aware that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has a personal interest in the matter so perhaps he will listen even more attentively to my comments.
We have been able to highlight the fact that the Dover straits will be outside the one-hour daytime response time designated as a requirement for search and rescue. When we consider that the Dover straits are the busiest shipping lanes in the world with literally millions of ferry passengers crossing the area, and we are expecting search and rescue to cover that area at the extent of its operational limit but certainly of its response time, I believe that serious questions must be asked.
The transfer of Brawdy's flight to Chivenor is a reckless decision which, in the opinion of every search and rescue professional I have spoken to—including lifeboat men, firemen, off-the-record coastguards and even the men who have flown the aircraft, including the former flight commander of flight 202—will undoubtedly cost lives because of the extra time that it will take to reach incidents off the west coast and in the St. George's channel. Michael Boulding, the former flight commander of the Sea King flight at Brawdy, has publicly described the decision as criminal.
The fact that the decision is a dangerous mistake becomes clear when one looks at the MOD's maps. A working party set up by the MOD in 1986 established a set of criteria for search and rescue services. It stated that a helicopter must be able to reach any point within 40 nautical miles of the coast within one hour by daylight and anywhere within 100 nautical miles of the coast within two hours by night or in bad weather.
When it announced the deployment in October 1992, in the defence open government document called "The Future Provision of Royal Air Force Search and Rescue Helicopters", the Ministry of Defence published maps with circles around each base showing how far helicopters could fly within one hour and within two hours. It is clear from those maps that, following the redeployment, the working group's criteria will not be met in significant areas in the English channel, to which I have referred, and off the Welsh coast. Even when they are met, it will take longer than previously for a helicopter to reach the scene of an incident, so, without doubt, there will be a deterioration in cover. Lives will undoubtedly be lost as a result, despite the unquestionable courage and professionalism of the men who fly the aircraft.
I give a practical example. In October, the coastguard organised a desk-top exercise called Paper Tiger to test the effectiveness of all emergency services in responding to an offshore incident. That exercise compares with an actual incident which took place on the night of 9 April 1990, which involved a Sea King from RAF Brawdy airlifting a team of firefighters to a fire on board the cross-Irish sea

473
ferry the Norrona and in which, sadly, a man died and approximately 20 people suffered severely from burns and smoke inhalation.
That incident took place 25 miles off the Pembrokeshire coast, in the very area which the Government have accepted will be outside the one-hour response time and yet within British waters. The incident happened at 1 am. The aircraft was on the scene, after picking up a firefighting crew, within 58 minutes, less than half the time allowed under the working group criteria for night missions. The criteria state that they should arrive within two hours.
On 23 October, the desk-top exercise took place. It was carried out in daylight conditions, in which a helicopter, in theory from Chivenor, airlifted firemen to a similar ferry fire in the identical position as the incident in 1990. That flight and organisation, took not the 58 minutes as in 1990 but 70 minutes—12 minutes longer than the helicopter from Brawdy took and 10 minutes longer than the time allowed in the daylight criteria that were set down by the working party.
If the Ministry of Defence had properly thought through the consequences of its plans, it would have seen how dangerous they were. But, I am afraid, all the evidence is that neither the Ministry of Defence nor the Department of Transport, which is ultimtely responsible for civilian search and rescue, have taken into account all the relevant factors.
The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), who was then Minister for the Armed Forces, in reply to a parliamentary question on 2 November 1992, admitted to me that the Ministry of Defence had made no assessment of the need for civilian search and rescue before deciding to end operations at RAF Brawdy. That point is absolutely crucial. As hon. Members will know, the vast majority of search and rescue missions are to help civilians. On average, 90 per cent. of incidents that are responded to by RAF search-and-rescue helicopters are civilian. Only about 10 per cent. are military.
The argument of the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Transport throughout has been that the working group criteria will be met despite the redeployment. As I have already demonstrated, that is not entirely true, particularly in relation to the St. George's channel and the Dover straits. Even if it were true, it would conceal a serious decline in search-and-rescue cover.
The Ministry of Defence failed to carry out a proper assessment of risk, but I was able, by tabling a large number of parliamentary questions, to carry out my own assessment of the likely demand for search-and-rescue services off the Welsh coast by using the risk factors of the Ministry's own working group. It showed conclusively that the risk of incidents is increasing at the very time when the number of helicopters that are available to respond is being reduced.
Brawdy's helicopters flew 98 missions in 1979, of which 89 were civilian. In 1992, flight 202 flew 158 missions, of which 151 were civilian. That represents an increase of 61 per cent. between 1979 and 1992. Over that period, there were also large increases at RAF Valley and RAF Chivenor, both of which will cover the area currently from RAF Brawdy.
Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman has made a significant point. He said that the vast majority of search-and-rescue
474
helicopter missions are for civilian use. Bearing in mind that the primary purpose of them is to rescue service personnel, should we keep those helicopters at Brawdy specifically for civilian purposes? Does the hon. Gentleman expect extra money to be made available outside the defence vote for that purpose to be carried out?
Mr. Ainger: I will come to that point, but I am grateful for that intervention. It is irrelevant who pays, whether it is the Department of Transport or the Ministry of Defence. At the end of the day, the taxpayer pays the bill. The figures that I have produced—I have far more if the hon. Gentleman wishes to see them—show that the vast bulk of incidents are civilian. I accept that, like most other countries, we should have a civilian search-and-rescue service, perhaps provided under the aegis of the coastguard and paid for by the Department of Transport, not the Ministry of Defence. After all, that Ministry currently faces the largest cuts in its budget. It is unfair to the civilian population, who pay for that service through their taxes, for it to be significantly cut.
There were similar increases at RAF Valley and RAF Chivenor and throughout all search-and-rescue bases around our coasts, but, following the announcement in 1992, we have fewer helicopters, which are badly distributed in relation to risk.
There is widespread concern about the plans. As I mentioned in an intervention on the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, today is the 51st anniversary of the RAF mountain rescue service. It was very disturbing over the past few days to hear that, as that distinguished service goes into its second half century, members of the Snowdonia mountain rescue team have expressed great fears that aircraft from RAF Valley, which are currently Wessex and which routinely provide vital back-up, might take longer to reach incidents, because, after July 1994, there will be a greater chance that the Wessex aircraft will be required to cover the southern part of the Irish sea and Cardigan bay, which is currently covered by RAF Brawdy.
The other issue is that, from an RAF point of view, down the west coast from Valley, down the Welsh coast and down to the north coast of Devon, there are currently six helicopters which, after July 1994, will be reduced to four.
It is not just numbers that matter: we need to consider distribution—where those helicopter flights are based. The MOD's own maps, which were reproduced in the October 1992 defence open government document, show that if search and rescue were withdrawn from RAF Chivenor and retained at Brawdy, the working group criteria would still be entirely met—in fact, exceeded—because Chivenor's coverage area is entirely overlapped by those of Brawdy and of the Royal Navy bases at Portland and Culdrose.
The same was true of Leuchars, whose coverage area was entirely overlapped by those of Lossiemouth, Prestwick and Boulmar. The MOD used that as part of its justification for withdrawing the Leuchars flight, but failed to see that the same argument applied in the south-west of England.
A simple glance at the maps tells us that if we are to have only two RAF bases covering Wales and the west of England, plus the two Navy bases at Culdrose and Portland, the logical arrangement is to use Valley and Brawdy rather than Valley and Chivenor.
Over the past two years, the MOD has demonstrated illogicality verging on the bizarre. In the defence open

475
government document of October 1992, the Ministry of Defence said that the arguments for using Brawdy of Chivenor were "finely balanced". It claimed that neither base was better than the other from an operational point of view. Paragraph 27 of the document stated:
"A key factor was that military fast jet flying training recently ceased at RAF 13rawdy"—
that was in August 1992—
"and is now concentrated at RAF Chivenor and RAF Valley"—
that was certainly true in October 1992.
"RAF Chivenor therefore has a more assured long-term future than Brawdy, as well as the infrastructure needed to support search and rescue operations."
One year later—on 11 November 1993—the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who is unfortunately not with us at the moment, announced that the Royal Welch Fusiliers would be stationed at Brawdy. So use will be made of RAF Brawdy and it will have all the basic support services.
People in Pembrokeshire—indeed, throughout Wales—were shocked when, on 7 December, the Minister announced that flight training would end at RAF Chivenor from 1 October this year. At the same time, he wrote to me saying that the transfer of Brawdy's Sea Kings would still go ahead in July this year. This time, however, he claimed that Chivenor had particular operational advantages. The House will remember that in October 1992 the Government had told us that the arguments were finely balanced and the key factor identified by the MOD was that RAF Chivenor had a future, but RAF Brawdy did not. We then learnt that RAF Brawdy had a future after all, because the Royal Welch Fusiliers were to be based there—and alternative uses are also being considered—while Chivenor has lost its future and is to be mothballed. The arguments advanced in October 1992 suddenly do not matter, and it is now argued that Chivenor has operational advantages.
Having studied the matter in great depth, I must say that that is clearly nonsensical, even from a military point of view. Training aircraft from RAF Valley will now fly across north Wales to mid-Wales to refuel at St. Athan before crossing south Wales to the Pembrey range in west Wales to train. So military flying will now be concentrated in Wales, as much of it is already—especially low flying—and there will be far less activity near Chivenor, which is presumably the justification that the MOD now seeks to advance for its decision.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces told me in a letter dated 6 December that there is no cost advantage in preferring Chivenor to Brawdy. I still await answers to questions about detailed costings, but it seems to me likely, now that Brawdy is to be used by the Army, that it would be more cost-effective to station search and rescue there. After all, it will have support services, whereas Chivenor will have been mothballed. I have been told that once RAF Chivenor has been mothballed, the cost of providing support services could total £937,000.
There is a basic incoherence in the MOD's actions. It said in the open government document that search and rescue flights
"are stationed around the coast of Great Britain to provide a rapid response in the busiest areas of military activity, but the deployments also take account of agreed criteria for civil coverage."
It is clear that that principle has not been adhered to in any meaningful sense in this case.
476
The relationship between civil and military search and rescue needs to be rethought anyway, because of the huge preponderance of civil incidents. Search and rescue is, in effect, a civil service and not a military one. The Department of Transport has nominal responsibility for ensuring an adequate level of civil coverage, but, in this case, it seems to have meekly accepted everything that the MOD has told it.
The MOD said that search and rescue should transfer to Chivenor because it had a more assured long-term future. Just 18 months later, it announced the closure of Chivenor. It has admitted that there is no financial advantage in preferring Chivenor to Brawdy but is pressing ahead with the transfer at a time when it is struggling to find cash for the front line.
What kind of policy making is that? It is irrational, inconsistent and deeply flawed. The result is that neither the military nor the civilian population will have the search-and-rescue cover that it needs, which could be provided at no extra cost simply by reversing this life-threatening decision. I urge the Minister, even at this late stage, to reconsider the distribution of search-andrescue bases, not to transfer search and rescue from Brawdy to Chivenor in July 1994 and to wait to make a final decision until at least 1996 when Valley is supposed to receive Sea Kings—it currently operates with Wessex.
I do not believe that I am scaremongering. I have talked to ferry companies, to lifeboat men, to the chief fire officer of Dyfed county council and off the record to coastguards. All of them said, with the former flight commander, that the decision will cost lives unnecessarily. I urge the Minister to think again.
7.6 pm
Mr. Douglas French: I should like to talk about support services, which, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said in his opening remarks, are subject to rationalisation proposals. I do so because of the proposal to run down and close RAF Quedgeley in my constituency—to close the repair function there by the end of March 1994, which is 10 weeks away, and to run down the stores and accommodation function by 1998 at the latest.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend emphasise, in his opening remarks and in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), that these are only proposals. I hope that they will remain no more than proposals until they have been given full and proper consideration, with full access given to everyone concerned to all the information on the basis of which the proposals have been made. I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish his eventual decision to command some respect. I do not think that he can expect it to command respect if he has not shown the workings of his arithmetic—the data that have led him to his decision. I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle on this, and urge my hon. Friend the Minister to give full access to all the reports and all the other information. It is vital that everyone should be able to see clearly how the decision is arrived at—the basis on which it is made.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces knows very well that the proposal for Quedgeley comes as a further serious blow to the economy of Gloucester. It comes on top of the decision to amalgamate the Glorious Gloucesters, which in itself was something of

477
an affront to a very fine regiment and certainly an affront to the city of Gloucester. The proposal also comes against the background of a large number of job losses in Gloucestershire resulting from the general wind-down in defence. One accepts that those factors apply across the country and, indeed, across Europe. None the less, they carry with them, on account of the job losses, serious human consequences which need to be taken into account.
The proposals for Quedgeley are as follows: the stores are to be centralised at Stafford and the repair work is to be taken over by eight regional contractors. Those regional contractors are already in place. It is on that specific point that I have to tell my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces that he is being less than fair to the work force at Quedgeley. I should like to explain why.
On the whole, the introduction of private sector disciplines into many areas of public life is desirable. In general, I am a strong supporter of privatisation. I see great merit in market testing and other ways in which private sector competition and competitive influences can be brought to bear on the public sector. However, a change from the public sector to the private sector often—indeed, in most cases—proceeds from a position of weakness. It proceeds because there is some defect in the service or product provided. The service or product may be poor, wrongly priced or badly delivered and the impact of competition is necessary to improve it. That principle simply does not apply in the case of RAF Quedgeley. Everyone knows—I think that it is beyond dispute—that the service and the products that have been provided by Quedgeley over the years have been first class. I am not aware that my hon. Friend the Minister disagrees with that point.
Often, an alternative reason for introducing some private sector disciplines is price. The services or products are not being offered at a competitive level and can be bettered elsewhere. Once again, price comparisons have almost always been to the advantage of RAF Quedgeley. They have shown that it is capable of producing what it has to deliver at an extremely competitive price compared with that of virtually any other source.
Another possibility—this applies particularly to market testing—is that the change from public to private sector is necessary to verify that the existing source of supply is satisfactory and cannot be bettered. That is the principle behind market testing. Yet there is not much point in engaging in market testing unless one intends to take notice of the results that the market tests produce.
All the characteristics that I have described have been conspicuously absent in the case of RAF Quedgeley. That is what makes my hon. Friend the Minister's decision and the way in which he appears to be arriving at it look extremely unfair. If RAF Quedgeley's activities are to be brought to an end, it would be possible to do it fairly and so that everyone could see precisely why the decision had been reached. Instead, it seems that the decision will be coming very soon and we have not heard the rationale behind it. We are not being given the full explanation on why it has been reached.
No proper comparisons have been made between bids from the private sector for repair work and those which could have been made by RAF Quedgeley. RAF Quedgeley has not been given an opportunity to be
478
considered as a regional centre. When the eight regional centres were set up, RAF Quedgeley was not even invited to say what it could do. The preconception seemed to be directly in favour of the private sector. If, as I understand it, the aim is to use competition in the private sector to achieve the best possible value for the taxpayer, it is hard to see why RAF Quedgeley should be excluded from the procedures.
Where is the common sense in introducing competitive bidding if the Government deliberately exclude one possible bidder which, on the basis of long experience, could be expected to put in a good bid? Where is the common sense if one decides, for what appear to be doctrinal reasons, that a potential bidder should be excluded from the entire process?
I have had several meetings with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. I am grateful to him for the time that he has given me, for answering the many letters that I have written, answering the many questions that I have asked and seeing a delegation from RAF Quedgeley only this week. I am also grateful to him for the undertaking that he gave that representatives from the Ministry of Defence will visit RAF Quedgeley during February to give some further explanation of the rationale behind their proposals.
I remind my hon. Friend the Minister of the history of RAF Quedgeley in winning bids against competition when it has been invited to bid, in delivering its services on time and in providing quality service and reliability, and doing it all against a background of loyalty to the RAF and the rest of our forces that it is there to support. On that basis, I find it extremely difficult to see the good sense, or any sense, in excluding RAF Quedgeley as a potential supplier and placing faith in untried and untested sources to deliver what will need to be a continuous and reliable service.
I place emphasis on the word "continuous". When bids have been invited, it has so often been seen that a private sector source comes in with a competitively priced bid and promises a great deal, but in the event the delivery is not up to the promise or expectation. When one is dealing with the supply of resources and services to the Army, Air Force and Navy, it is essential that there is continuity and reliability of supply. It must be sustained.
I cannot help being driven to the conclusion that it is the intention of the Ministry of Defence to withdraw from such activities completely. It proposes to end the repair function, then end the stores function at Quedgeley, end the stores function at Carlisle and centralise at Stafford. I cannot help feeling that if the principle of bringing in the private sector is adhered to and carried to its logical conclusion, in time the service at Stafford will be terminated as well. That cannot be in the best interests of our armed forces. The Ministry of Defence appears to believe that it is possible to turn its supply of services and products on and off just as it wants to. That is perfectly reasonable so long as it appreciates that, while the Ministry of Defence can turn its requests for supply off and on just when it wants to, so the private sector can also turn on and off its willingness and capacity to supply just when it wishes to do so.
When the MOD examines the principal functions of Quedgeley, it may think that there is overcapacity in the furniture repair and stores sector. The Ministry of Defence may think that there are many opportunities to obtain competitive bids from the private sector for that function.

479
It should not overlook the fact that the prevailing economic circumstances in that sector will not necessarily last for ever.
It may find that the private sector is not as reliable a supplier as, in the short term, it appears to be. No doubt it will say that a private sector supplier is bound by a contract. The purpose of a contract is to preserve a purchaser's rights if something goes wrong. Of course, it provides safeguards for the supplier too, but it is the purchaser's rights about which the Ministry of Defence is concerned.
The existence of such a contract presupposes that, without it, supply might be interrupted at some stage. The truth is that, even with a contract, supply can be interrupted. Indeed, it is almost impossible to expect every private sector supplier invited to provide goods or services to the forces to perform without mishap.
It seems to me that the Ministry seeks to exchange a proven, reliable, competitive and loyal source of supply for one that may well be unproven, will not necessarily be reliable and will certainly be capable of becoming uncompetitive. When one is dealing with the vital function of providing supplies to our services, that risk should not be taken.
At one of our meetings, my hon. Friend the Minister advised me that immediate savings could be derived by running down RAF Quedgeley. He has yet to furnish me with the financial facts, although I am grateful for his undertaking that he will do so to the greatest possible extent without divulging secret information. I hope that information will be provided in such a way that everyone can see how he has arrived at his decisions.
I am grateful for the confirmation by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces that his arithmetic is based on an examination of the trading position, that he sees as a case for taking this action on grounds other than the results of an assessment of potential asset realisation at Quedgeley. Locally, there is a very strong feeling that the question of selling the land occupied by RAF Quedgeley has entered into the calculations. My hon. Friend has assured me that that is not correct—that, on the basis of trading criteria alone, the figures are compelling. I accept what he has said, but I should be very surprised if, at some stage of the calculations, an eye were not focused on what is perceived to be asset realisation potential.
I have asked my hon. Friend previously, and I now ask him again, to recognise that there are insuperable difficulties in the way of any development of the land at Quedgeley. He has only to get his professional advisers to consult Gloucester city council and Stroud district council to realise what great obstacles lie in the way of further development in that area. Indeed, he does not have to go that far—he could simply visit Quedgeley himself and speak to some of the residents. I hope, therefore, that that factor does not in any way enter into his calculations.
My hon. Friend has said that all these developments are the result of a general running down in defence capability. He points to "Options for Change" and to the draw-down from Germany. It is very clear that, for reasons my hon. Friend explained in a recent letter to me, the Ministry of Defence wants to get out of such activities as furniture repairing. My hon. Friend's letter says that furniture repair is
"demonstrably a task which need not be carried out on MOD premises."
480
I do not dispute that that activity might have to be run down if all the information available to my hon. Friend points inexorably in that direction. However, in respect of the storage and accommodation functions fulfilled by Quedgeley, there is still time between 1994 and 1998. The Ministry must, at all costs, avoid a situation in which Quedgeley loses the role that it is supposed to play and becomes totally unviable long before 1998. That, in itself, could be used as a reason for not reconsidering the decision. Nobody wants Quedgeley to become a sort of ghost station.
It seems to me that if work has to be phased out, it would be reasonable for a certain amount—enough to keep the base viable—to be sustained for the next four years. That would enable Quedgeley not only to supply the RAF but to build up an alternative customer base—if necessary, outside the armed forces. If it were to demonstrate that it was viable, and I believe that it would, there would be an opportunity to pursue one of the other possibilities, which, at the moment, is regarded as being only theoretical. I refer to privatisation. If that route were followed, RAF Quedgeley could become a going concern with a multiplicity of customers.
It seems to me that another alternative to closing the station is to explore the possibility of a management buy-out. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, in one of his letters, does not rule out that possibility. He is prepared to be amenable to suggestions. I see no reason why RAF Quedgeley, even if one were to go for privatisation or for a management buy-out, and working on the assumption that it will be there for four years—I hope that it will be longer—should not, in the interim, be permitted to bid for current and future private sector work. I cannot understand any objection to that course. Such an approach would certainly cushion the immediate impact of job losses. It would also make a good deal of financial sense and would reward loyalty.
I should like, in conclusion, to turn to a matter that is primarily the concern of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who will reply to the debate. I refer to Dowty Aerospace, where many of my constituents work. Dowty has a major interest in the new C130J Hercules programme. That aircraft is being offered by Dowty and 17 other British companies to meet the RAF's requirement for a replacement for half its existing fleet of C130K Hercules transporters. Dowty will provide the six-bladed propeller system for the C130J Hercules, and, in doing so, will displace the American manufacturer Hamilton Standard, which has been supplying propellers for Hercules aircraft for 40 years.
The C130J programme, if selected in preference to the refurbishment option for the first tranche of the Hercules rolling replacement programme, will create many new high-technology jobs in Gloucestershire and will bring a significant boost to the area's economy within a very short time.
An early decision to replace the first half of the RAF's present C130K Hercules fleet would allow Dowty to capitalise on the 25 years' research and development that went into the development of the C130J all-composite propeller. It would also mean that Dowty would become the world's leading manufacturer of composite propellers within the next five years.
I agree with the MOD officials who gave evidence to the Select Committee on Defence in December that the RAF's

481
transport fleet needs urgent attention to ensure that it can continue to carry out its current humanitarian and operational tasks. I therefore urge my hon. Friend to take a decision on the Hercules replacement as soon as he reasonably can.
7.29 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: I hope that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) will not think me discourteous, but as I listened to the first part of his speech I was tempted to intervene to say that many Conservative Members always seem to express enthusiastic support, in principle, for market testing until it reaches their constituencies. The hon. Gentleman, however, then went on to make a powerful argument, and he was perfectly right to serve his constituency interests with regard to RAF Quedgeley and the purchase of propellers for the replacement Hercules.
I should have liked to have followed the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I have known him a long time, but I did not realise that he was about to surrender his reserve commission for a pensioner's bus pass. I did not realise that he had reached that age, but I hope that he has received great gratitude for the long service that he has given. I endorse his call for some consideration to be given to the air cadets.
Over the past two years, we have become somewhat reassured about the future of the European fighter aircraft. It now also seems possible that a new type of Hercules and new helicopters will be purchased, so, today, there may be more cause to concentrate on personnel matters rather than procurement.
I would be discourteous to the House if I spoke at length, because I have informed my hon. Friends and the Minister that I must leave before the debate is concluded to attend the cremation, early tomorrow morning, of our former colleague, Jimmy Boyce, in south Yorkshire. I felt that I should keep to my wish to speak in the debate, but I will not trespass unduly on the time available.
Manufacturers are keen on the RAF purchasing the C130J, not because it would purchase such a large number, but because they recognise that the RAF commands enormous international prestige. If they can show that the RAF is buying that aircraft, they are likely to receive many other orders. Those potential orders are important, because, as the hon. Member for Gloucester said, a substantial number of British manufacturers would get orders. One sixth of the value of several hundred aircraft is rather more valuable than finding the cost to buy only 30.
The need for the Hercules replacement is essential and acute. I was not being entirely frivolous when I suggested earlier that, if the Government do not place such an order, Ministers should experience the dramatic landings at Sarajevo, because sometimes they are rather frightening to those in the aircraft.
The Minister has heard me talk on many occasions about the ageing Wessex helicopter, which entered squadron service in 1964. I trust that its replacement will not be too long delayed and I hope that it will have heavy-lift capacity. The development of the Air Mobile Brigade at former RAF station Wattisham suggests that heavier lift capacity should be more readily available.
482
In an intervention, I referred to the number of former RAF stations that had been taken over by the Army. The Air Force is skilled at operating a dual-use station, but the Army never seems to think about carrying out two functions at one station. The RAF has learnt prudence, economy, thrift and management more thoroughly than the Army, but unfortunately it may bear extra burdens because it has demonstrated those skills.
I listened intently when the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said that he had visited south Yorkshire today. I like Ministers to visit only if they come to assist us to deal with our economic problems. I look forward to learning why the Minister visited the region this morning.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement will be aware that RAF Finningley is in south Yorkshire. It is an important base and a number of my constituents and people within the Rotherham area work there, although it is near Doncaster. Navigators and other non-pilot aircrew are trained at Finningley. I learned the other day that the new Hercules C130J, with its splendid cockpit, will have a reduced aircrew of just two pilots. Since Finningley does not train pilots, that announcement made me a little anxious. I made a number of inquiries, and one or two hon. Members who are present now were also present when I made them.
The new Hercules will have significant defence systems. When it is being flown in a war zone, however, in an area of great danger, the two pilots may be hard pressed flying it. There would be a need for a back-seat weapons systems navigator. I hope that the Government are not looking at the new Hercules as a way of getting rid of back-seat non-pilot aircrew, because they could be usefully employed in a war zone flight. RAF Finningley would feel no sense of embarrassment in training those people because there must be a role for non-pilot aircrew for a long time to come. I hope that the Minister will not suggest that we do not need such aircrew, because a long time ago someone suggested that it would soon be possible to manage without pilots. That was a terrible mistake as well.
Finningley is important to us. I hope that the station commander, Group Captain Wilby, will not mind if I suggest that the Minister should acquaint himself with the station. He would find out that it holds wonderful air displays every September—they are the best attended air displays in the country. People visit the station and it does enormous good for the charitable cause that it supports.
The RAF does not exist, however, to serve charitable causes. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Sir H. Walker) said, it exists to defend the realm. I note that the hon. Member for Tayside, North is in his place again. I hope that I was not uncomplimentary to him in his absence. I agree with him that we need to maintain the capacity to defend the realm in an uncertain world.
In addition to all the other dangers in the world caused by rapidly changing circumstances, an appalling conflict is being waged in Europe. We must also deal with the emergence of a raving lunatic in the Moscow Parliament. I therefore hope that the Government will exercise prudence and that those cuts which impinge more severely on the Air Force than on other services will be considered carefully.
I have seen some dreadful newspaper reports, which are not responded to as quickly as they should be. One suggested that the Red Arrows team was being disbanded. That team gives delight to many people at air displays. Surely the Minister recognises that one of the most

483
successful commercial ventures in British aviation history is the Hawk. It has been sold in large numbers and I certainly believe that, whenever there is a chance of an order and the Red Arrows fly, they help to get it. The Hawk has provided thousands of jobs to the aerospace industry.
The Red Arrows team is an extremely economic formation. It employs no more than 80 people in its unit based at Scampton. That tiny team of people gives us an important commercial advantage. As it helps to create thousands of aerospace jobs, it is an economic exercise, and the pilots and ground staff have to be employed anyway. In addition, the team maintains Britain's reputation of having the highest quality, if not necessarily the largest, air force in western Europe. The Red Arrows is the world's premier display team, and it would be an appalling false economy if it were scrapped with the imprudence that some of us suspect sometimes applies.
Some changes are inevitable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central spoke about the jet engine. Whittle, who invented the jet engine, was an ex-Halton apprentice and was trained in the division established by Lord Trenchard to train bright boys in the advanced technology of the time. The boys who became Trenc:hard's Halton brats would today go to university. It is a different and changing world and we cannot ignore such change.
I fear that there will be unwelcome changes in technical training. I repeat that if the service contracts out some of its technological roles in the maintenance of aircraft and avionics, and the contractor comes to depend on those who have left the service and does not invest in training, there will be a problem. If the RAF bows out of technical training, the country will suffer because over the years the Air Force has trained technicians not only for itself but for high-tech industries. That is because when such people leave the service they work for those industries and help them to survive. It would be dangerous to depend upon short-sighted contracts and careless provision.
Mr. Ainger: Is my hon. Friend aware that civil aviation, and especially its repair and maintenance element, totally depends upon RAF-trained personnel? A relative of mine has transferred from the RAF to work for British Airways on maintaining its 747s. If technical maintenance in the RAF were to be reduced, it would have a significant knock-on effect for civil aviation.
Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The effect that he mentions could lead to problems in maintaining the growth of aviation.
In the national interest, the Minister must look searchingly at any proposed cuts in the training of high-tech RAF personnel. I am not referring to functions such as catering or to many of the jobs that are carried out by civilians in places such as Finningley. The Royal Air Force must have adequate capacity to train the people that it needs to carry out its roles, and it would be most unwise to depend upon contractors who may not train people.
I said that I would deal merely with personnel because much time has already been spent on procurement. Many of those who watch old films seem to imagine that RAF aircrew are all about 20 years old, as they were in the second world war when people were not allowed to fly combat aircraft at ages that would make them relatively junior in today's squadrons. The people who fly the Tornado, the Jaguar and the Hercules aircraft are often in their 30s or 40s and are family men.
484
The Minister has said that there is a period of 19 months between overseas postings. I know RAF people who have had two or three such postings in the past 19 months, and such frequency creates problems. The men will not complain, at least not directly or loudly because they enjoy their job and its challenge and recognise its necessity. But their wives complain, and their children wonder where their father is. A wife has no idea where her husband will be in three, six or 12 months, but she knows that in three months he will not be where he is now. She also knows that he will be somewhere else three months after that, and that such change will continue. That should make us appreciate the strain that is imposed as the Air Force contracts and Government commitments and obligations continue.
Since the contraction began, the Air Force has been dispersed to more places. There was no conflict in Yugoslavia, no aircraft in Turkey and no combat aircraft in the Gulf when the cuts began. All these burdens have been imposed on the backs of a smaller number of people. They will stay in the service, perhaps because at the moment there are not many alternatives in some trades. I worry about what will happen after the next election when we secure the recovery that we are confident of achieving. A longer view must be taken, and it is not being taken now. It is time that it was. I trust that the Minister will recognise that over the past three years excessive and unaccustomed burdens have been unnecessarily placed on people who deserve a little more consideration than they have had.
7.45 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I declare an interest because I give political advice to Thorn-EMI Electronics in the defence field, and that is relevant to the debate.
One of the pleasures of being called in the latter part of a debate is that one has heard so many good speeches from colleagues that it is possible to make a somewhat shorter contribution than would otherwise be the case.
Labour's Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), understandably defended the constituency interests represented by RAF Carlisle and made two other significant observations. First, he alleged that he had seen a poll which showed that the general public had greater faith in the Labour party for assuring the defence of the realm than they had in the Conservative party. I should not be surprised if the poll is accurate, because, for a long time, many of us have argued that the Conservative party is in danger of losing its traditional constituency, which contains those who have served in the armed forces, are currently serving in them, or who work for the defence industries.
Of course, we believe that this loss of support is a misapprehension on their part, that they misinterpret the policy we are pursuing and do not fully understand the size and effect of the reductions that could be imposed by a socialist Administration or a Lib-Lab Government. Nevertheless, it is a significant erosion of support and we should take note of it. If we do not, it will have serious electoral consequences.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Carlisle spoke about the speech by Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon. It was interesting to note the clear sensitivity in certain quarters about what he was saying. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) well

485
understood—because both were present—Air Chief Marshal Graydon was explaining that it did nobody an good to make facile comparisons between the Israeli air force and the Royal Air Force in view of the worldwide role and varied responsibilities of the RAF compared with the purely regional responsibilities of the Israeli air force. None the less, there is great merit in the Israeli pattern of operation which we should comprehend and act upon at a time of budgetary stringency.
I would urge Her Majesty's Ministers to use the opportunity of a review fundamentally to examine the Air Force which we wish to create for the rest of the decade and into the next century. Of course, the review has already been burdened with a slogan. It is a basic tenet of our political understanding in the Conservative party that slogans have their dangers. I suspect that, "Front line first" will prove yet another dangerous slogan.
If we try to think clearly of the qualities that we are seeking in our Air Force for the next 10 to 15 years, those thoughts may guide us towards the strategic decisions, procurement choices and personnel policies that will be wise and stand the test of time.
Of course, for the United Kingdom, with its geographic position somewhat to the rear of continental Europe, on the flank of the alliance, with security interests in the northern region, the Baltic approaches and the central region of NATO as well as the eastern Atlantic and the territorial seas around the British Isles, air power will aways be a crucial determinant of our security and of our national defence.
As we still have some global responsibilities, and as we take seriously our responsibilities for peacekeeping under the aegis of the United Nations, the qualities of fire power, mobility and flexibility and, I hope, of sustainability and the ability to support operations over a long time, in a well-established, well-trained and well-equipped Air Force will be indispensable for the defence of these islands.
The air defence of the United Kingdom has been run down. From April, when the No. 23 Squadron of F3 Tornados at Leeming is disbanded, we will be down to six air defence squadrons. This is the absolute minimum and probably too few. We have already decided not to replace the medium-range surface-to-air missile, the Bloodhound, which leaves a glaring deficiency in our air defences.
Another potential deficiency looming is the need for an effective theatre ballistic missile defence. Hon. Members will have noticed from the press that the United States Administration is dispatching Patriot missiles for the defence of South Korea.
Given the proliferation of nuclear missiles and nuclear technology and the ease with which dictators such as Saddam Hussein acquired launch vehicles and Scud ballistic missiles, it is surely prudent for the United Kingdom to work towards an anti-ballistic-missile system now.
Furthermore, as a maritime member of the European component of NATO, we need to take seriously the security of the sea lanes across the north Atlantic as a continued national interest. We all know that the Red Fleet is not the power that it was; nevertheless, the Russians are still building modern submarines and we do not know the direction in which Russian policy will evolve.
486
As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tayside, North reminded us so eloquently, we have good grounds to be apprehensive not just through the emergence of the liberal democratic party in Russia today with its nationalistic tendencies, but because of the speeches that are made there, asserting a right to continue suzerainty over the independent sovereign countries, many of them democratic, within what used to be the USSR.
I hope that we will soon address the need to acquire a modern, maritime reconnaissance aeroplane to replace the existing Nimrods in service, or at least to overhaul and refurbish them.
The Royal Air Force will also need to be able to project power and to intervene rapidly, either within continental Europe and the NATO theatre, or under the United Nations or WEU control outside it; or even, if we are to believe the decision of the recent NATO summit, as part of a NATO joint task force operating out of area.
We need a modern transport force and, as many hon. Members have wisely advised the Government, the first tranche of the existing Hercules fleet needs to be replaced now. The replacement already exists. It does not have to be funded by the Government and no RAF development money needs to be invested in it. No fewer than 18 British companies in the C130J programme invested their own shareholders' money in it and consequently stand to benefit not only from the launch of the aircraft by the Royal Air Force, but from third country sales of which we can expect several hundred.
The aeroplane will be more capable, its payload range will be better, its manpower per flying hour will be reduced, and it will be a more economic aeroplane. As some have suggested, refurbishment is no sensible solution.
Likewise, when we consider the need to project power, I remind the Government that it is all very well having modern platforms, and we hope that the European fighter aircraft 2000 will be a success, but we need also modern weapons to go with high performance aircraft.
I ask the Government for an assurance that air staff requirement 1236 for a long-range conventional stand-off weapon will be met soon, as will air staff requirement 1238 for an air-launched intelligent anti-armour weapon in view of the cancellation of multiple-launch rocket system 3, and air staff requirement 1242 for a laser-guided bomb, be it either Paveway 3 or the Lancelot programme.
We are seeking to save money and it is our duty to make sure that the Royal Air Force is not only operationally capable, but an economic force. In that context, I would support remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) who urged the Government to look again at Royal Air Force Germany. If the Russians withdraw by the end of August this year from the eastern part of Germany, we should withdraw from the western part of Germany.
No fewer than 19,000 German civilians work for either the Royal Air Force in Germany or the Army. I would much rather see those German-based squadrons at stations such as Brawdy or Chivenor, which traditionally have been homes to Royal Air Force flying units and have local communities that support the Royal Air Force, than that they be stationed in Germany as an anachronism, a left-over from the cold war.
On the subject of value for money, reverting to the theme of the Israeli air force and the United States air national guard briefly mentioned earlier in the debate, we

487
now have a concept of a sponsored reserve, whereby personnel in firms who work for the Ministry of Defence will have a reserve commitment.
I believe that there is an opportunity to deploy formed units as Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons as part of that sponsored reserve. I shall give some examples. The first is heavy lift cargo airlines which are regularly chartered by the RAF to carry ultraheavy loads—big and bulky cargoes that cannot be lifted by the Hercules. Secondly, if it were decided by Dr. Perry's inquiry that 32 Squadron in my constituency, at RAF Northolt, should be contractorised—heaven forbid—I would urge that it become an auxiliary squadron, the County of Middlesex squadron.
Thirdly, we were told that there would be an electronic warfare and related facilities unit at Middleton St. George-Teesside airport. That, too, could be an auxiliary squadron—perhaps the County of Durham squadron—if Sir John Banham's inquiry would allow it—or the North Riding squadron reformed. There is also the work that is done by pilots who fly training missions to train air traffic controllers at Shawbury. That could be an auxiliary squadron. If we carry the concept further, so could the target towers from RAF Wyton or the pilots from the navigation school at RAF Finningley. There are a number of possibilities along those lines.
We should not forget the Queen's flight. I would not dream, and it would be beyond my remit, to suggest that the captain of the Queen's flight should be anything other than an air officer. The deputy captain, too, should be an officer of great seniority. That should still be the case. Nevertheless, the role of the Queen's flight could be combined with that of 32 Squadron at RAF Northolt. I believe that that would make good sense. What is more, one could reasonably bring the Central Flying School to RAF Cranwell. Barkston Heath has spare capacity. We have already the College of Air Warfare at RAF college, Cranwell. I do not think that my idea would be impossible.
In short, I urgently hope that Her Majesty's Government will not use the opportunity of the review to put in place short-term Treasury-led solutions, because urgent equipment modernisations are required and important changes in personnel policy could be adopted, such as a better and wiser use of reserves. If Her Majesty's Government pursue such a forward-looking policy, they will, as ever, have my full support.
8.2 pm
Mr. Keith Mans: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. I hold a commission in the RAF Reserve as a pilot; I shall say something later about the reserve forces. I am also a member of the council of the Air League and am rather delighted that the league has been given so much publicity tonight, and as a result of the air chief marshal's speech some time ago. I assure the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) that, if he ever requires a copy of a future speech made at the Air League, which is open to many people who want to come and listen, he has only to ask me and I shall use my best endeavours to ensure that he receives one.
Mr. Martlew: As the Secretary of State for Defence has refused to give us a copy, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will give me a copy of the air marshal's speech.
Mr. Mans: I shall certainly use my best endeavours to do precisely that.
488
I shall now say a few words about the speeches made by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I agree with much of what they, and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), said. I disagree with them on one point, and shall deal with it later. Before I do, I shall make some general observations.
There is no doubt that, with the cold war now over, there was a realisation within the armed services that changes and reductions were inevitable. In the RAF, "Options for Change" was accepted, albeit reluctantly, and personnel generally looked forward to a smaller but better-equipped service once the changes had taken place. Most of all, there was a feeling within the Royal Air Force, perhaps not matched to the same degree in the Army and Navy, that people should get on with the changes as quickly as possible and, having made them, move to greater stability thereafter.
Three years on, things are rather different. Many within the RAF wonder when the disruption will end. The two further reductions in the projected strength of the RAF since the "Options for Change" initiative will mean that the RAF's strike attack and air defence capability will have been reduced by 40 per cent. What has not changed since "Options for Change" are the tasks that the RAF is asked to carry out. Indeed, there is an argument to suggest that they have increased of late. That point was made by a number of Opposition Members and by some of my hon. Friends. In that context, it is worth bearing in mind also the recently published budget of the French defence ministry, which, compared with last year, shows an increase in defence expenditure.
Comparisons are often made between this country's defence requirements and those of France. That should be a clear signal of how the French are seeing the increasingly unstable world in which we live. That should be a clear signal to our Ministry of Defence to look closely at what the French think the threat is in future. It may seem strange that I, or indeed any Conservative Member, should argue in favour of stability. We live in a changing world. If Lady Thatcher achieved nothing else—I believe that she achieved a great deal—she shook this country out of its complacency and made many people understand that, if we are to survive, let alone prosper, in an ever-competitive world, we must accept change and readily throw off old ways and become increasingly adaptable.
The real question is, does that philosophy read across to the armed services? My answer to that question is a mixed one. I sincerely believe that a fairly radical shake-up of the organisation of the armed services is needed. I have said as much many times in the House. I also feel that the climate for such a shake-up was probably better during "Options for Change" than it is now. None the less, I will mention later what I think can be done in the present review "Front Line First". However, alongside that review, I believe that a good case can be made for eventual stability within our armed forces that cannot be made to the same extent outside them.
The case for more stability and more certainty runs something like this. We require our armed service men to be available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. We expect them to react immediately to go virtually anywhere in the world. We expect them to leave their families behind at a moment's notice and, on arrival at their destination, we expect them to be ready quickly for combat. Those

489
expectations, which have in the past been realised, are well illustrated by the way in which our armed forces arrived in Bosnia and how they have performed since.
In the slightly more distant past, within 24 hours of the first Tornado squadron arriving in the Gulf, it was ready for combat. The Foreign Secretary made that point in a different way. He calls our armed services a very important asset which allowed us to punch above our weight in foreign and security matters. Alongside that, I believe that if we are to expect our armed forces to do all that, we should not inflict on them the added burden of not knowing whether they have a job next year, or at least not to have that burden indefinitely.
For example, there were reports of people out on patrol in Bosnia wondering whether they were to be made redundant. Many of those reports were probably exaggerated, but I strongly believe that it is difficult to conceive of pilots and navigators, flying front-line aircraft in a near-combat situation, as is the case in the Gulf at the present time with Tornados flying armed reconnaissance missions over Iran, being able to do their jobs properly if they are wondering all the time whether their squadron will exist in a few months' time. There is a trade-off between stability and the effectiveness of our armed services.
As I have said, change which ultimately results in greater stability is acceptable. Change which appears to be without end is not. Unless we as politicians are prepared to accept a reduction in the overall effectiveness of our armed forces, and through it a reduction in their value for money, we need to understand that significant difference between military and other types of activities within our society.
Much of what I have said could be applied to all three services, but it particularly applies to the RAF, which got on with "Options for Change" as quickly as possible and now very much finds itself in the front line for further cuts.
Before Opposition parties take any encouragement from what I have said, I should add that the confidence of the armed services in the Government, despite the one poll, the origin of which has not been divulged by the hon. Member for Carlisle, remains considerably higher than I can remember it during the previous Labour Government when I was a member of the regular RAF in the mid-1970s. I strongly believe that before the Opposition can draw any advantage from the debate they will have to say much more clearly which commitments, if any, they would get rid of and what size and shape our armed forces would be if they were in power.
The Government are on target to cut expenditure on the armed forces by 25 per cent. in real terms by 1996, but the view—I would argue the realistic view—within the armed services is that the Liberal Democrats and Labour party would cut much further. That lack of certainty in those parties' defence policies means that part of the services' apprehension about continual change applies to them as well.
Bearing in mind what I have said, if we are to provide the sort of armed services in the future that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has mentioned, we need to do three things. First, I support "Front Line First", but it needs to look at the organisation of the armed forces as well as how the existing one can be made to operate more cheaply. I offer a few suggestions.
490
For example, do we really need 10 levels of management within the RAF when we now have, or soon will have, only 70,000 personnel? Those levels of management might have applied when the force was five times the size that it is now, but they seem unduly bureaucratic at the moment. Could we not, to start off with, abolish the rank of air commodore tomorrow for future promotions and do as the Navy does and promote the best group captains straight to air vice marshal?
Do we really need such a large procurement executive when the front line has shrunk as fast as it has? Most of the front-line experience in the Tornado strike attack force is in one, or at the most two, RAF stations. Therefore, could not we speed up the way in which decisions are made about new equipment by asking the relatively few front-line squadron commanders we have left what they need to do the job properly rather than, as happens at present, have many of their wishes modified and delayed by the procurement process and, I submit, made more expensive as well?
Could not we go further in terms of testing and evaluating aircraft? For example, is it necessary to have separate test facilities within the RAF, in places such as Boscombe Down, which in many ways replicate what is done at Warton and, in the case of the Tornado, at Manching in Germany? Should not we try to move industry and the RAF closer together to save money without reducing the effectiveness of our front-line forces in any way?
Is not it expensive to have separate training machines and career profiles for helicopter aircrew and ground crew depending on which service they happen to join? In many cases, they are operating the same helicopters. Surely we should pool at least the training part of that increasingly important military activity.
Finally, a point touched on by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, should not we take a close look at our real estate requirements? I fully take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood about the importance of having a number of runways around the country so that we can disperse our forces and re-arm easily if we need to do so. None the less, there is a lot of real estate which could be disposed of with little, if any, disadvantage to the operational effectiveness of, particularly, the RAF.
Alongside those ideas and others that should be looked at in "Front Line First", the Government need to reiterate their commitment to provide the RAF with better equipment. Eurofighter should fly for the first time in the next two or three months. In answer to a point made by the hon. Member for Carlisle, who tried to suggest that that prototype aircraft was way behind schedule, I would only suggest that he look closely at the way in which other aircraft programmes that preceded Eurofighter have progressed. In virtually every case, there has been a much longer delay than has occurred with the Eurofighter 2000.
Mr. Martlew: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but does he accept that there is a two-year delay in having the maiden flight?
Mr. Mans: In the 1950s and 1960s, maiden flights were important because there was little computer simulation and little opportunity to test the systems in an aircraft before it flew for the first time. The significance of a new aircraft's first flight today is much less than it was 10 or 20 years ago.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as with all aircraft where one flies by wire and is defended on computers—as is the case now, unlike with the previous generation of aircraft—it is important at the simulator stage to find out what could and might go wrong? No one gets any satisfaction from the fact that two other aircraft of this generation have crashed, the F22 and the Gripen, and that could well be because sufficient time was not spent in the simulator.
Mr. Mans: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is significant that one of the main reasons for the present delay is the software and the flight control system. All separate systems within that aircraft are being tested on the ground to see how they relate one to the other. That was not done with the F22 and the Gripen, with the result that my hon. Friend described.
Going on from there, I hope that the RAF will soon confirm its order for 250 Eurofighters and seriously consider increasing it beyond that so that it can replace some other types of aircraft, such as the Harrier. I am interested in what the hon. Member for Carlisle said in relation to the Eurofighter. Halfway through his speech, he made some interesting points about the imbalance between the north and the south as regards stations. He tried to give the House the impression that undue weight was given to keeping station in the south open while shutting those in the north. If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he should think carefully about what he said about whether we need 250 Eurofighters. If the Labour party is committing itself to a reduced buy, that will mean a reduced number of jobs in the north of England.
Mr. MartlewThe hon. Gentleman distorts what I said. I said that, given Government cuts, there is grave concern in the industry about whether the Government will stick to their commitment to 250.
Mr. Mans: I withdraw at least part of what I said if the hon. Gentleman supports the idea of buying 250 aircraft. I consider that to be the minimum number that will be required to fulfil the roles for which the model was designed.
Much has been said about the replacement for the Hercules. I wonder why that is. It may be because Lockheed has managed to tie a good many British companies into the development of the aircraft. I do not deny that the decision is important, but I think that we should take a close look at what Lockheed is saying. It says that there is a market for 400 aircraft, and the RAF wants only 30. It also appears to be saying that the British companies involved in the project will be involved regardless of whether the RAF buys the 30 aircraft. The total value of that RAF order to British companies is £100 million. I think that we should examine the reasons why Lockheed is pushing this aircraft so hard.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assess the options very carefully. Option one is to buy 30 C130Js now; option two is to refurbish the existing fleet of aircraft, enabling them to last as long as a new buy of Hercules aircraft; option three is to carry out a much-reduced refurbishment, which would allow a decision to replace the aircraft at a rather later date. The replacement might well turn out to be the C130J.
The last option would also allow the RAF and the Ministry of Defence to consider alternatives, bearing in mind an answer given on 16 December by my hon. Friend
492
the Minister of State for the Armed Services. He suggested then that the majority of the Hercules fleet was capable of lasting until the year 2007. I do not believe that the decision to buy the C130J need be taken immediately. I believe that the decision should be made at the beginning of next year, when we shall have a much clearer idea of the options following the FLA feasibility study.
At present, it appears that—without that information—we are to commit the RAF to buying an aircraft with a 1950s airframe. More important, for the next 30 or 40 years it will not be possible to take a significant amount of the equipment that the RAF has at present—for instance, the Warrior and Saxon armoured vehicles, multiple-role rocket launchers and, indeed, the complete attack helicopter. We should not be tempted to believe that the C130J is the only aircraft that meets the needs of the RAF, in terms of either cost or capability. In about 12 months' time, we shall be in a much better position to take an informed view. In that connection, I disagree to some extent with what others have said.
I think that we should make a more rapid decision about signing a contract for the EH101 helicopter, whose development stage seems to have been rather long. It is high time that we made up our minds to buy it, now that we have been offered a price that we can afford. I also think that, as well as making radical organisational changes and acquiring better equipment, we should introduce more stability in the RAF. We cannot expect officers and airmen to maintain their current level of commitment if we do not give them that increased stability at some point in the future.
As has been mentioned, an element of the changes introduced by the Ministry of Defence is the probability, or at least the possibility, that the Carlisle supply unit will close. As a north-west Member, I regret that. I understand the need for rationalisation, but I hope that hon. Members other than the hon. Member for Carlisle will recognise the pressure put on the MOD by my hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). Along with the hon. Member for Carlisle, they have engaged in consultations with the MOD about the best method of redeployment and about the possibility of using Konver funds from the European Community. I am sure that my hon. Friends would echo what I have said if they were present.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North, I want to make a special plea for the air cadet organisation in connection with the coming review. Although it cannot be described as a front-line organisation, I believe that—as well as serving as a recruiting ground for RAF officers and airmen—it provides a practical and worthwhile pursuit for many young men and women. It teaches them values and consideration for others which will benefit them greatly throughout their lives. If we are to tackle the problems of teenage crime, we should consider the three cadet movements.
Many hon. Members will know of the recent controversy surrounding a teenage criminal in the care of Gloucestershire county council. First, he was sent to an outward bound centre in north Wales; he was then sent on an adventure holiday abroad. The cost amounted to some £2,000 a week. The stated aim was to discourage the teenager from repeating his criminal activities.
What fascinated me were the pursuits in which that young person was asked to engage, to build up his character and develop his self-reliance. To me, they

493
seemed remarkably similar to the pursuits engaged in by many young people who join the cadet forces. Surely many youngsters could be given the opportunity of joining the cadet forces—and, indeed, other youth organisations—to engage in activities that might well discourage them from going down the wrong road and indulging in anti-social behaviour. The cost need be no more than the cost of sending that teenager on holiday—which, as far as we know, did not prove successful. Prevention is better than cure: we should consider the social role of the cadet forces as well as their recruiting role.
Recently, we have heard much talk of traditional values and the moral aspects of society. I have no wish to be drawn into that debate in any detail. Let me say, however, that many people associate "back to basics", or whatever we may choose to call it, not only with better education and more emphasis on law and order but with strong defences. They believe that we should put national security before social security—I think that that has already been mentioned in the debate.
I hold the rather old-fashioned view that service men, both in and out of uniform, are a stabilising force in society. Whether or not we consider military discipline a good thing, it is widely thought to give those who experience it a sense of right and wrong. Service life also provides a sense of community, combined with an above-average ability to organise. The hon. Member for Wentworth spoke of the training carried out in the RAF and other armed forces. Such skills and values should not be underestimated in the wider community.
As the armed services shrink, the assets shrink, too. I am not pleading for more money to be spent on defence, but I am pleading with those who decide how we spend taxpayers' money in general to appreciate the fact that at least part of the savings made in the defence budget are likely to pop up elsewhere as extra expenditure. By that I mean that extra expenditure might be needed for increased social security payments or, perhaps, to deal with increasing crime or higher unemployment or to make up for the fall in volunteers in local government, schools or charitable organisations.
Service life promotes self-reliance and respect for law and order and discourages a dependency culture. Those who promote such values but who have no experience of service life need to take that into account when considering the type of society that Conservatives at least would like to see.
8.30 pm
Mr. Bruce George: The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and I went to Germany a year or so ago to plead with the Bundestag for the revival of the European fighter aircraft programme there. It seemed that the programme was a goner, but our powers of persuasion were such that the Germans relented shortly afterwards.
The hon. Gentleman's persuasive powers are much better than his analytical powers or his memory. When I heard him talking about being a pilot in the 1970s and about how the Tory-oriented pilots thought much more highly of the then Conservative Opposition than of the dreadful Labour Government of the time, I kept wondering which halcyon days he meant.
494
Was the hon. Member referring to the affection that the flyers had for the Conservative Government of the 1930s who left us virtually bereft of aircraft? Were the halcyon days of which the flyers of the 1970s were thinking those of the late 1950s when Duncan Sandys was running the Air Force, even though his decisions devastated the force and their consequences took about 20 years to remedy? Or were the flyers looking forward to the RAF's halcyon days under this Government?
The hon. Member for Wyre said that he was not pleading for more money to be spent on defence, but his speech and the speeches of many Conservative Members were catalogues of special pleading for interests that they represent. I suspect that one or two hon. Members are handsomely remunerated for the political or other advice that they provide. We heard a catalogue of demands—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. If the hon. Gentleman had an interest, it should have been declared.
Mr. George: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you mean me or the hon. Member for Wyre?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If any hon. Member has an interest, it should be declared.
Mr. George: The hon. Member to whom I am referring declared his interest. I was repeating what had been said and referring to the frustrations of people seeking to promote defence expenditure while simultaneously supporting a Government who have meted out a series of cuts to our defence forces. The hon. Gentleman spoke of recidivism—perhaps there are recidivist Ministers who are constantly cutting defence spending to a level that many people, probably including themselves, regard as dangerous. To argue that the Government should purchase 250 of anything is to whistle in the dark to give oneself a little courage.
Defence expenditure is falling to under 3 per cent. of gross domestic product, so how are we to get the required aircraft, ships or tanks? If the Government can square the circle, I shall be delighted to hear how it is to be done.
Mr. Garnier rose—
Mr. George: May I please continue? I am not arguing for a return to the halcyon days of the 1970s when we spent just under 5 per cent. of GDP on defence. Perhaps those days will not come again for some time, but one must be honest and say that if one is prepared to endorse a policy of spending 3 per cent. of GDP on defence, one cannot argue the case for buying 250 of this or 500 of that, because it will never happen. I now give way to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).
Mr. Garnier: I ask the hon. Gentleman please to continue.
Mr. George: As everyone—except, perhaps, the Treasury team—knows, we are living in an exceedingly dangerous and volatile world. If one had said that two or three years ago, one would have been dismissed as an unreconstructed cold war warrior. However, one does not need to be a genius in strategic analysis to be aware of the horrendous developments in Russia. There is a distinct possibility that Zhirinovsky will be to Yeltsin what Yeltsin was to Gorbachev, and the leader of Russia in 12 months' or two years' time.

495
I do not have to apologise to Zhirinovsky if I say that he appears to be certifiable, but he could, at any time, lead a nation that is still in possession of a formidable an-ay of weaponry about which, under the present Russian Administration, I—thankfully—have no anxieties. However, President Yeltsin might gradually accommodate the military, the old Communist party and the fascist—or the Liberal Democratic—party, with the result that the policies of his party might imperceptibly change.
Many of us will have read the speech made last year by the Foreign Minister Kosyrev. It was a spoof speech meant to frighten the west. It suggested what Russian foreign and defence policy might be in the future unless the west woke up and did more to assist the ailing Russian economy. However, a number of his cynical, ironic and semi-humorous remarks are becoming realities. I am not suggesting that we should abandon our treaty commitments or that we should not help President Yeltsin—far from it; we should do more—but we must remember that the situation there could change at any time.
If we are to run down our armed forces and our defence industrial base, we must bear it in mind that the non-existent shipyards cannot be recreated quickly. The firms that manufactured aircraft which have been wiped out cannot recall their workmen and tell them to relearn their skills and start building aircraft again. I accept that we could not sustain spending 5 per cent. of GDP on defence, but nor can we justify spending only 3 per cent. on defence—not on security or economic grounds.
Lopping £5 billion off the defence budget will not be a panacea enabling us to regenerate British industry or our health and social services. Whatever the ills in our society and whatever the reasons for our economy's underperformance, we cannot heap the blame on the defence budget. Lopping the budget will not lead to a dramatic transformation of our society.
We live in a turbulent world. As has already been said, there are many dangers in the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Why should any third-world country spend a vast amount of money developing a ballistic missile capability, together with the necessary weaponry, if it can take the cheap route and develop chemical or biological weapons which are just as lethal as, or, in many cases, even more devastating than, nuclear weapons? We should, therefore, be a little cautious in the present environment.
I am anxiously awaiting the poll that tells us that the population has more faith in the Labour party than in the Conservative Government on defence matters. I should not be surprised if that were the case. My talking to service men and the public in general has merely confirmed what is patently obvious.
If I could distil 20 years of experience in the House into a sentence, it would be as follows. Whatever one expects to happen, the opposite will take place. We are reaching that situation on defence.
Mr. Donald Anderson: May I put my hon. Friend out of his agony and curiosity? I am sure that he can use these statistics in his constituency if they are relevant. I have here the most recent Gallup Political and Economic Index, for November 1993, which showed a clear Labour lead over the Conservatives in popular perception on defence.
Mr. George: That must be a salutary lesson to Conservative Members and I advise the hon. Member for Wyre, who has just spoken, that it would be wise for him to retain his flying skills; he might at some stage require them. I do not say that in any malevolent way. He argued that more people should be imbued with the ethos of the service man. If he goes to the Library and examines the statistics provided by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, he will find that Britain has a smaller percentage of civilian and military personnel engaged in the military than any country in NATO bar Luxembourg, which has an army of 750, and Iceland, which has no armed forces whatever. Perhaps he should give that information to his hon. and right hon. Friends.
I am not a statistician, but I occasionally use statistics. Let us consider the NATO figures—not figures produced by the Labour party—for expenditure on defence, showing the percentage of personnel expenditure, the percentage devoted to equipment expenditure, including RAF expenditure, and the percentage devoted to infrastructure and what is called "operating expenditures". Using that classification of expenditure, which differs from that of the Ministry of Defence, one reaches the startling conclusion, considering the statistics, that, according to an estimate for 1993, Royaume Uni will be spending 13·7 per cent. of its defence budget on equipment.
I repeat that the figures use a different basis for calculating expenditure than does the Ministry of Defence. However, Canada spends 19 per cent. of its defence budget on equipment; Denmark spends almost 18 per cent.; Greece spends 25 per cent.; even Norway spends almost 25 per cent.
It is, therefore, not surprising that we are not going to have our 250 European fighter aircraft. We shall not have the aircraft that we need if the percentage of expenditure, being so low, will not sustain an ordering programme that will remotely meet the requirements of Conservative Members or, more importantly, is remotely commensurate with meeting the requirements of the Air Force in the exceedingly turbulent world that we are entering.
Some Conservative Members might have signed a document arguing for the elimination of the Air Force and its merger with the Army. I believe that there is still a significant role for the RAF if we are prepared to sustain it and adjust it to the requirements of the new world.
The Defence Committee, of which I am a member, has produced several reports in recent years of impact to the RAF. At the moment, we have a session on the Eurofighter 2000, we have a session on RAF commitments and resources and we are considering RAF training, including low flying—all of that in the next two months or so. We shall go to see the Tornado F3 and Jaguar detachments in Italy, as long as the war in the former Yugoslavia continues, which it will, and as long as the Whips permit the Select Committee on Defence to travel. I suspect that the former situation is more likely to continue than the latter, but I have no exact knowledge.
We have to consider many procurement problems. The C130 replacement is obviously important. I can understand why the hon. Member for Wyre, who has, no doubt, British Aerospace establishments either in or near his constituency, deems the British Aerospace solution to be desirable. The Defence Committee is examining that and I have not reached a final conclusion. The RAF appears to want the new Hercules and it might be more desirable to have an

497
aircraft that one can fly in the foreseeable future than what, at the moment, is more than a concept but certainly is not worthy of consideration as a real alternative for the RAF.
Many problems need to be considered. A decision is needed on the Eurofighter, and I hope that the German order is not pared down even further to make the project even more difficult. I believe that we need to hear some more about the problems of contractorisation. It is obvious that we need the EH101, an excellent support helicopter which the Government have been endorsing for some time. Even the Secretary of State, before the Defence Committee, almost argued the case for an order being given, but he did not give the order. I hope that this evening the Minister will announce that an order will be given so that that much-needed helicopter will enter service.
I am anxious that a decision be made on the light support helicopter and I should like to hear of the future, if any, for the RAF Regiment. That issue causes the Defence Committee some concern.
Conservative Members have mentioned the issue of the Bloodhound replacement. It seems to me rather bizarre: one spends a vast amount of money on a new aircraft, the old EFA, and then one does not provide the defence for that expensive equipment. The Bloodhound was almost a second world war system; it was no longer capable of adaptation. When will an announcement be made of a replacement for it?
Another decision that needs to be made fairly soon is whether the RAF acquires an off-shelf Lancelot or chooses the Texas Instruments alternative. I believe that the Air Force requires decisions.
I reiterate, in spite of a little poking of fun at the Government, that there has been—it is something that I welcome, and I have been criticised for it many times—a considerable narrowing of difference between the political parties. The differences are not enormous. We are creating an environment in which we avoid the yah-boo politics that dominated the House during the 1980s, to the detriment of our defence forces.
I hope that we can do what is done in many northern European countries that may not spend much but have something that we do not—basic agreement on defence issues; the parties reach an agreement outside Parliament and are bound by those decisions. Let us argue about domestic politics, but let us agree on the perception of the threat and the risks in the world in which we live. If we can agree about that, perhaps we can largely agree about the armed forces that are required, not only for the defence of our territory, but for the defence of our interests. It is much broader than the defence of our territory. Yes, we can pull one other's legs a little, but basically there will be agreement.
An agreement is now much more feasible for a number of reasons. The Government are reducing defence expenditure to a level which, as I want to amuse the Secretary of State for Defence by saying, would receive the unanimous and enthusiastic support of a Labour party conference. The Labour party's view of defence is rather different from the view that dominated the Labour party three, four, five or six years ago. The Liberal party is taking a view on defence that is robust compared with its view in
498
a previous era. In those circumstances, I very much hope that we can generate, if not unity or unanimity, at least a degree of agreement about security issues.
The RAF has served this country well and there is an enormous role for it to play in the future—perhaps not its traditional role, largely based in Germany, but a different role that must now be afforded it as a result of the changed security environment.
The hon. Member for Wyre has done a runner. Having listened to his speech, I am not surprised.
Mr. Garnier: There he is.
Mr. George: I apologise; the hon. Gentleman had run only a few yards.
When we argued the case for the EFA, we asked the German Members of Parliament, "Can you truly contemplate sending your young men in aircraft to face an adversary that may have aircraft superior to yours?" What Member of Parliament, either still in Parliament or in retirement, wants to have to say, "I am sorry, but way back in the early 1990s I did not think that the world would turn out quite this way"?
Governments are obsessed with planning a week or a month ahead. Let us try to think what might happen five or 10 years ahead. What might the configuration of great powers be then, and what nations will have bought off-the-shelf aircraft that are better than ours from Russia? What will be the new powers and the new alliances? Where will the United States stand? What will the role of European defence be in that great uncertainty?
I ask Conservative Members whether they can continue to argue that the Conservative party and its supporters represent the party of defence when they are running down our defences to such a level that actions such as the Gulf war or the Falklands campaign could not be contemplated. If the need arises and we are unable to commit our forces, hon. Members who have sustained the Government in running down our forces will, upon reflection—in opposition, or flying their aircraft, or running their whelk stalls—have to ask where the responsibility lies. I suspect that some of it will rest on their shoulders.
8.51 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), but I would listen with more interest were he to make exactly the same speech at next year's Labour party conference. I should be interested to see whether he could get away with it, and whether he would still be alive at the end of it. There is a distinct difference between the defence policies of the Government and the Conservative party, and those of the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party. It is no good the hon. Gentleman offering blandishments to Conservative Members; those differences are as wide as the Grand canyon. It is no good his trying to persuade us that we are one and the same on defence issues.
However, having made those uncharitable remarks to him, I accept that he and I, and his party and mine, are at one in saluting the Royal Air Force, and the part that it has played in securing our defences and in protecting our national interest both at home and abroad. No one who saw on the television, heard on the wireless or read in the press about the exploits of our RAF crews during the Gulf war

499
can honestly do otherwise. I am sure that the hon. Member for Walsall, South will willingly join me in making that salute.
I hope that I shall not be accused of exaggeration or of overstating my case when I say that what the RAF flyers and crews did in 1991 over Iraq, with their unquestioning and unstinting devotion to duty, was on a par with the bravery and quality of service that we saw in our wartime bombers over Germany and our fighter pilots who fought against the odds in the Battle of Britain. This country and this Parliament owe them a debt of gratitude. Certainly I, who reached the dizzy heights of being a clarinet player in the school cadet band—of course, I cannot compare myself to the formation flyers sitting on my left, my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)—owe them a debt of gratitude. That gratitude should be unequivocal, unreserved and unqualified.
Where do we find the Royal Air Force today? We find it not only in its usual places in the United Kingdom and in Germany, but in Bosnia, taking part in operation Grapple, operation Cheshire and operation Deny Flight, and in Iraq, taking part in the south in operation Jural, and in the north in operation Warden, maintaining the no-fly zones that protect both the marsh Arabs and the innocent Iraqi populations in the north, especially the Kurds.
The current strength and deployment of the Royal Air Force are to be found in the table at annex A on page 89 and at annex D on page 99 of the recent White Paper, "Defending Our Future—Statement on the Defence Estimates 1993". I am sure that the House will be grateful to hear that, for reasons of time, I shall not go through all the figures. I shall simply draw one or two generalised lessons from them.
Broadly, there are now in our RAF fewer aeroplanes, fewer squadrons and fewer people—fewer men and women serving. That is proved both in annex A and in annex D, and, indeed, in paragraph 7.43 on page 84 of the White Paper. I shall refer briefly to paragraphs and 7.41, 7.42 and 7.41 and, faithfully I hope, quote them. I hope that I shall not do an injustice to the draftsmen or to my right hon. and hon. Friends in government who make up the Ministry of Defence team.
Paragraph 7.43 says:
"The Services are now generally able to attract and retain the skilled and well-motivated men and women they need, although some shortages still remain."
If that is true I am glad of it, but I ask whether it is strictly true. It continues:
"Voluntary wastage is at a record low level. In the 12 months to 1 April 1993, the proportion of officers who left on PVR"—that is, premature voluntary release—
"fell from 2·9 per cent. to 2 per cent. and the rate of applications fell from 2 per cent. to 1·2 per cent. The proportion of noncommissioned personnel leaving on PVR fell from 6 per cent. to 4·7 per cent. and applications declined from 5·8 per cent. to 4·2 per cent. Total outflow in the 12 months to 1 April 1993 was 33,655."
That is a big number, in anybody's arithmetic.
Paragraph 7.43 says:
"Our current manpower plans are based on a forecast requirement for Service manpower in 1995 totalling around 240,000".
The RAF element in that is 70,000. It continues:
"Beyond 1995 the manpower requirement will be kept under review in the light of changing circumstances, including any new operational commitments. Where developments in technology mean that new weapon systems require less manpower to operate or maintain them, this will need to be reflected."
500
I hope that there can be flexibility up as well as down, and if any new developments require additional manpower or equipment I trust that the Minister of Defence will be able to persuade our financial masters in the Treasury that that must be arranged.
Sadly, the defence debate is not often heard. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said earlier, the absence of hon. Members during our debate perhaps reflects the sad lack of interest in such issues throughout the country. Although I say "sad lack of interest", there is a constituency out there that is very concerned about our defence industries and about our defence. It is vital that we have such debates a good deal more often than we do at present. I am very pleased to have been called, even at this late stage in the debate, to represent that constituency to some extent.
I do not speak today on behalf of a particular local base, depot or constituency MOD establishment. I trust that I can speak on behalf of the bigger picture and try to explain some of the concerns affecting people of all political persuasions. With such large reductions in defence spending, there is a fear that there is severe overstretch and that the morale of our armed forces personnel is falling. It must be uncontroversial to say that our armed forces are institutions in which Britain has hitherto taken considerable pride.
I regard the defence of the realm as the primary responsibility of Government. Again, I trust that that is not a controversial remark. The discharge of that responsibility involves the triple task of analysing the potential threat, providing a defence capability commensurate with it and co-ordinating defence and foreign policy to ensure that each supports, and does not contradict, the other. Only if there is clarity about the rationale and role of the armed forces, including the RAF, the confidence that it will have the means to fulfil foreseeable assignments and coherence between foreign and defence policies can a national consensus on defence matters be nurtured and the morale of the fighting services be maintained.
The main incident in foreign policy and defence terms over the past few years must be what is called the end of the cold war. I believe that that can more accurately be called the end of the third world war. Great issues for debate arise following that change of circumstance, and great questions of foreign policy and defence issues flow from it. They affect our consideration of the RAF just as much as they affect our consideration of the other armed services and the merchant marine.
There are several questions which, at this stage of the evening, I will not ask. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and other hon. Members who take an interest in defence matters will readily have such questions at their finger tips. I believe that those questions were not properly or fully addressed in "Options for Change". Some vital issues were addressed in that document, but it did not deal with all the very interesting and important issues that might have been asked.
"Options for Change" set out the savings that it was believed we could make if we no longer had to be prepared for war with the Warsaw pact. However, defence spending in real terms and as a proportion of gross domestic product has been reducing precipitously since the fall of the Berlin wall. In the mid-1980s, as hon. Members have said, defence spending averaged 5 per cent. of GDP. By 1995–96 it will amount to only 3·2 per cent. The most important

501
point to bear in mind is that, within that total, the proportion spent on equipment is at its lowest since the 1970s. In the mid-1980s, we spent about 45 to 48 per cent. of the defence budget on equipment. I am told that equipment now accounts for about 39 per cent. of the defence budget and there are signs that it is due to fall as low as 34 per cent.
I can understand the argument: smaller defence forces, smaller RAF, but better equipment. However, I find it difficult to square smaller defence forces with much less equipment. We must address that issue. Can we afford our percentage of equipment spending to fall further when the calibre of our defence forces must be tip top? The RAF will have lost 40 per cent. of its strike attack capability and 30 per cent. of its air defence capability before very long. We cannot simply allow those issues to be glossed over.
I am determined that the House should come to terms with the difficulty of many Conservative Members—I am speaking only for myself at the moment—who are loyal Conservative party and Government supporters, but who on this one issue find themselves in a dilemma. We want a credible defence force and a credible RAF which can meet the commitment that the public and our foreign policy requirements demand of it. It is no good having endless or open-ended commitments throughout the world but trying to meet them on the basis of diminished forces. I would would not mind having a small RAF if we had fewer commitments. But I cannot content myself with wide-ranging commitments with incompetent—I use the word neutrally—forces to deal with the problem. It affects not only our capability to deal with commitments but the morale of those who serve within the forces and those who wish to see the country prosper at home and abroad.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre said that national security is as vital as social security.
Mr. Mans: More so.
Mr. Garnier: We can agree or disagree on that, but it is an issue.
Despite the financial exigencies under which the Ministry of Defence has been labouring, nobody doubts for a moment that the Royal Air Force will continue, to the best of its abilities, to defend our shores and our interests overseas, but we must not send RAF personnel to perform tasks that they are no longer equipped to perform. Nothing that I have said is new, and, I dare say, nothing that I have said is original, but some verities demand restatement from time to time.
9.5 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I apologise for not being present for the opening of the debate. As some hon. Members will know, I had the joy of attending a public inquiry concerning the Boundary Commission.
Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to the RAF. I have always found it to be a professional and expert service. If the Government had a fraction of the expertise of the RAF, the country would certainly be flying higher than it is at present and we would not have such appallingly low standards of government.
The JP233 weapon was used in the Gulf war to destroy Iraqi runways. It requires that aircraft fly in a straight line along the length of the runway, and at a constant height.
502
That makes the aircraft highly vulnerable. The weapon has been implicated in the loss of Tornados in the Gulf war. The JP233 works by releasing hundreds of "bomblets" on the runway; some break up the runway surface and others make the job of repairing the runway harder. Although there is no doubt that the JP233 caused the Iraqis problems, it was not the only means of damaging runways. The United States air force attacked roughly the same number of runways as the RAF did and lost not a single aircraft on such missions.
The JP233 is a product of the RAF's obsession with low flying. I said as much in early-day motion 351 in the 1990–91 Session, for which I was greatly criticised. I said that the Tornados
"have become easy prey for maching gun and anti-aircraft fire when operating at low levels"
and were the result of
"the blundering blindspot of Conservative defence ministers obsessed with low flying."
Now, with the clarity of hindsight, I still believe that the facts bear me out.
The JP233 cost millions upon millions of pounds to develop and produce. Nobody other than the Saudis wants it. The Americans did not buy it. Instead, they purchased a French weapon, the Durandal. Anyone who follows United States military politics will appreciate that the purchase of a French weapon is rare. That shows what the Americans think of the JP233. The weapon costs millions of pounds to use because its very nature makes aircraft vulnerable. Each Tornado costs between £25 million and £35 million. The most expensive part of the JP233 is the lives of the pilots. Lives are too valuable to be measured in pounds. But many more lives are currently being affected by that dubious weapon. Some of the JP233's "bomblets" are anti-personnel mines.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cohen: I do not have time to give way; I want to continue. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
Anti-personnel mines, such as part of the JP233, are causing a world-wide blight on humanity, and I support a world-wide ban on their production. Two weeks ago, at Question Time, I asked the Department of Trade and Industry about curtailing the export of land mines. I pointed out that thousands of lives were being lost every week as a result of the use of those mines.
The Minister for Trade replied:
"We have the capability to make land mines that are self-destructive and self-neutralising as part of a runway denial system, which we believe is a perfectly proper use of land mines in making equipment for defending our forces."—[Official Report, 12 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 168.1]
The sole reason given by the Government for not acting to ban the export of land mines and their design was that they were part of a runway denial system.
The Minister for Trade is a clever man—he insulted Mrs. Thatcher and got away with it because his timing was right—but he is not clever enough to have said that without prompting, and his prompting came from the Ministry of Defence, which uses that fall-back position to try to deflect the argument when people realise that the use of anti-personnel mines is immoral. It is outrageous that the Ministry of Defence is briefing the DTI to stop a ban on immoral weapons by defending a dangerous weapon. That is a major scandal for which the Minister and the MOD should answer.

503
The Government should not underestimate the depth of feeling in the House about land mines. Last Monday I tabled early-day motion 361, which calls on the Government immediately to prohibit the export of all anti-personnel mines from the United Kingdom and to ratify the inhumane weapons convention. I wrote that early-day motion at about 9.30 in the evening, and by the time the House rose it had attracted 118 signatures. The current total is 160. That shows the strength of feeling against land mines among Labour Members. I know that there are Conservative Members who feel the same. Bill Deedes—hardly a member of the Labour party—has written a number of articles in Conservative newspapers exposing the land mines policy.
The JP233 should be scrapped immediately and there should be a worldwide ban on anti-personnel mines.
9.12 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: We have had a wide-ranging debate, covering the changing international scene, key constituency issues of importance to hon. Members, particularly weapons systems, and, of course, basic procurement policies—a matter for the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who is to respond to the debate.
I do not know whether I could go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) who proposes that we seek a consensus on defence outside the House and then place it before the parties. It has been apparent during the debate, however, that there are some areas of agreement. Hon. Members have shown a willingness throughout the debate to praise the skills, dedication and commitment of our RAF personnel—although such sentiments from the Government have to be watched carefully because they are often the prelude to cuts. We fear the Government even when they bring praise.
It is significant that, so soon after the talk of turning swords into ploughshares and of the peace dividend, every type of RAF aircraft should be in operation somewhere in the world: we have Harriers over north Iraq; Tornados over south Iraq; Jaguars, Tornados and E3 AWACS on patrol over Bosnia; Nimrods monitoring the Gulf and the Adriatic; and old war horses being used in transport and supply. As the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, the commitments collide with Treasury pressures for further reductions and there is already the fear of overstretch.
The second area of consensus that emerged during the debate was the unpredictability of the international scene as the old certainties of the cold war disappear. The pace of change is perhaps best illustrated by reference to our last three debates on the RAF. In February 1990, Mr. Alan Clark—we have all read his diaries on the subject—talked of the diminution of the threat. That was before "Options for Change" and President Gorbachev was still in office in what was then the Soviet Union.
The last but one RAF debate was in May 1991. The Gulf war was over. The Warsaw treaty organisation no longer existed. By that time, President Gorbachev was no longer in office. In January last year, the debate was effectively and understandably hijacked by the events in the Gulf.
Thus the speed of change is breathtaking. The international context is moving beneath us. How can one then make decisions which are credible in the light of the
504
point made by several hon. Members about the long research and development periods and the long period during which the planes are eventually expected to see service? That is the sort of problem that we have with the Hercules replacement, to which I shall refer shortly. I thought that that point was well made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell).
There are problems of choices, as stated by Philip Sabin in the recent book "British Defence Choices for the 21st Century", of readiness as against reconstitution, independence as against integration, flexibility as against specialisation, mobility as against punch and quality as against quantity. The certainties which led to a certain force structure, which led to certain deployments and a certain mix of aircraft, no longer exist.
As for the threat, the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South and others said how real and relevant was the Zhirinovsky threat. Clearly there will be a greater nationalism in Russian defence and foreign policy. The Russian economy has crumbled to such an extent, the likely obsession with internal problems is such and the lead times and alert times are so much greater that at least we can step back a little from the threat as perceived in the 1980s, although, as several colleagues have said, it would be prudent to watch this space carefully.
Obviously we are now in the middle of a period of great choice. The Royal Air Force is highly relevant to that, with the need for greater flexibility and mobility. NATO itself is in a period of profound transformation, as was exemplified by the communiqué from the January summit. Increasingly, our role will be a United Nations role—humanitarian, disaster relief and so on.
On the domestic side, we in the Opposition, together with a number of major voices on the defence side, have called for a strategic defence review rather than ad hoc cuts forced by the Treasury. That is one of the key differences between the Government and the Opposition positions. Why are the Government so adamantly against the R word? Why do they feel that a review must be avoided, in their parlance, at all costs?
On the international side, the recent international changes have particular relevance to the size and nature of the Royal Air Force. The perceived role of defending the island against Soviet bombers is no longer, or hardly, a relevant consideration in current circumstances. Yet we need to maintain our reputation for excellence and be perhaps even more ready to see all our policies in an alliance context. What was most clear in the NATO summit in Brussels was the smokescreen, if one will, of transition from an Atlantic to a European position, with again and again the leitmotiv "the European pillar". We shall have to adjust to that.
As President Clinton said in Brussels:
"We must build a new security for Europe. The old security was based on the defence of one bloc against another bloc. The new security must be found in Europe's integration. An integration of security forces, of market economies, of national democracies".
The message for us in Europe is clear. Indeed, it has already been accepted by the French, whose anticipated White Paper—the first for 20 years—states that the defence of France's vital interests can be envisaged with Britain and Germany. Perhaps this sea change was the motive for yesterday's meeting between the Secretary of State and his French and German counterparts, which was initiated by

505
the right hon. and learned Gentleman. However, basic questions remain. Will the French, in their procurement policy, be as nationalistic as they have been in the past? What is the relevance, in terms of co-operation, for the RAF and our other services?
The Minister replying to this debate will deal specifically with procurement policies. Will our procurement policies be seen increasingly in a European framework? Is the new spirit of co-operation relevant to decisions such as that concerning the United Kingdom's Hercules replacement programme? Clearly the C130Ks, which were bought in 1967, are coming to the end of their life, with an increasing utilisation rate. Ours is one of the oldest Hercules fleets in the world, with outdated technology.
Are we now on target for the decision on replacement or refurbishment? Presumably the tender documents will be issued in the very near future. It is to be hoped that if the contract goes as a number of hon. Members have suggested, the first orders will be placed by the end of the year.
Lockheed has a proven track record. There will be a gap—financially, in terms of the Government's procurement programme, and industrially—before the Eurofighter 2000 comes on stream. The peak years will be around the turn of the century. Hence the relevance in this context. But will our decision to give the first tranche of, say, 30 aircraft to Lockheed pre-empt a decision on the later tranche and force out the proposed European rival—the future large aircraft programme, the FLA? I concede that this is not a flying aircraft; it is only on the drawing board and will not fly until about 2004.
What are the options? Could the Ministry of Defence charter civilian transport planes for routine tasks? Much spare capacity is now available. What are the prospects for leasing? This is a matter that the Secretary of State mentioned to the Select Committee on Defence in December last year. Would leasing be simply a financial device once the basic decision about refurbishment or purchase of new aircraft had been made?
What can the Minister say about the Eurofighter 2000? My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South has already mentioned the problem of the reduction in defence expenditure and the question mark over whether the Ministry will be able to meet the commitment figure of 250. The aircraft is already behind schedule. If other countries reduce their purchases as a result of their own financial pressures, that will only increase the unit costs and boost our procurement costs when the European fighter aircraft, because of its size, is already shouldering out much other potential procurement over the relevant period.
We have heard mention of the EH101 support helicopter and of the importance to Westland of a speedy decision to end the long saga of delay. When is it likely that a decision on attack helicopters will be made? The absence of a United Kingdom attack helicopter capability was very noticeable during the Gulf conflict.
I will not rehearse the well-judged comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) about the current low morale within the RAF. As the hon. Member for Tayside, North said, there is a huge sapping of morale. That is relevant to our questions about the remarks of the Chief of Air Staff. Why did he feel the need to
506
intervene as he did? Did he feel that his access to the Secretary of State was insufficient? He obviously made his point, because he had to go on his knees to apologise thereafter. He spoke of a "disreputable campaign" and he pointed the finger at the Treasury. That is why he was specifically asked to apologise to the Treasury. There was great rejoicing among RAF personnel throughout the country and the world that he had spoken up on their behalf. He said what they wanted to say, but felt unable to say.
Other reasons for loss of morale include the proposal that the RAF should lose its sub-strategic nuclear role to Trident. Morale has also suffered because of the extent of the cuts to which the RAF has been subject, which have been spelt out by hon. Members.
The plea from the Air Chief Marshal to the Government was quite clear: stop undermining the services, because there are few enough institutions in the country of which we can be justifiably proud.
The quality of life of our service personnel and their families—this is within the competence of the Minister—is also relevant to morale. Mr. Alan Clark told the House in February 1990:
"we are intending to improve the entire stock of married quarters and single-service living accommodation in the next 10 years."—[Official Report, 28 February 1990; Vol. 168, c. 291.]
Now the plan is to sell not just the family silver, but all the housing as well, in 1995–96, to a private sector housing trust. Thus assets will be sold off and thereafter counted as revenue. It represents a once-and-for-all increase in the resources of the MOD.
What progress has been made in planning that major sell-off, which will create the largest housing association in the country? Much of the property is probably unsaleable or in remote areas. Who will carry out the valuations? The figures that I have seen reveal that working assumptions relate to 70,000 properties, to be sold at £7,000 each. That means that roughly £500 million must be raised from City syndicates. Have the Government worked out the full implications of that by discussing it with the Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office, as appropriate?
The fact that this massive sell-off of property was not mentioned in 1990, in the afterglow of Thatcherism, suggests that it is a relatively recent decision which has been forced upon the MOD by the Treasury as a revenue-raising operation.
Many implications of the sale may not have been worked out yet. For example, how will it affect local housing programmes? What about tenant participation? Formidable management problems will arise because of the size of the proposed housing trust. What about the sale of properties to service men? Will they have the normal right-to-buy facility? Will priority be given to local housing authorities or housing associations if the stock is not needed by the MOD? The way in which the sale has been introduced into the argument suggests that not only is it a fairly recent decision but one whose implications have not been fully thought through.
The market testing of support services is another source of concern, because of the threat to jobs. I accept that it is a case of horses for courses, because there are examples where the case for that testing can be properly made, if not welcomed. The fear is that ideological zeal, spelt out so well by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) in relation to his own constituency, will push the process of

507
market testing further and faster than is warranted, particularly in relation to the RAF's role in servicing its own aircraft. There is already RAF resentment, particularly about the civilian contractors servicing Tornados in Saudi Arabia. The RAF has cancelled a contract with Airwork, saying that it had caused damage
"of a very serious nature"
to the Tornados during modification.
Only one third of the Ministry of Defence personnel questioned about cleaning contracts by the National Audit Office considered that the Government were getting value for money. My advice to the Government, therefore, is that they should be careful and not be pushed headlong, as if they were still enthralled by a type of Thatcherdom, into ways that were spelt out by the hon. Member for Gloucester which would have adverse effects, examples of which have been pointed out.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South said, diversification is another subject about which there is a profound difference of principle between the Government and the Opposition. The Opposition recognise the strategic role of the defence industries. There is a key interface between the defence industries and employment. For example, as recently as Tuesday this week British Aerospace announced 421 job losses at Chorley. The United States President has promised $500 million dollars in the summer to help towards conversion of the US defence industries. The US has a defence conversion commission.
Because of the size of the rundown—about £30 billion to be cut from our defence budget over the decade—there is a potential threat to perhaps 25 per cent. of the United Kingdom engineering industry. The free market has little role in defence purchases, which depend on Government contracts. There is a clear national interest, therefore, in working out the implications for regions, industries, and particular skills arising directly from the effects of the cold war and the substantial reduction in the proportion of the gross domestic product given to defence.
All we had from the Secretary of State was, "We leave these matters to market forces". The Government appear to be accepting no responsibility for assisting in the process of conversion. There have been signs of movement from pure Thatcherism in other policies, such as the recent decision on the financing of the channel tunnel link, but there is no such sign in the Government's unwillingness to intervene in diversification. They do not appear even to recognise the problem. Their do-nothing stance is in contrast to that of a number of our allies and is failing the nation.
The Labour party is fully convinced of the case for defence diversification, and the agency that we propose is promoted by industry, the trade unions and local authorities. It is absurd that the Government should fold their arms when faced with a national problem of such magnitude.
9.33 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): This has been a valuable and interesting debate and, having listened to all 16 speeches made since 4 o'clock this afternoon, it is good to be able to begin this winding-up speech by saying that the whole House has been genuinely united in the tributes that have been paid to the professionalism, dedication and achievements of the RAF. Even the hon. Member for
508
Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who made a carping, whingeing and sneering speech, redeemed himself for a few seconds by paying tribute to the service. I agree with his statement that 1993 was a good year for the RAF.
Not since the 1960s has the RAF been actively engaged in more concurrent operational deployments than today. I am glad to add the Government's tribute to the Royal Air Force and to express our appreciation to its service men and women, from the Chief of the Air Staff downwards, for the excellence of their achievements, often in carrying out missions of considerable risk and danger in places such as Iraq and Bosnia. The whole House and the country are grateful to them for their superb job.
In the time that is available, I hope to respond to as many as possible of the issues raised by hon. Members. Before dealing with individual speeches, it is appropriate to tackle the two or three major procurement issues that have run through the debate. I shall refer in particular to the Eurofighter 2000 and the Hercules replacement and, if I have time, I shall refer to support helicopters.
Eurofighter 2000, formerly known as the European fighter aircraft, is the cornerstone of the RAF's future capability and is one of the Government's major procurement projects. The House is aware that in 1992 and 1993 there were changes to the Eurofighter 2000 programme. In 1992, there was a great deal of uncertainty about its continuation as a four-nation project. There was much speculation about Germany's willingness to continue and there was even speculation about the imminent demise of the project.
Throughout that period, the Government's view remained constant—that there is a clear and continuing need for an aircraft of Eurofighter 2000's capabilities, both for the defence of the United Kingdom and to meet the RAF's commitments in other theatres. That view enjoyed support in all parts of the House and was also supported by industry and trade unions throughout the United Kingdom. I am grateful for that all-round support for a project which is vital to the future of the RAF.
Over the past year, the process of reorienting the Eurofighter programme has moved on and good progress has been made. We have reacted to the significant changes in the international security environment that have taken place since development of the Eurofighter 2000 began in 1988. In the light of the changes in eastern Europe and the collapse of the Soviet Union, chiefs of staff of the four partner nations were invited in December 1992 to review the operational requirement.
That work was carried forward in 1993, and some minor relaxations in the operational requirement have been identified and incorporated in the revised European staff requirement which the four chiefs of air staff signed last week. For example, we have slightly relaxed the requirement to operate on damaged runways, although the aircraft will still be capable of operating to NATO standards. We have also agreed to some relaxation in the engine thrust requirements. The revised requirement recognises the continuing need for a fighter aircraft for the RAF with Eurofighter's capabilities.
It was also necessary to reorientate the time scales for the Eurofighter 2000 programme to reflect the budgetary difficulties of the four partner nations. That has led to a revision of the first delivery dates of production aircraft about which the hon. Member for Carlisle asked. It is now

509
planned that the United Kingdom and Italy will receive their first aircraft in the year 2000. Spain and Germany will receive their first aircraft in the year 2002.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) asked about the cost of each aircraft. Based on our planned off-take of 250 aircraft, the unit production cost of Eurofighter 2000 is today estimated at some £33 million.
Advances continue to be made on the technical front, but to expect progress on a project as complex as the Eurofighter without any technical difficulties would be unreasonable. Over the past year, there have been well-publicised problems with the flight control system. That is the heart of the aircraft which allows this highly agile and, therefore, potentially unstable aircraft to remain stable in the air.
Eurofighter 2000 has not been alone in experiencing such difficulties. Similar problems have beset the Swedish Gripen and the American F22 programmes. It was with great sadness and horror that we heard of the disasters involving the Gripen and the F22 last year, which we believe were largely due to immature flight control software.
In such circumstances, although the delay to the first flight of the Eurofighter is disappointing, it is understandable. Therefore, it was unfair of the hon. Member for Carlisle to criticise it so much. Industry is rightly being cautious and is double checking the software. Industry's work in the area is now in its final stages and I am pleased to announce that the flight control system is undergoing final testing prior to clearance for the aircraft's first flight.
Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend has just made an important announcement to the House confirming reports that have been appearing in the technical press for some time. What estimate has he made of the effect of the delays on the likely export potential of the aeroplane, as the JS39 Gripen and the Rafale will have been in the marketplace for some time before the Eurofighter 2000 comes into service with the Italian air force and the Royal Air Force? Is it expected that the prototype Eurofighter 2000 will be flying at Farnborough?
Mr. Aitken: If the first flight will be in April, it will certainly be possible for the prototype to be flying at Farnborough later this year.
We have always believed that the Eurofighter 2000 has considerable export potential, and none of the delays has seriously adversely affected those prospects.
More generally, there is no sign of any major design problem and the delays that have occurred should not be of great significance in the overall programme. The first delivery of production aircraft to the RAF is still forecast for the year 2000.
I move on to the Hercules replacement, in the context of future air transport requirements. In order to overcome increasing problems with the availability and maintainability of the Hercules, we have been giving active consideration to how we can replace or refurbish up to half—that is some 30—of our Hercules C130K fleet.
We let a contract last year to define the refurbishment work including an austere refurbishment. The only new
510
aircraft available in competition with the refurbishment in the necessary time scale are the Lockheed C130H and C130J.
I can announce tonight that an invitation to tender has been handed over to Lockheed executives in the United Kingdom this afternoon. It will enable us to compare on a life-cycle basis the costs of refurbishment and those of buying new aircraft. We are also looking at the possibility of leasing transport aircraft. We hope to be in a position to take a decision later this year.
I am well aware of the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), in whose constituency I visited the factory of Dowty and saw the excellent propellers. Centrax is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). There are several British companies—18 to be precise—in the C130J industrial group that hope to benefit from the order, if it is placed.
Replacement of the second tranche of the fleet will be considered later in the light of future requirements for large aircraft. By then, the number of new-buy options should have opened up to include the European future large aircraft which has strong supporters in the House and the country, and others, such as the McDonnell C17.
Most other aircraft are somewhat larger than the Hercules, so both operational mix and cost factors will need to be taken into account.
The House will know that the Government withdrew from the future large aircraft project in 1989. It has often been suggested since then that we should rejoin, but we feel that adequate technology for transport aircraft already exists without the need for Government funding of further development and that it would be difficult for us to maintain an open competitive stance if we were seen to be supporting one particular option.
It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) that we should wait for production of the future large aircraft before updating the current Hercules fleet, but the pressing availability and maintainability problems will not allow us to do that. That is why we have taken the decision to go forward in the way we have.
Mr. Mans: I was suggesting that we should wait not until the aircraft was produced, but until the beginning of next year, when the full feasibility study on the aircraft is complete and a clearer decision can be taken on the three options that I mentioned in my speech.
Mr. Aitken: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made clear by that intervention what a paper-only stage the future large aircraft has reached. Sure, we will look at the feasibility study when it appears, but this is pie that is not even near the sky at the moment. Therefore, I cannot be too sanguine for its chances for the first tranche of our transport fleet replacement.
I shall now deal with various points raised by hon. Members.
Mr. Ainger: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Aitken: I must go steadily on. I will refer to the hon. Gentleman's speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) spoke eloquently of the debt that we owe to the Royal Air Force nationally, and locally in his constituency. I am able to give him some of the reassurance that he sought about the closure of RAF Stanmore Park. I can

511
assure him that the disposal of the site will be done in a way that will try to preserve various important features such as tree preservation. I have noted his points about the historic site of Bentley Priory and will write to him about those matters in due course.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East made a characteristically thoughtful speech. I have covered some of his points already. He asked about the low-level, laser-guided bomb. The position there is that invitations to tender were issued in May 1993. We now have a short list of two leading contenders: one in the United Kingdom, GEC Marconi Dynamics; and one in the United States, Texas Instruments. Those tenders are currently being considered. Our aim is to complete the selection process in time to place a contract by April 1994.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked, in a rather philosophical way, what the future role of the Royal Air Force would be, and made some good points about the size of our presence in Germany. Earlier in his speech, he answered his own question by pointing out that there was no shortage of sophisticated combat aircraft falling into the hands of troublesome and sometimes hostile nation states all over the world. Even though some of the domestic defence role may be diminishing, there is still a key overseas role in the world.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on his many years of service in the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. I even join him in his heartfelt tribute to Mrs. Walker, who has put up with his weekend absences all this time. He was right to draw our attention to the period of great uncertainty that we face, and to emphasise that the RAF requires a period of stability in it. That theme was touched on by several hon. Members. The defence costs study—"Front Line First"—which we are now undergoing unfortunately means that there will be some three more months of uncertainty. After that, I hope that one will be able to answer favourably the good point that he made.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) raised a long point about RAF search-and-rescue helicopters. I heard him with more than a passing touch of sympathy as a constituency Member of Parliament, as RAF Manston in my constituency has had many of the same problems. I know how high emotions can run on these issues. These matters have been fully considered and debated. I refer particularly to the very good Adjournment debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) about the Dover strait. Whether it is the Welsh coast or the English channel, the response times are considered adequate by Her Majesty's Coastguard and the DTI. I shall draw the hon. Member's comments to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
Mr. Ainger: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Aitken: I am sorry, but I must move on. I will give way later if I can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester drew our attention to his concern about the proposals for RAF Quedgeley and the changes in support arrangements there. He wants access to some of our figures. My understanding is that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Armed Forces has undertaken to provide certain financial information within the bounds of confidentiality. I shall certainly draw his attention to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester has raised in the debate.
512
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made a thoughtful speech, which was characteristic of him, with his expertise on RAF matters. I was much taken with his suggestion, with which I agree, that we must use the defence cost study to look fundamentally—not just from a savings only point of view—at the future of the Royal Air Force. He made a good many rather ingenious suggestions for restructuring, not only for savings, but other reasons. I am very much in sympathy with the theme that he has struck.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) said that the French defence budget has increased. I am sure that we all take note of that. He, too, made the compelling case for the need of the service to have more stability and more certainty. I hope that this chapter of frequent change will come to an end at the end of the defence costs study.
I accept my hon. Friend's point that the levels of management in the RAF are somewhat excessive. I shall not today go into whether we should abolish any particular ranks, but I am sympathetic to his view that the procurement executive might need to be reduced in size and its decision and evaluation processes accelerated. That is a thought which we could well take further in the defence costs study debate.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) for reminding us how he and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre championed the cause of Eurofighter 2000, or the European fighter aircraft as it was then known, among German parliamentarians. We owe both of them a debt of gratitude for that.
We are always glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's voice in favour of more resources for defence, but it is rather like a performance of "Robinson Crusoe" because he is stranded on his desert island articulating his pro-defence and more spending views among a sea of cutters and slashers who want to reduce our defence budget by more than a third. However, long may he survive and flourish.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) drew our attention to paragraphs 7.41 to 7.43 of the White Paper and asked whether there could be flexibility up as well as down in the figures that he quoted. The answer is yes, there can be and there might need to be if there are strange political developments in Russia of the kind that some people have forecast and might even happen if the Zhirinovsky group were to come to power.
My hon. Friend then argued that the great questions of defence and foreign policy that arise from the new and somewhat unstable situation that exists in the aftermath of the ending of the cold war need to be more carefully considered. He is right.
What is the right percentage of GDP that we should be spending on defence and how much of the defence budget should we be spending on the equipment budget? The Government think that we have the answers to these questions right, and that about 40 per cent. is the right figure for the equipment budget. However, we consider those matters continuously in relation to events.
Winston Churchill, once being accused of inconsistency, said, "No, certainly not. My thoughts are an harmonious process in relation to current events." So should any defence planners thoughts be. If there are political changes in Russia or anywhere else, we must take them into account in such matters as the equipment budget.
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) produced his latest bogey, the JP233 bomb. He is following the media crowd in focusing attention on it. The criticism among the

513
media critics is that that weapon should not be used, as it contains an anti-personnel element. But I should point out that that element self-destructs. It is not used indiscriminately and is, therefore, perfectly consistent with our support for the United Nations resolutions and the weaponry convention.
The JP233 aircraft denial weapon was used successfully in the Gulf conflict during the early stages of the air campaign and it played a part in the rapid success of the overall allies campaign against the Iraqi air force. Clearly, the RAF must select the most appropriate weapon for any given mission and the JP233 is uniquely suited to cratering runways and taxiways, preventing enemy aircraft from taking off. In the Gulf war, after only four days, air supremacy was achieved. Clearly that was a key factor in minimising allied casualties and in bringing the conflict to a speedy end.
It should be stressed that the JP233 was a strictly military weapon, used exclusively against Iraqi military air bases. Clearly, as with any weapon system, or most weapon systems, there is an anti-personnel element in the JP233, but that must be set against the fact that Iraq was prevented from mounting effective air operations during most of the war.
Moreover, as I said, the anti-personnel element of the JP233 has a self-destructing and self-neutralising system, making its use perfectly proper and posing no threat to the civilian population when used against military targets. Our current stringent controls on the export of defence equipment are sufficient to prevent the sale of such weapons to countries that might conceivably use them irresponsibly.
I welcome the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) to his new responsibilities. He made some thoughtful comments about Europe's new security architecture following the NATO summit, and, in that context, asked whether our procurement policies would be set in a European framework. That sounded a little Europhile for my taste; but we are not at all Euro-sceptical about procurement issues in the Ministry of Defence, as our championship of the Eurofighter makes clear. Moreover, I have excellent political and personal relations with the German State Secretary for Defence.
That is a good example of a European defence project that is working well. Another is Project Horizon—the Anglo-French-Italian frigate project. The hon. Gentleman, however, seemed to suggest that we should automatically put a European spin on all procurement. Under the treaty of Rome, defence equipment buying is not covered by any Brussels rules—thank heavens. I think that we shall continue our present sensible approach, which is to embark on European collaboration when it is right to do so.
The hon. Member for Carlisle began by mentioning—
Mr. Martlew: Helicopters?
Mr. Aitken: I fear that I shall have no time to deal with helicopters. In any case, we have really said it all already: we have announced our plans for helicopters. We are now engaged in a NAPNOC negotiation with both Westland and Boeing in regard to, respectively, the EH101 and the Chinook. Obviously, much depends on price and on further
514
evaluation. I share some of the frustration that hon. Members have expressed, but we are not backsliding in the way that some have described.
Mr. Donald Anderson: What about attack helicopters?
Mr. Aitken: That is an Army project; we are debating the RAF. It seems that Opposition Members are keen to stop me from having a go at them.
The hon. Member for Carlisle began his speech with a quote from Dickens. The character in Dickens of whom he most reminds me is Mr. Micawber, who was always waiting for something to turn up. I was longing for something to turn up in the hon. Gentleman's speech—an idea, a correct fact, even a policy. I have been longing to know what Labour's defence policy is, but it is a well-kept secret: Labour Members do not make policy statements. Indeed, they do not make many speeches—although they occasionally ask questions, which give us a clue about the way in which their minds are tentatively working.
An interesting signal was given this week when a Labour Member asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State a telling parliamentary question. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) asked on how many occasions the Ministry of Defence purchased soft-pornography magazines for distribution to members of the armed forces. I know that my official title is "Minister of State for Defence Procurement", but I must disappoint the Labour party: we certainly do not spend taxpayers' money from the defence budget on porn magazines.
I was, however, so stimulated by the hon. Gentleman's question that I thought I might make an exception to that policy. I am thinking of distributing a certain magazine to our armed forces—and, indeed, to the whole electorate, if I can find the money. It is not quite a soft-porn magazine, although it has made one or two strange lurches in that direction; but I would certainly call it a political porn magazine. I refer to New Statesman and Society, whose 12 November issue carried a long interview with the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark).
I read the piece—in which the hon. Gentleman gave his views on Labour's defence policy—with a quickening pulse, searching early for the hard core of that policy. When I reached the point where the hard core should have been, lo and behold! It had been airbrushed out. Just listen to this:
"Fifteen months into his job as Labour Defence Spokesperson, David Clark gets annoyed at the suggestion that he has been keeping a low profile."
The interview goes on to deal with defence spending, which—surprise, surprise—the hon. Gentleman is in favour of reducing. Indeed, he has to be: composite motion No. 49 commits Labour to reducing defence spending by a third. The party is ready to wipe out all our spending on one of the three services. The interviewer then presses him for details, and this is where the airbrush comes into play. The article states:
"Clark is vague however as to where the cuts should fall … he says, 'Just now, I simply don't know.—'"
Those six words are the beginning and the end—the alpha and the omega—of Labour's defence policy. The clarion call—
"Just now, I simply don't know"—
has been heard loud and clear from the Opposition Front Bench tonight and, indeed, has been evident in the Labour party's vacuous statements for many months.

515
By contrast, the Government know that we are proud of the Royal Air Force and we know what our policies are for its future. We believe that our air power is a vital ingredient in Britain's defence which will continue—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Textile Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
10 pm
Mr. Graham Riddick: I am extremely grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for selecting this topic for debate because it shows how important it is to have as Speaker a daughter of Dewsbury. You well understand the textile industry and its problems.
I am pleased to see one or two of my hon. Friends here tonight and I am grateful for their support and for that of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). I am pleased to see here my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) had hoped to be here and is sorry that she cannot be.
The textile industry is still very important and wool textiles in particular dominate the scene in west Yorkshire. The 1991 census revealed that nearly 7,000 people are employed in textiles in the Huddersfield travel-to-work area and that approximately 2,500 people work in textiles in my constituency of Colne Valley. In the country as a whole, the clothing and textile industries provide about 400,000 jobs. The future of the industry is, therefore, of enormous importance to us all.
Let me make it clear from the outset that I am absolutely delighted that it has been possible to reach a general agreement on tariffs and trade. People on both sides of the political divide are increasingly coming to appreciate the benefits of free trade, not only in this country and in the European Community but across the world. GATT has made and will continue to make an important contribution to the ending of barriers to trade and I am pleased that, after a number of hiccups and disagreements, an agreement was possible.
As Britain is a major exporting nation, the deal will be good for British industry and British jobs. However, I have to report that the textile industry is not happy about the way in which GATT will affect it. As part of the agreement, the multi-fibre arrangement is to be phased out over 10 years. The industry is relatively sanguine about the fact that the MFA, which currently provides some protection against foreign imports, is to go. In return, however, the industry had hoped and expected a significant increase in market access in other countries. Sadly, that does not appear to have happened.
The industry is extremely happy with the strengthened rules on the protection of intellectual property and with the new anti-dumping regulations. Its disappointment relates to GATT's failure to result in significant reductions in the tariffs being levied on British exports to a number of countries. One of the problems is that we have not yet received full details of the agreement; perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will be able to fill in some of the gaps in our information. However, one thing is obvious, and that is that the high tariffs remain in place in many countries.
I welcome the gradual reduction in the American tariff of 36 per cent. on wool cloth, which will be reduced to 25 per cent. over 10 years, but that is a fairly slow reduction, which does not go far enough when compared with the

517
tariffs charged by European Community countries of 3·8 per cent. on yarn and 13 per cent. on woollen and worsted cloth.
As far as we know, the tariff of 85 per cent. in India will remain. Similarly, Pakistan levies 80 per cent. on wool cloth from the United Kingdom with an additional 15 per cent. import tax and an extra 15 per cent. sales tax on top of that. Indonesia levies 25 per cent. on cloth from the United Kingdom and up to 40 per cent. on other textile products. Australia levies 29 per cent. duty on imported cloth, New Zealand 22 per cent.—to be fair, to be reduced to 20 per cent. by July 1996—and South Africa levies duty of 32 per cent. on worsted cloth and 45 per cent. on woollen cloth.
I mention those specific countries because they all represent excellent potential markets for British textiles. In reality, however, British sales are dramatically lower than they might be because of the high prices caused by those high tariffs. India, for example, has a burgeoning middle class of more than 200 million people, many of whom would be only too happy to buy high quality woollen and worsted cloth made in Huddersfield. The absurdly high tariffs, however, make it extremely difficult for British exporters to all those countries.
Furthermore, we have the ridiculous situation that a great deal of Indian yarn comes into the United Kingdom, where only 3·8 per cent. duty is payable or, if it has a general systems preference certificate, it is free of duty. That yarn is then made up into cloth in this country. That cloth could be sold to India. If it were sold to India it would incur a duty of 85 per cent., but the sale of that cloth back to India is conditional on an undertaking to guarantee 100 per cent. re-export. In other words, once the cloth has been made up the Indians are saying that it has to be re-exported out of India. The result of all that is that Britain exports very few textiles items to India. That is unacceptable.
There is no doubt that the GATT round provided the best opportunity to tackle the problem of those high tariffs. I am extremely disappointed that the European Community negotiators failed to secure significant reductions. However, all is not lost. I understand that the European Community is to undertake bilateral negotiations during the next few weeks with the countries that I have mentioned and I strongly urge the European Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, to push for massive tariff reductions in those countries.
I very much hope that my hon. Friend will draw the attention of Commissioner Brittan to this debate and make it crystal clear to him that more progress is required. I notice on today's Order Paper that the question to the Trade and Industry Ministers that I have tabled is due to be answered in two weeks' time. I think that it is No. 6, so I hope that my hon. Friend will then be able to report some progress.
I do not believe that we should take lying down a refusal by those countries to reduce their tariffs. If no progress is made, the European Community should consider what steps can be taken, in spite of an outside-of-GATT agreement. There is a case for refusing to reduce any of the EC's tariffs for those recalcitrant countries. In addition, some of the emerging third world countries enjoy the benefits of the European Community's tariff preference
518
scheme, where no duty is payable, and there is a strong case for saying that that should be withdrawn from the countries which refuse to reduce their tariffs.
Free trade benefits producers and consumers alike. GATT has given a massive boost to free trade in the world but, sadly, not to free and fair trade in textiles. While we have agreed to phase out—
Mr. Edward Garnier rose—
Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend wish to intervene?
Mr. GarnierI am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way during his important and illuminating speech, although I would have waited until he had finished his sentence.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that in my constituency of Harborough a fair percentage of the working population is engaged in the textile, hosiery and knitwear industries. Will he accept from me that, despite some disappointment with the result of the recent GATT round, there is none the less a great sense of optimism in the domestic textile industry? Many people are finding new markets, both within the United Kingdom and externally. Perhaps significantly, unemployment in my constituency is below 2,000. I trust that my hon. Friend will agree that we should not paint to gloomy a picture, because he has as much of an interest as I have in increasing British exports of textiles.
Mr. RiddickI am grateful to my hon. Friend, and delighted to learn of the success of the textile industry in his constituency. I can report to him that several companies selling wool textile items in my part of the world are doing extremely well. However, Adjournment debates provide an opportunity to encourage Ministers to get the best possible deal for British companies and British industry in general—and, of course, that is the purpose of tonight's debate.
Mr. Bob CryerI support what the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) has been saying about the GATT arrangements, especially the reservations that he has expressed. I was at the same meeting of the Confederation of British Wool Textiles, and employers there clearly expressed strong difficulties with, and reservations about, the arrangements reached so far for textiles, exactly as the hon. Gentleman has been describing.
Mr. Riddick: It grieves me somewhat to say this, but I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). We do not often agree, but I am delighted that we can agree tonight. Yes, we were at the meeting together, and much concern was expressed by employers in the British wool textile industry. That is why we are having the debate. Without that briefing during the Christmas recess, I would not have realised how disappointed employers were with the GAIT deal. The debate is an excellent opportunity to flag up some of the problems that have arisen and to ask the Government, and in particular my hon. Friend the Minister, what we can do about it. Can we, even at this late stage, encourage the countries concerned to reduce their tariffs? That is what we should aim to do.
As I have said, GATT is most important, and will give world trade a massive boost, so it is disappointing that the textile industry has not been able to give it a wider welcome. While we have agreed to phase out the multi-fibre arrangement over 10 years, many potential

519
markets are protected by the punitive levels of tariff imposed by their own Governments, as I have tried to illustrate.
I much deplore that, and I hope that in the short time still available for negotiations between the European Community and those countries, progress can be made to create more of a level playing field. I am confident that where there are open markets and fair trade, the British textile industry, especially the wool industry, is as capable as any other industry in this country of creating new markets and generating new business, because it is dealing in quality products at competitive prices.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade for meeting representatives of the British wool textile industry 10 days ago, along with members of the all-party wool textile group, and I am grateful to him for being here tonight. I look forward to hearing his response to what I have said.
10.13 pm
Mr. Gary Waller: My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) has put a robust case and his arguments were forceful. The industry on whose behalf he spoke has a remarkable record. He referred to the large number of people, some 400,000, employed in the industry. That is only half the number employed in the industry 10 to 12 years ago. Things have moved on since then and the industry has become very effective and productive.
In the interests of free trade, the industry has always been prepared to see the phasing out of the multi-fibre arrangement. However, it has always stressed that that must be accompanied by strengthened rules and disciplines in GATT. It is fair to say that there is serious disappointment that the rules so far announced are not sufficiently strong. We await further announcements about the disciplines which will be brought to bear to ensure that the rules are enforced. Too often in the past there has been a failure in that respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley was right to draw attention to the lack of market access which so far appears to have emerged from the Uruguay round and to the fact that, in too many of the burgeoning markets of the world where there is a rising middle class with considerable buying power, our exporters face insuperable barriers and enormous tariffs which are almost impossible to overcome. Even with regard to the United States, over a 10-year period, the reduction in tariffs will be gradual and inadequate.
In the further GATT negotiations which are bound to take place, I hope that a robust line will be taken by the Commissioner and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues will press to ensure that the agreements which have been reached are fully enforced and that the disciplines are strengthened. At the end of the 10-year period, I hope that we will not say that the agreement reached this year was a failure in terms of its ability to ensure that free trade could operate in the interests of textiles and clothing in this country.
10.16 pm
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): The importance of this debate can be seen by the number of hon. Members in the Chamber. My hon. Friends and Opposition Members will appreciate that, having been
520
responsible for the textile and garment industry in Northern Ireland for several years, I have it very much as part of my heart and soul, as they do when it comes to discussing the wool and worsted industry in Yorkshire which is one of this country's great industries.
Although I accept that GATT overall is of enormous benefit to the industry or our country and that the safeguarding and anti-dumping regulations in the new agreement are significant improvements on what went before, I must accept that there are considerable disappointments in the agreement with regard to the textile and garment industry.
As for the multi-fibre arrangement, those of us who were involved at the time will be aware that orginally we were not considering a 10-year phase-out; we were considering a five-year phase-out. The fact that we have achieved a 10-year phase-out is a benefit to the industry as a whole.
Nevertheless, I accept that we have not achieved everything that we would have wished to achieve in the present GATT. We fought hard in Geneva, right up to the last minute, to force the Indians, Pakistanis and Indonesians to allow market access for our textiles and clothing at a maximum of a 35 per cent. tariff. We involved the Commission, the United States and Peter Sutherland, the head of the GATT negotiating team, in negotiations right up to the very last second. Unfortunately, we felt that the whole deal could have unravelled if we pushed the point, but at that meeting we received a commitment from the Pakistanis, the Indians and the Indonesians to continue negotiating.
I can tell my hon. Friend, even though his question will be answered in two weeks, that, although 15 February is the final date for schedules to GATT to be approved, the Commission has assured me that it is determined to continue arguing until Ministers have to sign the final Act in April. I assure the House that the strongest pressure will be brought to bear on those countries. I have asked my senior officials to meet representatives of the textile industry next week to discuss with them the details of exactly what we intend that pressure to be.
Unfortunately, this is not the only disappointing news. As hon. Members know, in July last year, at the Tokyo summit we agreed a framework market access deal which included the objective of 50 per cent. cuts in tariff peaks. That appeared to be an important breakthrough, securing what we believed at the time were substantial reductions in the crucial United States textile tariffs. Despite strong pressure from the European Community and, most important, from ourselves, the United States refused to honour the Tokyo deal in respect of textiles. It claimed that there was an oral understanding in Tokyo that its offer—I will not go into details, but it did not do it. That was extremely disappointing to us, and we continued to ask and press for improvements. Our position was not particularly helped by the news in September that the European Community and the United States had come to an agreement over United States tariff reductions on textiles.
I thank the industry for its support in making our case and for the warnings that it gave its European colleagues. Unfortunately, they were not listened to, and the result fell far short of United Kingdom industry requirements and was far below the objective of 50 per cent. reductions in peak tariffs that had been put forward in the Quad in Tokyo. I repeat my thanks to the industry for the way in which it worked with us to try to achieve that which,

521
unfortunately, we did not manage to get; but we agreed a cut which, although disappointing, was substantial. Wool fabric tariffs were cut from 42 per cent., 36 per cent. and 33 per cent. to 25 per cent.. That must be of real value to our industry. Wool clothing tariffs were cut from 22 per cent. and more to 17·5 per cent. and from 17 per cent. to 14 per cent. That will help our companies in the American market.
As for other countries, we have some successes to report—Thailand, 100 per cent. to 30 per cent. We will not find many people wandering around in thick woollen suits in Thailand, and the same argument applies to India, I suppose. I accept that the results in respect of India, Pakistan and Indonesia were disappointing but, as hon. Members know, the South Koreans increased their wool and textiles tariff rate to 19 per cent. I protested to the Korean Government when I went there in April, and I wrote to the Korean Finance and Trade Industry Ministers only last week, expressing our dismay. Sir Leon Brittan has also complained to the Koreans. We are considering how we will respond to the Korean tariff increases. We have some ways in which we think that we will retaliate against what they have done. I shall continue to raise the matter with the Korean Ministers.
Mr. Cryer: The Minister touches on an important point. I have written to Ministers on several occasions about both the actuality and the threat of the increase in Korean tariffs, which has been hanging over us for some time. An employer has informed me that, if the tariff does not revert to its pre-increase level, the number of jobs in the textile industry may well be reduced. As the Minister knows, in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), there are 11,000 jobs at stake, and the figure for the whole of the west riding of Yorkshire is 20,000 or more. The matter is vital, and I am pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government are considering retaliation.
Mr. Needham: We have bilateral agreements with the Koreans whereby, if they have oversupplied in one area, they have been able to move goods across to another. We are looking at ways of stopping that. The problem comes not from the British industry but from the Italian industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) knows. But that is not the point. What the Koreans have done is not acceptable.
As hon. Members have said, the industry has achieved enormous success across the world over a very long period and is well renowned. The circumstances in which it finds itself make it even more important for the Government and the industry to develop a partnership to support the industry's exports and help it further to improve its international competitiveness.
Mr. Max Madden: The Minister referred to the need for the industry to become more competitive. Does he think that there is any mileage in
522
trying to persuade the Indians and Pakistanis in particular to lower their tariffs in the context of growing mutual trade between the United Kingdom and those two countries? Might we be able to secure lower tariffs in that context?
Mr. Needham: That is exactly what we intend to do, not only up to 15 February but thereafter. That will be the general context in which we shall argue these points, which we shall also argue through the Commission. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that those countries want access to our markets, not only in textiles but in other goods.
The partnership to which I referred is under way. The Department's textiles division has the closest working relationship with the British Apparel and Textiles Confederation and we are working on a number of initiatives, as I explained last week. One of the aims is to bring the United Kingdom textile and clothing manufacturers and retailers into closer partnership to boost home sourcing, which is most important. By their very nature, large parts of the clothing industry face constant change in what customers want. That is what high street fashion is now all about. To meet those changing demands, a rapid response is needed on the part of clothing suppliers and those who supply them with fabric. Where better to provide that rapid response than at home? We should be able to read across to other United Kingdom retailers the potential opportunities that, for example, Marks and Spencer has provided over the years.
We are already working with BATC to home in on the export markets in Japan and Germany in a concentrated effort to promote exports of British clothing and textiles, and we plan to expand that targeted approach to 10 other overseas markets next year. We are talking to the woollen and worsted sector about its long-term prospects, and I was in Leeds today talking to Mr. Ackroyd and others about ways in which we can develop initiatives that will meet the industry's needs. Moreover, we are working with the clothing and textile sector as a whole on how we can consider aspects of competitiveness such as benchmarking, quality, design, research and technology.
In case anyone thinks that the Government have not put their money where their mouth is, I inform the House that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has decided to increase significantly the number of staff involved in textile and clothing sponsorship work in the Department.
I understand the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley about GATT. Nevertheless, we have an immensely strong industry. We are working with vertical integration as between retailers and textile and garment manufacturers not only to boost our exports but to find ways to improve our sales at home. There is a new sense of confidence in the industry and a new feeling that it has a long-term future. As I said, the industry is vital to many of the areas that hon. Members represent. I can assure the House that the Government will do all that they can to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cuba
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding present United Kingdom relations with Cuba.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Relations with Cuba are correct. We are in diplomatic relations with Cuba and are in favour of increased trade between the two countries.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which special advisers in his Department are seconded from other organisations; and what are the organisations and the lengths and terms of the secondments.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Neither of my two special advisers is serving on secondment terms.

  Photographs
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to buy or borrow photographs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have no plans to buy or borrow any photographs for display in my ministerial office.

  Paintings and Photographs
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many(a) paintings and (b) photographs there are on the walls of his rooms.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have six paintings and three engravings on the walls of my ministerial office.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Brian Charrington
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Attorney-General what contact took place between his Department and the journalist John Merry of Darlington about the case of Brian Charrington; at what level this was authorised; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  None. The contact between Mr. John Merry and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who had had no departmental involvement in the case at all, took place in my hon. Friend's capacity as a constituency Member of Parliament and without any reference to my Department.
  322
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Attorney-General for what reason a representative of his office met counsel for Brian Charrington; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Wednesday 26 January to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). The meeting which I held on 21 December 1992 followed a request by leading counsel for Mr. Charrington to see the Law Officers in order to make representations to them, in view of their general responsibility in relation to prosecutions, about the length of time his client had been in custody and the need for a final decision as to whether the case should proceed having regard to recent representations made by Mr. Charrington's solicitors in the light of the evidence.

  The representatives of HM Customs and Excise at that meeting explained that further inquiries were already in hand. It was agreed that these should be expedited and a final advice obtained from prosecuting counsel as soon as practicable. The Commissioners of Customs and Excise, having received that advice, decided on 27 January 1993 to withdraw proceedings against Mr. Brian Charrington. Although the Attorney-General had been kept informed of progress he was not consulted about that decision.

WALES

  Deeside
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his plans to improve the environment and tackle dereliction on Deeside, Clwyd.

  Mr. Redwood
  Considerable resources are being devoted to improving the environment of Deeside. The WDA has already completed over 40 land reclamation schemes covering almost 1,000 acres at a cost of over £13 million. A further 28 schemes costing £6·6 million are in progress or planned; these will lead to the reclamation of an additional 300 acres.

  The agency also has a programme of environmental improvement projects to be carried out in partnership with the local authorities, the private sector and other bodies. Projects to be implemented this year include the landscaping of the bypasses at Bagillt and Ffynnongroyw and environmental improvements at the Greenfield business centre. Environmental enhancement will also be one of the aims of a planned joint venture currently being discussed by the agency, Alyn and Deeside district council and Clwyd county council. This will focus on north Deeside and encourage both economic and environmental regeneration.

  Farm and Conservation Grant
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes there have been in the interpretation of expenditure incurred in the guidelines agreed between his Department and the Treasury for operation of the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Order 1993.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Cardiology
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement regarding the instructions given by Gwynedd health authority that all
  323
  future referrals for cardiological opinion of Gwynedd patients are to be made to the cardiology unit in Manchester.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is a matter for Gwynedd health authority, taking into account a number of factors, including the views of patients, the assessment of clinical quality as judged by general practitioners and consultants, the waiting time for a first diagnosis, cost and the distance between a patient's home and the hospital.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to pay interest on all overdue sheep annual premium payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. Most of the 17 per cent. of payments outstanding cannot be paid until queries about their eligibility are resolved.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farmers in Wales are still awaiting payments with respect to their 1993 sheep annual premium scheme; and when he expects these payments to be made.

  Mr. Redwood
  A total of 17,442 eligible claims were received and 3,043 remain to be paid. As in earlier years, the majority of payments outstanding are awaiting the resolution of queries or farm visits by officials.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many outstanding claims there are to be processed with respect to the 1993 sheep annual premium scheme; and when he expects the remaining claims to be processed.

  Mr. Redwood
  A total of 2,489 claims remain to be processed out of the 17,442 valid claims received. The balance will be paid as soon as outstanding queries about their eligibility are resolved.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the total cash amount in sheep annual premium payments that has not yet been sent out to farmers with respect to 1993 payments.

  Mr. Redwood
  Over £80 million has been paid already and it is estimated that a further £10 million may be paid depending on the eligibility of the remaining claims.

  Machynlleth Hospital
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his response to the conclusion of the Gwynedd health authority's contract review on the elimination of the 15 consultant beds at Machynlleth hospital; and what estimate he has made of the annual savings resulting from the implementation of these recommendations.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is a matter for Gwynedd health authority and Powys health care NHS trust, following discussions with general practitioners, hospital doctors and local community health councils.

  Farmers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to pay interest on overdue headage and grant support payments made to farmers under the 1993 scheme.
  324
  Mr. Redwood
  There are no such plans.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation in relation to the number of working weeks required by the corporation to comment on the financial management and policy review of the corporation; and what additional time he has allotted for consultation on the report prior to publication following the discussions.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have had no such discussions with the chairman. I have not set a detailed timetable: I will want the board of the corporation to have the opportunity to consider and respond to the draft report before its recommendations are published.

  Valuation Panels
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many clerks to valuation panels there are in Wales and what was the budget for the panels or tribunals administration in the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are four valuation tribunal clerks. Gross provision for the Welsh tribunal service was £0·8 million for 1990–91, £0·876 million for 1991–92 and £1·921 million for 1992–93. The 1991–92 figure included a sum of about £1 million for the development and procurement of a new computer system.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current number of staffed beds for use by hospital in-patients in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There were 17,483 staffed beds in NHS hospitals in Wales at 30 September 1993.

  Welshpool Bypass
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will call for a report on(a) the fatal road accident at the Welshpool bypass on 18 January and (b) all earlier accidents since the opening of that bypass; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The fatality will be the subject of a coroner's inquest and the findings will be carefully considered by the Department. Accidents that have previously occurred on the bypass have already been investigated and additional road safety measures have been, or are being, introduced.

  Vale of Glamorgan
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those representations that have been made to him favouring the inclusion of Wick, St. Brides Major and Ewenny in the proposed new unitary authority of the Vale of Glamorgan.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received 16 representations in favour of my proposal to establish a Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority as set out in the White Paper, "Local Government in Wales: A Charter for the Future".
  325
  Of these, the following organisations specifically expressed support for the inclusion of Wick, St. Brides Major and Ewenny in the Vale of Glamorgan authority:

  Penllyn Community Council

  Colwinston Community Council

  Llandough Community Council

  Cowbridge and District Conservative Club

  The Vale Defence Committee

  Ynys Môn Borough Council
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will arrange for a copy of the file sent to him by Councillor G. O. Parry of Vallery containing allegations of corruption within Ynys Môn borough council to be sent to the chief executive of that authority.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I will be replying to the letter from Councillor Parry in due course and I am willing for him to show that to the chief executive.

  Police (Finance)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what level of finance for police purposes is contained within the Welsh Office grant to each county council in Wales(a) for 1994–95, (b) for the current year and (c) for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  For 1994–95, the current financial year, and for each of the last five years the level of finance is that 49 per cent. of budgeted expenditure is met by county councils from resources available to them under the annual local authority revenue settlement for Wales. Under the settlement, revenue expenditure is funded mainly from central Government sources, revenue support grant and redistributed non-domestic rates income, with the balance coming from council tax payers. None of this settlement funding is earmarked for police spending. Expenditure on police and other services is determined by county councils in the light of their statutory responsibilities, local needs and available resources. Fifty-one per cent. of actual police expenditure is met by Home Office police grant.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the standard spending assessment set for each police authority in Wales(a) for 1994–95, (b) for the current year and (c) for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The standard spending assessments for county councils in Wales includes provision for police services.

  Development Agency
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the Welsh Development Agency has been asked for a reference by the Further Education Funding Council for applicants to the post of property controller.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I understand that the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency was asked to be a referee and provided information accordingly.

  Housing Policy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his housing policy.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Our policy is set out in "Housing in Wales: An Agenda for Action".
  326

  Homelessness
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he proposes to tackle homelessness.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In keeping with the policy framework set out in "Housing for Wales: An Agenda for Action" I have recently invited local authorities to bid against a £4 million reserve to complement their homelessness capital projects in 1994–95.

  In addition the Welsh Office consultation paper of 20 January 1993, "Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies" has initiated discussion on the way local authorities should approach homelessness in the future.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he proposes to lessen reliance upon bed-and-breakfast accommodation where young families who are homeless are concerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest available figures are those for 30 September 1993. These show a significant reduction compared with September 1992 in the number of statutorily homeless families temporarily accommodated in bed and breakfast, from 331 to 176.

  Further Education Funding Council
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he or anyone in his Department has been asked for a reference by the Further Education Funding Council for applicants to the post of property controller.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A senior official in the Department was asked to provide a reference and did so.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will announce his decision on the 1994–95 local government revenue settlement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have given careful consideration to the representations I have received on the provisional settlement proposals I announced on 30 November. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has met the Assembly of Welsh Counties, and I chaired a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, at which settlement issues were discussed.

  Having taken account of all the representations, I remain of the view that my proposals provide local authorities with an adequate level of funding for 1994–95, given the Government's view that local government should continue to pursue efficiency savings and meet the cost of pay increases from improved performance. I have therefore decided to set total standard spending—TSS—at £2,704·8 million and aggregate external finance—AEF—at £2,419·2 million for 1994–95. The settlement will increase the level of resources available to local government by over £100 million compared with 1993–94.

  AEF will comprise £1,740·1 million in revenue support grant, £464·0 million in distributable non-domestic rates, and £215·1 million in specific and supplementary grants. My decisions are subject to the approval of the House.

  The TSS I have announced for 1994–95 represents an increase of 4·2 per cent. on 1993–94, including £86·0

  327
  million for care in the community. My plans mean that 89 per cent. of all local authority revenue expenditure in Wales would be met by central Government and should ensure a reasonable level of council tax for local taxpayers in Wales.

  I trust that local authorities will budget prudently and play their part in restraining public expenditure.

  I propose to lay the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1994–95 before the House, for its approval, early next week. At the same time, I will be laying for the House's approval, the Local Government Finance (Amendment) Report (Wales) 1993–94. The amending report rectifies a deficiency in the description of the basis for distributing the distributable amount from the non-domestic rating account contained in the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1993–94—HC 412 of 1 February 1993. The amendment does not affect payments under the original report which have been made in the intended manner.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action is available to him in respect of magistrates who allow party political considerations to determine penalties.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In the declaration and undertaking made on appointment magistrates certify that they understand and agree that their conduct must be free from any sexual, racial, political or other bias. The Lord Chancellor may reprimand a magistrate for his conduct or remove him from office, as appropriate, if there is evidence to show that he appears to be allowing party political considerations improperly to determine penalties.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidelines are issued to magistrates in respect of the making of political comments in(a) assessing penalties and (b) delivering judgments.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No specific guidelines are issued. The judicial oath taken by all magistrates requires them to"do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will".

  On appointment magistrates declare that they accept their conduct should be free from any sexual, racial, political or other bias. This is reinforced in the training given to magistrates. The clerk to the justices will also advise them on the need to avoid bringing their impartiality into question.

  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidelines are issued to magistrates by his Department on speeches in mitigation with particular reference to political objectives.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No specific guidelines are issued by the Lord Chancellor but magistrates are advised on the law by their clerks. Magistrates on appointment undertake to conduct themselves in a manner which is free from sexual, racial, political or other bias; this is also covered in the training given to magistrates.
  328

  Common Hold
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to legislate to introduce commonhold; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government intend to introduce this legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  "Back to Basics"
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what working definition of "back to basics" is used by his Department; and what his Department has done in the past three months to implement the policy.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding reply 20 January 1994]: I refer to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 21 January at column 849.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the implications of the Government's "back to basics" policy for his Department during 1994.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding reply 20 January 1994]: I refer to the answer by the Prime Minister on 21 January at column 849.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Vehicle Registration Marks
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if owners of new cars requiring registration marks in Northern Ireland later this year will have the right to purchase all registration marks with the DAZ prefix; and what arrangements will be made for new car owners who do not wish to use that mark;

  (2) what negotiations are taking place with commercial organisations about the use of the prefix DAZ in vehicle registration marks;

  (3) what statutory provisions govern the withdrawal of motor vehicle registration marks from availability to the Northern Ireland public and offering these registration marks to the highest bidder.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  At present, there is no scheme in operation for the sale of registration marks in Northern Ireland and no arrangement could be made with any person or organisation for the use of any specific marks in issue by the Belfast local vehicle licensing office of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland. When CAZ is exhausted later this year, new vehicles registered at that office will be assigned registration marks from the DAZ series.

  Each of the eight local vehicle licensing offices in Northern Ireland allocates registration marks within a different series. The owner of a new vehicle can register it at any local office and, in this way, exercise a degree of choice over the registration mark assigned to the vehicle. An owner wishing to avoid a registration mark in the DAZ series need only apply to another local office other than Belfast whilst DAZ marks are being issued by that office.

  The first registration number which will be issued from this new series will be DAZ 1000. In 1985 the Department

  329
  of the Environment for Northern Ireland, which was then responsible for the administration of vehicle registration, introduced a policy of withholding from issue the first 99 numbers in each new series. This was extended to the first 999 marks in 1989. These unissued marks would be available for sale to the public should a scheme for the sale of registration marks be introduced in Northern Ireland in the future.

  Under the provisions of section 19 of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 and regulation 10 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1973, the form of any registration mark issued to a vehicle being registered for the first time is a matter for the Secretary of State for Transport. There is no statutory obligation to assign any specific mark or to use any specific series of marks.

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 404, how many official Christmas cards he and his junior Ministers sent out in 1993; and how much this cost.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The total number of official Christmas cards issued was 2,266. The total cost of purchasing and postage was £2,909·10.

  "Crime and the Community"
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he proposes to take following consultation on his discussion paper "Crime and the Community"; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I have considered carefully the response to the discussion paper "Crime and the Community" and am today placing in the Library of the House the details of my proposals for implementing a wide-ranging strategy for dealing with crime in Northern Ireland. In the light of the positive and constructive comments I received on the discussion paper, I propose to commence implementation of the key recommendations in each of the areas identified in the paper. The resulting programme will improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in responding to the problem of crime in the years ahead. It will provide a sound statutory framework and will encourage a range of measures for preventing crime, challenging offending, and protecting victims.

  Among the measures with which I propose to proceed are:
  a community safety strategy encouraging local crime prevention initiatives with community involvement;
  a pilot scheme for voluntary offence mediation;
  measures to ensure the appropriate use of cautioning;
  further action to reduce pre-trial delays;

  £000s

  Police authority

  1988–89 GRE

  1989–90 GRE

  1990–91 SSA

  1991–92 SSA

  1992–93 SSA

  1993–94 SSA

  1994–95 Provisional

  Avon and Somerset

  42,254

  46,568

  50,802

  55,443

  63,999

  66,489

  69,275

  Bedfordshire

  13,945

  15,727

  18,039

  20,238

  25,127

  26,498

  27,790

  Cambridgeshire

  16,177

  18,017

  19,824

  21,691

  26,516

  27,547

  28,702

  Cheshire

  25,729

  28,399

  30,911

  33,986

  39,805

  41,353

  43,087

  Cleveland

  20,555

  22,506

  24,640

  27,037

  31,139

  32,350

  33,706

  Cumbria

  15,954

  17,467

  19,129

  21,151

  24,609

  25,566

  26,638

  Derbyshire

  25,004

  27,376

  29,670

  32,276

  38,354

  39,846

  41,516

  Devon and Cornwall

  38,963

  43,164

  47,096

  51,536

  60,702

  63,064

  65,706

  Dorset

  17,223

  18,857

  20,801

  22,879

  26,993

  28,043

  29,218

  330
  a statutory framework within which a wider range of penalties for adults and juveniles will be available to the courts;
  new arrangements aimed at securing better service to the public through improved co-ordination in the criminal justice system; and
  the publication of more information about the criminal justice system.

  Together the measures represent an effective, integrated and relevant response to the problem of crime in Northern Ireland. Their implementation will require the active co-operation and support of a wide range of people both within and beyond the criminal justice system. I intend to continue the process of consultation as the details of these proposals are developed, building on the broad measure of support for the ideas set out in "Crime and Community".

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Channel Tunnel (Fire Services)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision has been made for special training for fire service personnel likely to be required to provide service to the channel tunnel; how many such personnel have received specialist training; whether such training has included paramedic instruction; what is the expected reaction time for the fire service in the event of an emergency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Fifty-three specially trained members of the Kent fire brigade will permanently man the emergency centre at the United Kingdom terminal. They will respond immediately to calls for assistance in the tunnel. About 1,000 other brigade personnel are trained to support them if necessary. All the brigade receive first aid or advanced first aid training. Support from the fire station at Folkestone would take not more than five minutes to arrive from receipt of the call at brigade headquarters.

  Police (Standard Spending Assessments)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the standard spending assessment for each police force in England and Wales,(a) for 1994–95, (b) for the current year and (c) for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Howard
  Standard spending assessments—SSAs—were introduced in 1990. Previously assessments of local authority spending needs were expressed as grant related expenditure assessments—GREs. Police components of GREs or SSAs from 1988–89 to 1993–94, and of the provisional SSAs for 1994–95, for English police authorities are shown in the table.

  SSAs for Welsh local authorities are a matter for the Secretary of State for Wales.
  331

  Police authority

  1988–89 GRE

  1989–90 GRE

  1990–91 SSA

  1991–92 SSA

  1992–93 SSA

  1993–94 SSA

  1994–95 Provisional

  Durham

  18,924

  20,719

  22,753

  24,751

  28,796

  29,917

  31,171

  Essex

  38,643

  43,226

  49,255

  54,851

  64,662

  67,767

  71,273

  Gloucestershire

  16,232

  17,772

  19,262

  20,953

  24,546

  25,501

  26,570

  Hampshire

  43,300

  47,760

  54,289

  59,904

  71,551

  75,453

  79,134

  Hertfordshire

  23,746

  26,472

  29,917

  32,973

  38,803

  40,290

  42,413

  Humberside

  27,500

  30,109

  32,963

  36,128

  42,168

  43,809

  45,645

  Kent

  40,879

  45,354

  51,544

  57,435

  68,381

  72,419

  76,389

  Lancashire

  44,040

  48,218

  52,506

  57,873

  66,943

  69,547

  72,462

  Leicestershire

  24,167

  26,460

  29,124

  32,636

  38,416

  39,910

  41,583

  Lincolnshire

  16,497

  18,063

  19,576

  21,547

  25,002

  25,975

  27,064

  Norfolk

  18,380

  20,429

  22,538

  25,345

  29,978

  31,144

  32,450

  Northamptonshire

  14,977

  16,887

  18,550

  20,539

  24,671

  25,630

  26,705

  North Yorkshire

  19,077

  20,887

  22,886

  25,345

  29,398

  30,541

  31,821

  Nottinghamshire

  31,503

  35,026

  38,358

  42,194

  48,595

  50,485

  52,894

  Staffordshire

  30,066

  33,071

  36,207

  39,638

  45,921

  47,707

  49,707

  Suffolk

  16,539

  18,108

  19,626

  21,673

  25,562

  26,557

  27,670

  Surrey

  24,091

  26,927

  30,103

  33,255

  39,239

  40,503

  42,834

  Sussex

  40,801

  44,809

  50,825

  56,093

  60,754

  64,004

  67,155

  Thames Valley

  48,977

  55,637

  63,248

  70,893

  85,179

  90,575

  95,202

  Warwickshire

  13,680

  14,978

  16,415

  18,451

  21,520

  22,443

  23,384

  West Mercia

  27,235

  29,972

  32,946

  36,415

  42,562

  44,218

  46,071

  Wiltshire

  14,977

  16,398

  17,954

  21,115

  26,495

  27,763

  28,927

  Greater Manchester

  96,823

  106,009

  115,636

  126,349

  144,376

  149,884

  156,167

  Merseyside

  65,250

  71,441

  77,791

  84,622

  97,563

  101,359

  105,608

  Northumbria

  48,153

  53,180

  58,132

  63,939

  74,676

  77,581

  80,833

  South Yorkshire

  40,874

  45,057

  49,279

  53,967

  62,838

  65,282

  68,019

  West Midlands

  93,211

  103,123

  113,021

  124,080

  143,090

  148,656

  154,888

  West Yorkshire

  72,572

  79,808

  87,025

  95,027

  109,774

  114,045

  118,825

  Metropolitan Police

  484,112

  531,107

  613,875

  676,931

  729,511

  761,712

  791,008

  City of London

  14,267

  16,010

  613,875

  20,639

  23,187

  26,570

  29,690

  Departmental Employees (Immigration Status)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received concerning the immigration status of those employed directly or indirectly by his Department; and what actions he has taken upon such reports.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I am aware of only one such report. This was in connection with a recent joint Immigration Service and Metropolitan police operation to establish the immigration status of cleaners employed on a contract basis at the Passport Agency, Clive house. A number of people were interviewed on 22 December 1993, but no immigration offenders were detected.

  ULE966
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the name of the charter company retained by his Department to supply a flight to Kingston from Gatwick on 25 December.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Air Holland.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children who arrived at Gatwick on 21 December on flight ULE966 were(a) refused entry to the United Kingdom, (b) given temporary admission pending further inquiry or (c) removed or deported from the United Kingdom; and how many are to be removed or deported from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Fourteen children aged 16 years or under who arrived on flight ULE966 were refused entry, one of whom was given temporary admission pending
  332
  further inquiries and refused entry on 2 January. Ten have been removed from the United Kingdom. Four are still liable to be removed, one of whom has absconded from temporary admission. The other three are the subject of further consideration.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decisions have been taken on applications to visit the United Kingdom by those passengers on flight ULE966 at Gatwick on 21 December who were given temporary admission pending their removal; how many(a) have been allowed to visit the United Kingdom, (b) have been refused a visit, (c) have had temporary admission extended, (d) are in detention and (e) have been or are to be deported.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is as follows. Thirty-seven passengers on ULE966 were refused entry and granted temporary admission pending removal, of whom three were removed on 12 January and 24 left on 17 January. Ten others, none of whom is detained, remain liable for removal. Four of them had their temporary admission extended beyond 17 January pending further consideration of their cases and six have absconded from temporary admission.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department against whom penalty payments are being sought, under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, for passengers on a British Caledonian charter flight arriving at Gatwick on 14 December and flight ULE966 arriving at Gatwick on 21 December, who were refused entry to the United Kingdom; whether the liability in each case is being sought because the passengers had defective travel documentation; and what representations he has received against liability for such penalty payments.
  333
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No charges under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 were levied in respect of either flight.

  Immigration Service, London
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what internal inquiry he has authorised into the immigration service in London; when he authorised that inquiry; what are the terms of reference of the inquiry; who is conducting the inquiry; how many immigration officers have been suspended pending the outcome of the inquiry; and when the findings of the inquiry are expected.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Senior Home Office officials are investigating the possibility that unauthorised disclosure of information to a newspaper may have taken place. The investigation began in December 1993 and will be concluded as soon as possible. No member of the Immigration Service has been suspended from duty.

  Leytonstone Fire Station
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals the London fire and civil defence authority has for reducing the effect of diesel exhaust emissions from fire appliances turning out from Leytonstone fire station on that fire station's personnel.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been informed by the chief fire officer that the emissions of diesel exhaust from London fire brigade fire appliances at Leytonstone fire station, which are inspected quarterly, are within the levels permitted by the Health and Safety Executive guidance on occupational exposure levels. Consideration is, however, being given to improvements in the layout of the station which would reduce exposure to such emissions.

  Badgers
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to ensure that all perpetrators of attacks on badgers are brought to justice.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Badgers receive more protection in law than any other unendangered animal. The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 makes it an offence to kill, injure, ill-treat or take a badger, or attempt to do so, or to dig for one, except under licence or in certain particular circumstances defined in the Act. The baiting of any animal is prohibited by the Protection of Animals Act 1911.

  The enforcement of the law is a matter for the police.

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many dogs, registered with the index of exempt dogs, have been notified to the index as having been voluntarily destroyed;

  (2) how many dogs were registered with the index of exempt dogs, in accordance with section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, by 30 November 1991; how many were registered by 1 March 1992; and how many remained registered by 30 November 1993;

  (3) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) of 14 January, Official Report,
  334
  columns 334–36, how many defendants prosecuted under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 pleaded (a) guilty or (b) not guilty.

  (4) how many individuals have been prosecuted under section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 since its inception;

  (5) how many compensation payments were made under the Dangerous Dogs Compensation and Exemption Schemes Order 1991—SI., 1991, No. 1744; and how many dogs have been destroyed under this order;

  (6) how many forms were applied for to register dogs with the index of exempt dogs; and how many of these were returned (a) complete and (b) incomplete; and how many have not been returned to the index.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Index of Exempted Dogs issued 8,573 application forms to applicants, of which 7,015 were returned to the index: of these 5,223 were complete and resulted in the issue of a certificate of exemption. Of the remaining 1,792 applications, 709 were incomplete.

  Information is not available on the number of certificates of exemption in force on the various dates mentioned. As at 25 January 1994 there were 4,584 certificates remaining in force.

  The number of dogs destroyed under the compensation scheme was 294; payments were made in each case. The index has been notified of 576 dogs which have been voluntarily destroyed.

  Information is not collected on how defendants pleaded in Dangerous Dogs Act proceedings. Information on the number of prosecutions under section 1 of the 1991 Act has been collected since 1 January 1992 and I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) on 14 January at columns 334–36. Statistics for 1993 are expected to be available in autumn 1994.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether parish councils are offered grants from his Department for neighbourhood watch schemes.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office does not provide direct funding to support individual neighbourhood watch schemes. The neighbourhood watch movement is essentially local in character with co-ordination provided by police forces. The Home Office provides support through the production of leaflets and posters together with grant in aid to Crime Concern which supports neighbourhood watch activities. For example, the Home Office provided funding towards the cost of a neighbourhood watch' co-ordinators handbook which was published by Crime Concern last October.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters addressed to Ministers in his Department in the last 12 months by(a) hon. Members and (b) others have been forwarded for reply to each agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  In the period from 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1993, 736 letters from hon. Members addressed to myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends were forwarded to Home Office agencies for reply. Of these, 666
  335
  were forwarded to the Prison Service Agency, 66 to the United Kingdom Passport Agency and four to the Forensic Science Service Agency. Information is not available for similar letters received from others.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the changing pattern or special service calls on the fire service over the last 10 years; how such calls are financed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The number of special service incidents attended by the fire service in England and Wales for each year from 1983 to 1992 is shown in the table. Fire authorities have been able to provide these services from within their existing resources.

  Total number of special service calls for 1983 to 1992

  Year

  Number of special service calls

  1983

  88,880

  1984

  97,199

  1985

  121,953

  1986

  118,193

  1987

  175,846

  1988

  139,768

  1989

  160,090

  1990

  190,787

  1991

  168,970

  1992

  151,180

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with which organisation he has discussed the future of the fire service over the last 18 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The former Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, addressed the annual general meeting of the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' AssociationCACFOA—on 1 May 1993. I addressed the Fire '93 conference in September. I have also received delegations from West Glamorgan, Dyfed and Powys county councils to discuss the future of the fire service in Wales. In addition, I chair the central Fire Brigades Advisory Council for England and Wales, which meets twice a year, and which offers advice on any matter pertaining to the fire service. I continue to receive advice from a sub-committee of the council on the fire service implications of the recommendations of the Local Government Commission.

  I also met representatives of the Fire Brigades Union in October 1993 and a range of issues relating to the future of the fire service were discussed.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the implications for the fire service of(a) privatisation of the coal mining industry and (b) deregulation legislation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office is discussing with the Health and Safety Executive the possible need to issue guidance to chief fire officers on the implications for the fire service of developments in the coal industry. We have recently completed a review of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and are considering its findings and possible implications for business and the fire service.
  336
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the number of(a) fire stations, (b) fire service personnel and (c) pumps and other fire appliances in each fire brigade at the latest date for which figures are available; what the position was on the same basis 10 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The latest date for which information is available is 1 January 1993. Figures comparing the position on that date with that on 1 January 1984 are given in the following tables.

  Number of Fire Stations

  Brigades

  1984

  1993

  Clwyd

  19

  18

  Dyfed

  26

  27

  Mid Glamorgan

  24

  22

  South Glamorgan

  8

  8

  West Glamorgan

  12

  12

  Gwent

  20

  20

  Gwynedd

  26

  26

  Powys

  18

  18

  Avon

  23

  23

  Bedfordshire

  13

  14

  Berkshire

  19

  20

  Buckinghamshire

  24

  24

  Cambridgeshire

  28

  28

  Cheshire

  24

  24

  Cleveland

  14

  15

  Cornwall

  32

  32

  Cumbria

  38

  38

  Derbyshire

  31

  31

  Devon

  58

  58

  Dorset

  26

  27

  Durham

  18

  17

  Essex

  51

  51

  Gloucestershire

  20

  20

  Hampshire

  58

  55

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  26

  26

  Hertfordshire

  32

  32

  Humberside

  31

  31

  Kent

  65

  65

  Lancashire

  40

  40

  Leicestershire

  19

  19

  Lincolnshire

  37

  37

  Norfolk

  40

  40

  Northamptonshire

  21

  22

  Northumberland

  18

  18

  Nottinghamshire

  27

  26

  Oxfordshire

  24

  24

  Shropshire

  23

  23

  Isles of Scilly

  5

  5

  Somerset

  24

  24

  Staffordshire

  30

  30

  Suffolk

  35

  35

  Surrey

  24

  24

  East Sussex

  24

  24

  West Sussex

  28

  28

  Warwickshire

  20

  20

  Isle of Wight

  10

  10

  Wiltshire

  23

  24

  North Yorkshire

  35

  36

  Greater Manchester

  41

  41

  Merseyside

  28

  28

  Tyne and Wear

  19

  18

  West Midlands

  41

  40

  South Yorkshire

  27

  25

  West Yorkshire

  53

  51

  London

  115

  113

  Total

  1,615

  1,607

  337

  Whole-time staff

  Brigades

  1984

  1993

  Clwyd

  200

  182

  Dyfed

  191

  223

  Mid Glamorgan

  321

  341

  South Glamorgan

  309

  334

  West Glamorgan

  265

  235

  Gwent

  293

  292

  Gwynedd

  93

  106

  Powys

  27

  31

  Avon

  633

  640

  Bedfordshire

  288

  309

  Berkshire

  404

  434

  Buckinghamshire

  263

  316

  Cambridgeshire

  264

  267

  Cheshire

  610

  638

  Cleveland

  625

  641

  Cornwall

  181

  183

  Cumbria

  282

  287

  Derbyshire

  512

  492

  Devon

  522

  535

  Dorset

  297

  307

  Durham

  442

  429

  Essex

  861

  922

  Gloucestershire

  219

  232

  Hampshire

  738

  778

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  329

  342

  Hertfordshire

  531

  573

  Humberside

  731

  724

  Kent

  784

  908

  Lancashire

  904

  974

  Leicestershire

  440

  452

  Lincolnshire

  180

  190

  Norfolk

  304

  288

  Northamptonshire

  225

  292

  Northumberland

  253

  238

  Nottinghamshire

  609

  613

  Oxfordshire

  219

  229

  Shropshire

  200

  203

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  Somerset

  153

  172

  Staffordshire

  455

  492

  Suffolk

  243

  262

  Surrey

  676

  691

  East Sussex

  436

  436

  West Sussex

  375

  395

  Warwickshire

  298

  321

  Isle of Wight

  46

  48

  Wiltshire

  194

  206

  North Yorkshire

  401

  405

  Greater Manchester

  2,167

  2,188

  Merseyside

  1,548

  1,561

  Tyne and Wear

  1,065

  1,077

  West Midlands

  2,012

  2,095

  South Yorkshire

  1,096

  1,030

  West Yorkshire

  1,805

  1,830

  London

  6,954

  6,563

  Total

  34,473

  34,952

  Retained Staff1

  Brigades

  1984

  1993

  Clwyd

  194

  185

  Dyfed

  291

  295

  Mid Glamorgan

  206

  201

  South Glamorgan

  11

  17

  West Glamorgan

  68

  80

  Gwent

  204

  127

  Gwynedd

  304

  328

  Powys

  204

  199

  Avon

  187

  182

  Bedfordshire

  125

  124

  Berkshire

  157

  136

  Buckinghamshire

  231

  172

  Cambridgeshire

  293

  288

  Cheshire

  204

  133

  338

  Brigades

  1984

  1993

  Cleveland

  59

  59

  Cornwall

  397

  379

  Cumbria

  365

  382

  Derbyshire

  321

  346

  Devon

  614

  659

  Dorset

  280

  313

  Durham

  201

  143

  Essex

  390

  403

  Gloucestershire

  240

  253

  Hampshire

  523

  567

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  295

  313

  Hertfordshire

  209

  218

  Humberside

  241

  257

  Kent

  647

  682

  Lancashire

  368

  374

  Leicestershire

  206

  196

  Lincolnshire

  410

  441

  Norfolk

  440

  448

  Northamptonshire

  204

  215

  Northumberland

  146

  149

  Nottinghamshire

  266

  266

  Oxfordshire

  267

  229

  Shropshire

  227

  239

  Isles of Scilly

  29

  29

  Somerset

  367

  369

  Staffordshire

  303

  296

  Suffolk

  378

  391

  Surrey

  107

  114

  East Sussex

  227

  245

  West Sussex

  289

  302

  Warwickshire

  222

  168

  Isle of Wight

  150

  151

  Wiltshire

  270

  290

  North Yorkshire

  440

  414

  Greater Manchester

  62

  63

  Merseyside

  10

  6

  Tyne and Wear

  24

  18

  West Midlands

  22

  10

  South Yorkshire

  116

  70

  West Yorkshire

  316

  98

  London

  0

  0

  Total

  13,327

  13,132

  1 Expressed in units of 24 hour cover.

  Control Room Staff

  Brigades

  1984

  1993

  Clwyd

  23

  24

  Dyfed

  14

  18

  Mid Glamorgan

  21

  22

  South Glamorgan

  17

  18

  West Glamorgan

  17

  17

  Gwent

  20

  20

  Gwynedd

  12

  15

  Powys

  9

  9

  Avon

  25

  29

  Bedfordshire

  19

  19

  Berkshire

  21

  21

  Buckinghamshire

  15

  18

  Cambridgeshire

  25

  22

  Cheshire

  35

  29

  Cleveland

  25

  27

  Cornwall

  13

  14

  Cumbria

  16

  17

  Derbyshire

  24

  26

  Devon

  24

  25

  Dorset

  17

  20

  Durham

  24

  28

  Essex

  39

  39

  Gloucestershire

  18

  21

  Hampshire

  29

  31

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  18

  20

  Hertfordshire

  21

  21

  Humberside

  29

  30

  Kent

  33

  38

  339

  Brigades

  1984

  1993

  Lancashire

  40

  41

  Leicestershire

  20

  24

  Lincolnshire

  20

  21

  Norfolk

  23

  22

  Northamptonshire

  17

  17

  Northumberland

  14

  15

  Nottinghamshire

  25

  27

  Oxfordshire

  17

  21

  Shropshire

  17

  17

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  Somerset

  16

  19

  Staffordshire

  24

  21

  Suffolk

  17

  21

  Surrey

  25

  26

  East Sussex

  23

  24

  West Sussex

  26

  29

  Warwickshire

  18

  19

  Isle of Wight

  11

  12

  Wiltshire

  18

  18

  North Yorkshire

  18

  21

  Greater Manchester

  74

  74

  Merseyside

  70

  73

  Tyne and Wear

  34

  38

  West Midlands

  66

  68

  South Yorkshire

  37

  36

  West Yorkshire

  49

  58

  London

  177

  143

  Total

  1,499

  1,543

  Pumping Appliances

  Brigades

  1984

  1993

  Clwyd

  31

  28

  Dyfed

  35

  35

  Mid Glamorgan

  32

  30

  South Glamorgan

  14

  10

  West Glamorgan

  15

  14

  Gwent

  49

  36

  Gwynedd

  43

  46

  Powys

  29

  28

  Avon

  37

  37

  Bedfordshire

  23

  22

  Berkshire

  26

  24

  Buckinghamshire

  39

  33

  Cambridgeshire

  41

  39

  Cheshire

  58

  39

  Cleveland

  24

  23

  Cornwall

  76

  74

  Cumbria

  52

  50

  Derbyshire

  48

  46

  Devon

  84

  83

  Dorset

  44

  45

  Durham

  36

  33

  Essex

  74

  75

  Gloucestershire

  33

  34

  Hampshire

  103

  80

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  50

  43

  Hertfordshire

  55

  43

  Humberside

  54

  53

  Kent

  86

  86

  Lancashire

  67

  66

  Leicestershire

  29

  32

  Lincolnshire

  48

  48

  Norfolk

  52

  52

  Northamptonshire

  27

  28

  Northumberland

  23

  24

  Nottinghamshire

  38

  37

  Oxfordshire

  36

  36

  Shropshire

  33

  33

  Isles of Scilly

  6

  13

  Somerset

  39

  42

  Staffordshire

  48

  48

  Suffolk

  49

  46

  Surrey

  36

  36

  East Sussex

  38

  38

  340

  Brigades

  1984

  1993

  West Sussex

  43

  45

  Warwickshire

  26

  27

  Isle of Wight

  16

  16

  Wiltshire

  35

  35

  North Yorkshire

  45

  55

  Greater Manchester

  67

  68

  Merseyside

  42

  44

  Tyne and Wear

  35

  34

  West Midlands

  66

  62

  South Yorkshire

  43

  36

  West Yorkshire

  79

  77

  London

  188

  189

  Total

  2,545

  2,456

  Other Appliances

  Brigades

  1984

  1993

  Clwyd

  14

  11

  Dyfed

  8

  24

  Mid Glamorgan

  11

  19

  South Glamorgan

  11

  21

  West Glamorgan

  9

  10

  Gwent

  8

  11

  Gwynedd

  6

  5

  Powys

  10

  17

  Avon

  17

  54

  Bedfordshire

  20

  22

  Berkshire

  9

  16

  Buckinghamshire

  7

  11

  Cambridgeshire

  9

  13

  Cheshire

  18

  21

  Cleveland

  9

  11

  Cornwall

  9

  13

  Cumbria

  16

  13

  Derbyshire

  16

  17

  Devon

  12

  13

  Dorset

  30

  9

  Durham

  16

  6

  Essex

  12

  18

  Gloucestershire

  11

  16

  Hampshire

  38

  40

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  11

  4

  Hertfordshire

  8

  8

  Humberside

  24

  16

  Kent

  19

  21

  Lancashire

  14

  25

  Leicestershire

  7

  14

  Lincolnshire

  14

  34

  Norfolk

  9

  12

  Northamptonshire

  8

  5

  Northumberland

  0

  4

  Nottinghamshire

  10

  16

  Oxfordshire

  11

  11

  Shropshire

  3

  15

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  4

  Somerset

  6

  35

  Staffordshire

  16

  21

  Suffolk

  8

  20

  Surrey

  13

  19

  East Sussex

  16

  23

  West Sussex

  25

  25

  Warwickshire

  11

  6

  Isle of Wight

  8

  8

  Wiltshire

  9

  18

  North Yorkshire

  10

  15

  Greater Manchester

  28

  29

  Merseyside

  16

  22

  Tyne and Wear

  13

  16

  West Midlands

  22

  34

  South Yorkshire

  19

  24

  West Yorkshire

  36

  28

  London

  37

  72

  Total

  757

  1,015

  341

  Data Protection
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make regulations with respect to sensitive personal information under the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no such plans.

  "Back to Basics"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the implications of the Government's "back to basics" policy for his Department during 1994.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what working definition of "back to basics" is used by his Department; and what his Department has done in the past three months to implement the policy.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: I refer the hon. Members to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21 January at column 849.

ENVIRONMENT

  Consultancies
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the(a) accountancy firms and (b) merchant banks to which his Department awarded private consultancy work in 1992 and 1993, together with a list of the consultancies concerned and the amount paid.

  Mr. Baldry
  Consultancy work awarded to accountancy firms during 1992 and 1993 is detailed below with a total value respectively of £1·6 million and £886,000. No merchant banks were awarded consultancy work during the period in question. It is not our policy to reveal the cost of individual contracts.

  Consultant and Description 1992

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  Cost Analysis of Estates Commissions

  Coopers & Lybrand

  Security Furniture Review

  Financial Recovery

  Contract Costing

  Invoice Support

  Coopers & Lybrand

  Tyne and Wear Development

  Deloitte

  Corporation "Health Check"

  Ernst & Young

  Computer Operational Requirement Study

  PSA Projects Completion Balance Sheet

  London Docklands Development Corporation "Health Check"

  Leeds Development Corporation "Health Check"

  Information Systems Strategy—Financial Management Requirements

  Kidsons Impey

  External Audit of SDC92/3

  LDC "Health Check"

  Price Waterhouse

  External Audit of SDC92/3

  Design Improvement

  Teeside Development Corporation "Health Check"

  Merseyside Development Corporation "Health Check"

  Trafford Park Development Corporation "Health Check"

  Chapman Hendy Assoc.

  Hull HAT Financial Model

  342
  KPMG

  Business Support

  Audit

  Contract Review

  Adviser to Chief Planning Inspector

  Touche Ross

  Interim Accounting Advice for PINS Agency

  Central Manchester Development Corporation "Health Check"

  Black Country Development Corporation "Health Check"

  R. E. Jones & Co

  Financial Audit of Projects

  Financial Audit of Projects

  Sachdevs

  Underspace NNEB III

  1993

  BDO Consulting

  Client/Contractor Split for Housing Management CCT

  Coopers & Lybrand

  IT Implications for Housing Management CCT

  Small Authorities and Housing Management CCT

  Computer Design Study

  Ernst & Young

  Security Services Group Efficiency Review

  Docklands Railway Privatisation Study

  Docklands Light Railway Privatisation

  Building Management Completion Balance Sheet

  Inspector Scheduling Business Study

  Kidson Impey

  Financial Audit of Task Force Projects

  (1) Auditing of Task Force Projects

  (2) Auditing of Task Force Projects

  (3) Auditing of Task Force Projects

  (4) Auditing of Task Force Projects

  Financial Audit of Projects (Phase 1)

  Financial Audit of Projects (Phase 2)

  Price Waterhouse

  SDC "Health Check"

  Sheffield Development Corporation "Health Check"

  KPMG

  The TBA Options Study

  Touche Ross

  Independent Professional Advice

  R. E. Jones and Co.

  Financial Audit of Projects

  Moore Stephens

  Review of Financial Control Systems

  Clarke Whitehall

  Treatment of VAT

  Kumar and Co.

  Financial Audit of Projects (WLTF)

  J. Debson

  Financial Audit of Projects

  Castle Management Consultants

  Independent Financial Advice on Market Testing

  Grant Thornton

  Financial Audit of TF Projects

  Norstel Ltd.

  Study into Structure and Funding of Vine Street

  Police Reform
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the means by which the Government will determine the share which the new police authorities proposed in the White Paper on policereforms—Cm. 2281, June 1993—will have of non-domestic rate revenues.

  Mr. Baldry
  In England, the non-domestic rates pool is distributed to local authorities as an amount per head of resident population. Currently, where more than one authority provides services in an area, this amount per head is shared among the authorities in line with the national shares of standard spending assessments for the services which each provides. Our current intention is to determine the share of the pool to be received by the new police
  343
  authorities in the same way. The arrangements in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Cetaceans (Acoustic Disturbance)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he will place in the Library a copy of the draft guidelines prepared by the sea mammal research unit on precautions to minimise acoustic disturbance to small cetaceans;

  (2) which bodies or organisations his Department has consulted about proposed guidelines on minimising acoustic disturbance to small cetaceans; when it began consultations; and when he expects the guidelines to be published;

  (3) what plans he has to consult non-governmental organisations on draft guidelines prepared by the sea mammal research unit on precautions to minimise acoustic disturbance to small cetaceans.

  Mr. Atkins
  No decision has yet been taken on publication of the draft guidelines.

  The draft has yet to be agreed by the working party, drawn from the interdepartmental group on the implementation of the agreement on the conservation of small cetaceans of the Baltic and North seas, tasked with developing the guidelines which includes representatives of the Department of Trade and Industry, the British geological survey and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. A member of the sea mammal research unit is the chairman.

  The draft guidelines will be discussed by other Government Departments with an interest in seismic testing and the agreement on the conservation of small cetaceans of the Baltic and North seas. A decision on whether to consult more widely will be taken at that stage.

  I will ensure that when the guidelines are issued, either in draft or in their final form, a copy is placed in the Library of the House.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of rate support grant for waste disposal purposes in North Yorkshire for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Baldry
  Rate support grantp—up to 1989–90—and revenue support grant, which replaced it from 1990–91, are unhypothecated block grants and do not contain specific amounts for particular services.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the outcome of consultation on the local government finance settlement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am today laying before the House the "Local Government Finance Report (England) 1994–95", the "Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1994–95", and the "Special Grant Report (No. 9)". These reports establish the amounts of revenue support grant—RSG—and non-domestic rates—NDR—to be paid to local authorities in 344
  1994–95, and the basis of their distribution; specify the amounts which are to be used as the basis of comparison for measuring increases in certain local authorities' budgets in 1994–95 for the purposes of capping; and provide for two special grants to be paid to certain local authorities for 1994–95.

  I shall be sending copies of these reports to all authorities as soon as possible, together with a table showing each authority's standard spending assessment and its entitlement to RSG, NDR and special grants. I have also placed copies of the reports and the table in the Library and the Vote Office.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he proposes to reflect the principles of sustainable development and biodiversity in the arrangements for the conservation of nature and the countryside in England.

  Mr. Gummer
  The launch on 25 January of the sustainable development strategy and biodiversity action plan represents a major step in taking forward the environmental commitments entered into at the 1992 Rio conference. These developments emphasise the importance of considering our environmental policies in the widest context and ensuring that individual elements are not treated in isolation. I therefore propose, as part of the process of ensuring the Rio commitments will be fully and effectively implemented, to give early consideration to bringing together the institutional arrangements for the delivery of nature and landscape conservation and the public's appreciation and enjoyment of the countryside in England.

  The administration of nature and countryside conservation was brought together in Scotland and Wales when these functions were reorganised into three national agencies. The Countryside Council for Wales and Scottish National Heritage have rapidly established themselves as effective deliverers of these aspects of our environmental policies. Our 1990 White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", said that we would keep arrangements in England under review.

  Since their inception, English Nature and the Countryside Commission have provided a first-class service to the nation within their separate areas of responsibility. However, I now believe it is time to consider bringing them together in one new body. Before taking a final decision I have asked my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to carry out an urgent study of the issues involved.

  The study will be carried out with the co-operation of the two bodies, and there will be a full opportunity for the many people with an interest in these matters to give their views. The study will address the advantages and disadvantages, if any, of integration as well as issues of cost, implications for staff, timing, and the production of a set of forward-looking objectives for a new body.

  An official-level steering group, led by the Department of the Environment, and involving both bodies, will supervise the day to day work. Legislation will be required for formal merger and I therefore propose that the study also looks at how closer working could be achieved in the interim or in the circumstances that formal merger was not proceeded with.
  345

  Buying Agency
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what performance targets he has set the Buying Agency for 1994.

  Mr. Baldry
  In support of the objectives set out in the agency's latest corporate and business plans, I have set financial, productivity, customer satisfaction and environmental targets for 1994.

  The financial targets are:

  to increase total sales by 14 per cent. from an expected £144·5 million in 1993 to £165 million; and

  to achieve an overall surplus, after interest, of £1·5 million on total sales.

  The customer satisfaction targets are:

  to ensure delivery by the due date of at least 90 per cent. of orders handled directly; and

  to resolve 80 per cent. of customer complaints within one month and the rest within three months.

  The productivity targets are:

  to increase the sales:staff ratio from £1·3 million per employee in 1993 to £1·375 million per employee; and to reduce the cost of each £1 of sales achieved from an expected 2·8p in 1993 to 2·6p.

  The environmental target is:

  to require all suppliers to provide details of their environmental policies and practices as a first step towards establishing appropriate encouragement of best practice.

  These targets will require the agency to sustain yet further improvements in growth, efficiency and service to its customers in 1994. They are challenging, but realistic, and I am confident of the agency's ability to meet them.

  Regional Offices
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the regional and area offices of his Department, of the Property Services Agency—and its successors—the pollution inspectorate, the National Rivers Authority, the Countryside Commission, the Housing Corporation, the Audit Commission, the Rural Development Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council, and of other inspectorate, agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 January 1994, columns 16–17]: The list of regional and area offices of the Department of the Environment inadvertently omitted the following:
  Property Holdings Directorate: London, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Bristol, Harlow, Leeds, London, Manchester and Tunbridge Wells.
  Property and Buildings Directorate (Contractor Management Information System): London, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Bristol and Manchester.

  Sulphur Dioxide
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the cost of an 80 per cent. reduction on 1980 levels of United Kingdon emissions of sulphur dioxide if achieved by(a) 2000, (b) 2005, and (c) 2010; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: Any estimates are uncertain since they depend on what is assumed about the future commercial decisions of the electricity supply industry and others as well as underlying assumptions about long-term economic growth and fuel prices. The Government have considered a variety of
  346
  scenarios giving rise to a wide range of costs. We have not estimated the cost of meeting an 80 per cent. reduction target in 2000 since this target would not be feasible. Our estimates however suggest that, taking account of the anticipated refurbishment and replacement needs for relevant plant, 80 per cent. reductions by 2010 is an economically more practicable target, which will result in considerably fewer areas where critical loads are exceeded.

  Trading Standards Departments
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement about the plans he has for trading standards departments currently in county councils in areas where the Local Government Commission recommends unitary authorities smaller than county councils;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to set up a national Her Majesty's inspectorate of tradings standards, organised regionally, to replace all tradings standards departments currently operated by local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 17 January 1994]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Government consider that trading standards should remain a local authority function. Smaller authorities may wish to consider the option of collaborative arrangements.

  The Local Government Commission has been asked to make recommendations for shared arrangements for particular functions in cases where a satisfactory structure is unlikely to be achieved without them. The Government will give careful consideration to any such recommendations.

SCOTLAND

  Stammerers
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the percentage of children who are likely to grow into adult stammerers.

  Mr. Stewart
  It is estimated that about 80 per cent. of children who stammer overcome their condition by adulthood. However, dysfluency affects about 1 per cent. of the population.

  Speech Therapy
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will investigate the provision of speech therapy in each health board area.

  Mr. Stewart
  Education authorities have a statutory responsibility to ensure speech therapy services are available to children with a recorded special educational need. An additional £3 million has been made available to local authorities over the two years 1993–95 to enable them to purchase speech therapy services from health service providers who are the principal employers for speech therapists.

  Speech therapy for non-recorded children and adults are the responsibility of health boards whose function it is, in the light of the assessed needs of their population, to determine the volume. pattern and quality of services required and through contracts with providers ensure that these standards are met.
  347
  My right hon. Friend has, at present, no specific plans to investigate the provision of speech therapy services.

  NHS Trust Hospitals
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost of employing managers, advisers, adminstrators and clerical staff in national health service hospitals in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is set out in the table. Two factors have largely contributed to the increase shown. As part of the NHS reforms, Scottish health boards have devolved many of their functions to directly managed units and NHS trusts. The figures also include those senior nurses and clinicians who have transferred to the general-senior manager's pay scales, particularly in latter years

  Gross Salaries and Wages of Hospital Administration and Clerical Staff1

  Year

  £000's

  1990–91

  70,828

  1991–92

  88,220

  1992–93

  101,335

  1Includes general and senior managers.

  National Health Service
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of total national health service expenditure has been spent on the employment of managers, advisers, administrators and clerical staff within the whole of the NHS in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is set out in the table. The figures for salaries include those senior nurses and clinicians who have transferred from clinical to general-senior managers pay scales particularly in later years.

  Gross Salaries and Wages of Administration and Clerical Staff1

  Year

  Total NHS Expenditure

  Per cent.

  (£000s)

  (£000s)

  1990–91

  171,270

  3,066,000

  5·6

  1991–92

  198,286

  3,466,000

  5·7

  1992–93

  228,048

  3,789,000

  6·0

  1Includes general and senior managers.

  Sheriff Court Fees Amendment (No. 2) Order 1993
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultation, advice and representation he has received from the Scottish Legal Aid Board regarding the Sheriff Court Fees Amendment (No. 2) Order 1993.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The implications of the order for legal aid expenditure have been the subject of correspondence and discussion between the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Scottish Office Home and Health Department on a number of recent occasions.
  348

  Prescriptions
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prescriptions were issued in each health board area in Scotland in each year since 1990 for(a) temazepam, (b) dihydrocodeine, (c) methadone and (d) buprenorphine.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information by health board is not available prior to 1992.

  The information for each health board for the calendar years 1992 and 1993 and totals for Scotland for 1990 and 1991 are set out in the tables:

  Number of Prescriptions

  Health Board

  1992

  1993

  Temazepam

  Argyll and Clyde

  95,408

  85,717

  Ayrshire and Arran

  91,452

  83,649

  Borders

  20,315

  19,526

  Dumfries and Galloway

  30,946

  29,643

  Fife

  49,377

  46,437

  Forth Valley

  60,717

  57,088

  Grampian

  83,186

  80,657

  Greater Glasgow

  216,188

  191,570

  Highland

  25,849

  25,810

  Lanarkshire

  125,126

  115,659

  Lothian

  129,967

  128,488

  Orkney

  2,236

  2,105

  Shetland

  1,602

  1,652

  Tayside

  95,979

  86,897

  Western Isles

  4,892

  4,533

  All Scotland Total

  1,033,240

  959,431

  Dihydrocodeine

  Argyll and Clyde

  25,061

  27,904

  Ayrshire and Arran

  25,226

  28,297

  Borders

  2,837

  3,289

  Dumfries and Galloway

  8,274

  8,614

  Fife

  13,954

  15,128

  Forth Valley

  18,512

  19,505

  Grampian

  17,623

  19,739

  Greater Glasgow

  90,964

  99,075

  Highland

  10,324

  11,708

  Lanarkshire

  26,004

  28,992

  Lothian

  44,929

  48,274

  Orkney

  631

  626

  Shetland

  882

  946

  Tayside

  19,678

  21,565

  Western Isles

  1,434

  1,375

  All Scotland Total

  306,333

  335,037

  Methadone

  Argyll and Clyde

  3,033

  4,131

  Ayrshire and Arran

  3,004

  4,836

  Borders

  354

  262

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,284

  2,327

  Fife

  1,705

  1,990

  Forth Valley

  4,558

  4,238

  Grampian

  7,502

  10,311

  Greater Glasgow

  11,066

  25,995

  Highland

  1,014

  688

  Lanarkshire

  714

  1,178

  Lothian

  16,526

  18,011

  Orkney

  27

  44

  Shetland

  18

  57

  Tayside

  13,564

  14,390

  Western Isles

  9

  1

  All Scotland Total

  64,378

  88,459

  Buprenorphine

  Argyll and Clyde

  3,759

  2,060

  Ayrshire and Arran

  5,471

  2,916

  Borders

  460

  433

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,321

  1,067

  349

  Health Board

  1992

  1993

  Fife

  2,797

  2,575

  Forth Valley

  2,041

  1,793

  Grampian

  3,923

  3,422

  Greater Glasgow

  11,479

  3,284

  Highland

  1,329

  1,210

  Lanarkshire

  5,277

  3,178

  Lothian

  4,528

  4,070

  Orkney

  150

  104

  Shetland

  15

  17

  Tayside

  5,494

  4,906

  Western Isles

  198

  151

  All Scotland Total

  48,242

  31,186

  Drug

  Number of prescriptions

  1990

  Temazepam

  791,578

  Dihydrocodeine

  223,556

  Methadone

  26,440

  Buprenorphine

  51,833

  1991

  Temazepam

  879,868

  Dihydrocodeine

  269,400

  Methadone

  33,402

  Buprenorphine

  55,399

  Forestry Commission Land
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether access agreements entered into with a new owner when a portion of Forestry Commission land is sold are binding on(a) the original purchaser alone or (b) all subsequent owners of the land.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Access agreements made between the Forestry Commission and local authorities prior to the sale of commission land are binding on all subsequent owners.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which special advisers in his Department are seconded from other organisations; and what are the organisations and the lengths and terms of the secondments.

  Mr. Lang
  I have no special advisers on secondment.

  Greenock Prison
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons have been detained in Her Majesty's prison, Greenock, whilst awaiting deportation in each of the past four years; what extra financial assistance has been given to the prison governor and his staff in relation to such persons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: I have asked Mr. E. W. Frizzell, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, to arrange for a reply to be given to the hon. Member.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 27 January 1994.
  350
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about how many persons have been detained in HM Prison, Greenock whilst awaiting deportation in each of the past four years and what extra financial assistance has been given to the prison governor and his staff.
  The number of persons who have been detained in the past four financial years are as follows:

  1990–91

  15

  1991–92

  37

  1992–93

  60

  1993–94

  50 (to 21 January 1994 only)

  The annual budget for Greenock Prison takes account of the strategic priorities of the establishment, and the resources available to the Scottish Prison Service as a whole, but does not differentiate between types of prisoner or detainee.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the designated capacity of Her Majesty's prison, Greenock; and what was the total number of persons detained therein on 1 September in each of the past four years.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: I have asked Mr. E. W. Frizzell, the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, to arrange for a reply to be given to the hon. Member.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 27 January 1994.
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about the design capacity of HM Prison Greenock; and what was the total number of persons detained therein on 1 September in each of the past four years.
  The information is as follows:
  Design capacity 179
  Population

  1 September 1990

  157

  1 September 1991

  186

  1 September 1992

  222

  1 September 1993

  300

  The population of HM Prison Greenock on 14 January 1994 was 189. The reduction was due in part to the implementation of the Prisoner and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 on 1 October 1993.

  Roads Directorate
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about possible executive agency status for the roads directorate of the Scottish Office Industry Department.

  Mr. Lang
  I have decided that the roads directorate of the Scottish Office should be considered as a candidate for executive agency status, under the next steps initiative. A "prior options" study will be undertaken to establish whether agency status or other options would be appropriate. I would welcome comments from interested parties. Comments should be sent by 1 June 1994 to:

  The Secretary

  The Scottish Office Industry Department

  Room 5/118

  New St. Andrew's House

  EDINBURGH

  EH1 3TG

  Livestock Improvement Schemes
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the result of the review of the livestock improvement schemes for crofters; and if he will make a statement.
  351
  Sir Hector Monro
  The livestock improvement schemes are among the special forms of help available to crofters and others of similar status in the former crofting counties. The aim of the review was to assess the current arrangements and to consider alternative ways of providing assistance which might achieve better value for money. Careful consideration was given to the varying needs of the different crofting areas and to the particular requirements of cattle and sheep production.

  In the light of the findings of the review, including the responses to the consultation paper issued last year, I have decided to retain the bull supply scheme for crofting townships. This is a unique scheme which provides quality pedigree bulls purchased by my Department on loan to crofting township committees which, in most cases, return the bulls to the Department's stud farm at Inverness for over-wintering. The review has identified that this scheme plays an important role, particularly in the remoter areas, in helping crofters to continue in cattle production which, in turn, has significant social and environmental benefits. I have also decided that my Department should continue to provide an artificial insemination service for crofters' cattle in Lewis and Harris, providing there continues to be sufficient demand and no other suitable alternative is available, since this is particularly appropriate to the circumstances there.

  However, for sheep, instead of hiring out rams, my Department will in future purchase suitable rams of the Blackface and Cheviot breeds and sell them at a subsidised price to those crofting townships who wish to participate in the scheme. The intention is to provide rams of at least equivalent quality to the previous scheme.

  For the forthcoming year, the cost to crofting townships of new rams delivered to the crofting areas will be £115 per ram. For this price, the crofting townships will be able to acquire a ram which, with suitable care, should provide useful service for up to three years. This is a much better bargain than the existing scheme under which crofting townships would pay over £175 for an equivalent period of time.

  The new scheme will also ensure that assistance is provided in a more cost-effective way than at present since it will no longer be necessary for the Department to maintain a stock of rams. This should reduce the annual net deficit associated with the livestock schemes by approximately 25 per cent.

  In conjunction with this new scheme, the existing Shetland sheep scheme will be continued but the new arrangements will supersede the Outer Isles ram lamb scheme which will be discontinued. The livestock purchase loan scheme, for which there is very limited take-up, will also be closed.

  These new arrangements will ensure that an attractive package of assistance is available for crofting townships who wish to improve the quality of their livestock and thereby help to maintain the traditional crofting lifestyle and environment. They will be introduced in time for new applications for the 1994–95 season and the detailed administrative rules for the various schemes, together with the relevant charges, will be publicised to potential applicants in due course.
  352

  Forestry
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his policy objectives for private commercial woodlands and forestry.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 24 January 1994]: The Government's forestry policy objectives are described in the booklet "Forestry Policy for Great Britain", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Consultants
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on which occasions since 1979 his Department has employed the services of external consultants; and if he will give details of the purposes for which they were employed and the cost of employing them.

  Mr. Lang
  The information required could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  CCT Agency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the loss of invoices by the Compulsory Competitive Tendering Agency that was discovered after the transfer of responsibility to the Cabinet Office.

  Mr. Nelson
  In 1984–85 CCTA introduced charges to cover part of the cost of the work which it carried out on behalf of other Departments. The coverage of these charges was subsequently extended by the agency until full cost recovery for all services provided directly to Departments was introduced on 1 April 1992. It came to light in 1991–92 that invoices to other Departments totalling just over £1 million relating to the period 1984–85 to 1989–90 remained uncleared. Attempts were made to link these to payments received, but this was not possible because of changes to the billing arrangements and accounting procedures.

  Since the invoices related to transactions between Departments and no funds have been lost to the Exchequer, the Cabinet Office decided that the outstanding invoices should be written off. The same treatment would have been required had responsibility for CCTA remained with the Treasury.

  Consultancies
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) accountancy firms and (b) merchant banks to which his Department awarded private consultancy work in 1992 and 1993, together with a list of the consultancies concerned and the amount paid.

  Mr. Nelson
  The following table lists merchant banks and those companies which have accountancy arms who have carried out work for Her Majesty's Treasury during 1992 and 1993.

  Companies

  Type of consultancy work

  Cost (including VAT) (£)

  Barings

  Privatisation

  1—

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  Auditing

  5,348

  Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte

  Auditing

  20,285

  353

  Companies

  Type of consultancy work

  Cost (including VAT) (£)

  Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte

  Privatisation

  1—

  Ernst & Young

  Privatisation

  1—

  Ernst & Young

  Market Testing

  21,018

  Kleinwort Benson

  Privatisation

  1—

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Training

  52,875

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Research Project

  21,200

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Privatisation

  1—

  Osborne Clark

  Privatisation

  1—

  Price Waterhouse

  Management Consultancy

  35,250

  Price Waterhouse

  Privatisation

  1—

  Price Waterhouse

  Advice on Pay and Management Issues

  5,330

  Price Waterhouse

  Research Project

  28,500

  Touche Ross

  Market Testing

  26,438

  Towers Perrin

  Job Evaluation

  132,599

  The Wyatt Company

  Risk Management

  36,438

  1 On privatisation it is Her Majesty's Treasury policy not to disclose fees paid to individual advisers as these are regarded as commercial-in-confidence.

  Income and Tax Statistics
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 January,Official Report, columns 190–93, if he will provide the same information on income and tax levels for the United Kingdom for (a) 1980–81, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1992–93 and (e) 1993–94.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates based on the survey of personal incomes are in the tables. For 1980–81 and 1989–90, married couples are counted as one taxpayer and their incomes are combined. Following the introduction of independent taxation, for 1990–91 onwards, husbands and wives are counted separately. The estimates of total income relate to income tax and exclude non-taxable income such as certain social security benefits.

  £ million

  Quantile group of taxpayers per cent.

  Total income

  Income tax liability

  1980–81

  Top 11

  7,400

  2,900

  Top51

  21,500

  6,500

  Top 101

  34,400

  9,300

  Bottom 501

  39,500

  5,200

  All taxpayers1

  138,400

  26,900

  1989–90

  Top 11

  24,200

  7,800

  Top 51

  61,700

  16,600

  Top 101

  93,400

  22,600

  Bottom 501

  86,600

  8,500

  All taxpayers1

  323,400

  53,400

  1991–92

  Top 1

  31,200

  10,400

  Top 5

  73,900

  20,700

  Top 10

  109,600

  27,500

  Bottom 50

  98,200

  9,300

  All taxpayers

  373,800

  63,500

  1992–93

  Top 1

  31,700

  10,600

  Top 5

  75,000

  21,100

  Top 10

  111,500

  28,100

  Bottom 50

  98,700

  8,500

  All taxpayers

  380,000

  63,200

  354

  Quantile group of taxpayers per cent.

  Total income

  Income tax liability

  1993–94

  Top 1

  32,600

  10,900

  Top 5

  77,000

  21,900

  Top 10

  114,400

  29,100

  Bottom 50

  98,200

  8,600

  All taxpayers

  385,400

  65,000

  1Tax units for years prior to 1990–91.

  Duty Free Goods
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the concession that duty-free goods purchased on both the outward and return journeys on carriers within the single market should be legitimately imported into the country where the travellers' journey started is the subject of an EC agreement; and if he will make it his policy to ensure that the applicable duty-free regime should be decided by each member state in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

  Sir John Cope
  EC law permits, but does not require, member states to continue with duty-free shopping for a transitional period until 30 June 1999. Like other EC countries the United Kingdom has allowed duty-free shopping to continue, to avoid an adverse effect of the single market on the duty-free industry in the United Kingdom which is the biggest in the EC.

  In the single market, there are no routine fiscal checks at frontiers, and the duty-free system now operates by controls on what the vendor sells, rather than what the traveller imports. EC law envisages that the vendor will sell no more than the previous "allowance" to a passenger on an intra-EC journey, so it is legitimate for a passenger to acquire one "allowance" on each leg of a return journey.

  Excise Duties (Alcohol)
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what level of trade, in terms of money and jobs, has been lost in the United Kingdom as a result of the differential in excise duties on alcoholic beverages and tobacco as levied by France and by the United Kingdom since the creation of the single market.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs do not maintain records in these terms. However, duty receipts for alcoholic beverages and tobacco are generally up on previous years, as detailed below. This suggests that much cross-border shopping represents new consumption.

  £ million

  Product

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Tobacco products

  5,963

  6,417

  7,394

  Spirits

  1,681

  1,675

  1,724

  Wines

  899

  967

  1,043

  Beer

  2,282

  2,376

  12,228

  Cider/Perry

  74

  85

  100

  1 The change to end-product duty entailed a one-off cash flow loss in 1993 of about £200 million (indicating an underlying increase of about 2 per cent.).

  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many prosecutions there have been, and
  355
  what was the value of goods involved, where persons have been prosecuted for importing excisable beverages or tobacco products purporting to be for their personal use, over the last 12 months.

  Sir John Cope
  During 1993 Customs and Excise prosecutions have been concluded in 51 cases involving the illegal disposal of excise goods purported to have been imported for personal use. The estimated value of the goods involved was about £500,000. A further 76 cases are in the prosecution system but have not yet been concluded.

  In the 11 months to 30 November 1993, Customs made 1,016 detections of illicit practices involving £1,624,543 revenue, equating approximately to a retail value of about £2·7 million. In addition to the prosecutions mentioned above, Customs limited their action in 338 cases to seizure only of the goods, of which 161 of those cases involved also the seizure of vehicles. The balance of 551 cases have been settled under Customs' power to compound proceedings on payment of penalties in lieu of prosecution or are awaiting the outcome of considerations as to the course of action to be taken.

  Contraband
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each of the last 10 years the quantities and estimated value of contraband seized, categorised by type, and indicate how it has been disposed of.

  Year

  Ramsgate

  Dover

  Southampton

  Portsmouth

  Newhaven

  Poole

  Plymouth

  1988

  30

  380

  45

  130

  45

  23

  108

  1989

  29

  389

  45

  145

  70

  42

  111

  1990

  47

  361

  60

  130

  75

  55

  111

  1991

  45

  1280

  66

  120

  70

  59

  104

  1992

  34

  260

  74

  104

  66

  58

  83

  1993 (current)

  34

  2208

  84

  93

  54

  61

  83

  1 The re-organisation to separate anti-smuggling and demand-led staff started earlier in Dover than in the other ports.

  2 This does not include anti-smuggling staff who will be working at Channel Tunnel locations.

  The deployment of anti-smuggling staff at any given time in a port can vary according to the perceived risk. They can also be augmented, when necessary, by staff from elsewhere in the executive units.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the additional cost to the average first-time buyer would have been for the latest financial year for which figures are available had mortgage interest relief been restricted in that year to(a) 20 per cent. and (b) 15 per cent.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: It is not possible to provide an estimate since accurate information on the mortgage interest rates paid by first-time buyers is not available. The average new loan for first-time buyers in 1993–94 was over £30,000.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average interest rate payable on mortgages qualifying for mortgage interest relief is expected to be in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: Interest rates will continue to be set to achieve the Government's objectives for low inflation and sustainable growth.
  356
  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 25 January 1994]: Customs and Excise have records for contraband seizures for the period from 1 April 1991. An analysis of these years can be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Smuggling, South Coast
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many front-line anti-smuggling staff are currently deployed at each port on the south coast; and how many were deployed at each south coast port in each year since 1983.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: This information is not gathered centrally and the cost of supplying staffing figures for all south coast ports is considered to be disproportionate. However, the number of staff years deployed on anti-smuggling duties for the main south coast ports are as follows.

  Numbers for earlier years are no longer available as the records have now been destroyed. The figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94 relate purely to anti-smuggling staff but the numbers for earlier years also cover other duties which include collection of duty and other fiscal work. The figures were not sub-divided between anti-smuggling and other tasks for those earlier years.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what working assumption has been used for interest rates to calculate forecasts of the cost of changes to the rate of mortgage interest relief published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95."

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: Using the conventional assumption of mortgage interest rates remaining at their then current level, 8 per cent. was used.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost of mortgage interest relief would be in 1994–95 and 1995–96 if the rate at which it were available were unchanged from 1993–94.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: The estimated costs if mortgage interest relief were given at 25 per cent. are £4·3 billion in 1994–95 and £4·7 billion in 1995–96. These estimates are based on the conventional assumption that mortgage interest rates remain at their current levels.

  Business Support
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total budget of the European Community's support for small and medium-sized enterprises under(a) Eurotech capital, (b) the venture consort scheme, and (c) seed capital funds in each year

  357
  since their establishment; and what was the total allocation of each to (i) the northern region and (ii) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  Most of the separate annual figures are not readily available, but the information available from the European Commission of the total budgets for these schemes is as follows:

  Eurotech Capital

  Eurotech Capital expenditure by the Commission since the inception of the programme mid-1991 is around 8·5 MECUs (approximately £6·3 million).

  Separate figures for expenditure in the nothern region or in the United Kingdom are not available.

  The Venture Consort Scheme

  The European Commnity spent a total of 10·4 NIECUs —approximately £8 million—on the scheme, which ran from 1985–1993. Of this, 2·1 MECUs—approximately £1·6 million—was spent in the United Kingdom. Separate figures for expenditure in the nothern region are not available.

  Seed Capital Funds

  Between 1989 and 1992 the Community budget was 4 ·381 MECU—approximately £3·3 million. In 1993 the budget was £1·498 MECU—1·1 million—and in 1994 it is 2·16 MECU—£1·6 million.

  Separate figures for expenditure in the United Kingdom or the northern region are not available.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total budget of the European Community scheme to create a network of business and innovation centres in each year since their establishment; and what was the total budget awarded under this scheme to(a) the northern region and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The total European Community budget available for business and innovation centres since the network was established in 1984 is as follows

  Year

  MECU

  £ million

  1984

  1·5

  0·9

  1985

  0·8

  0·5

  1986

  2·8

  1·9

  1987

  2·4

  1·7

  1988

  3·9

  2·6

  1989

  6·0

  4·1

  1990

  5·5

  3·9

  1991

  7·9

  5·5

  1992

  7·0

  5·1

  1993

  7·0

  5·3

  1994

  8·0

  6·0

  Separate figures for expenditure in the northern region or the United Kingdom are not readily available.

  Sterling/ECU conversion rates are shown at the average rate prevailing in each calendar year.

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in which publications, over what period, and at what cost, the current advertisement, or advertisements, for grant-maintained schools are being placed; and what is the cost of the associated freephone information service.
  358
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The advertisements providing factual information on grant-maintained status will run for five weeks from 20 January in a range of publications at a cost of some £200,000. They coincide with the introduction of the relevant provisions of the Education Act 1993. Requests for booklets arising from the advertisements will be fielded through the Department's distribution arrangements for GM information, which include a freephone service; it is not possible at this time to disaggregate the costs related to telephone calls prompted specifically by the advertising campaign.

  Further Education Funding Council
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what representations he has received on the appointment of Phillip Head, the former chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency as property controller of the Further Education Funding Council;

  (2) whether the Further Education Funding Council takes up references before formally appointing senior executives;

  (3) how many candidates were shortlisted for the post of property controller for the Further Education Funding Council.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations about the appointment by the Further Education Funding Council to the post of head of property services. I understand that the council advertised the post on two separate occasions. Twelve candidates were interviewed before a final appointment was made. It is the council's policy to take up references before formally appointing senior executives. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that this appointment was made on the basis of fair and open competition.

EMPLOYMENT

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the estimated costs for the administration of the access to work scheme in its first year of operation.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlilse) on the 24 January 1994,Official Report, column 100.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will produce a table showing unemployment levels as a percentage of the working population for each of European Community countries for the latest years available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested can be found in the "Unemployment Bulletin" published by the Statistical Office of the European Community. The Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development also publishes similar information in its publication "Monthly Economic Indicators", although on a slightly different basis and not for all countries. Copies of both these publications can be found in the Library.
  359

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for the United Kingdom in total, and by standard region including Greater London, the number of households claiming unemployment benefit for each year since 1978–79.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 21 January 1994]: Estimates from the labour force survey—LFS—of

  Households where either the head, or the cohabiting partner of the head, is claiming unemployment related benefits. Not seasonally adjusted

  Thousands

  Spring each year

  Standard regions

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  South East

  451

  465

  475

  517

  468

  363

  225

  202

  297

  452

  508

  Greater London

  218

  241

  231

  258

  233

  197

  131

  115

  155

  214

  250

  Rest of South East

  233

  223

  243

  259

  235

  166

  94

  87

  142

  238

  258

  East Anglia

  58

  48

  57

  60

  55

  36

  20

  23

  33

  36

  51

  South West

  118

  123

  115

  126

  132

  103

  57

  48

  82

  116

  134

  West Midlands

  255

  243

  250

  235

  229

  183

  115

  80

  137

  162

  170

  East Midlands

  121

  135

  153

  147

  156

  127

  81

  62

  88

  96

  94

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  193

  201

  215

  221

  209

  194

  120

  93

  110

  140

  128

  North West

  289

  280

  268

  290

  270

  245

  166

  139

  150

  178

  175

  North

  146

  155

  149

  146

  149

  145

  98

  83

  84

  83

  89

  Wales

  115

  99

  109

  116

  126

  108

  65

  55

  64

  70

  68

  Scotland

  193

  221

  231

  246

  248

  204

  137

  109

  124

  128

  125

  Northern Ireland

  80

  75

  83

  84

  89

  79

  62

  65

  57

  58

  58

  UNITED KINGDOM

  2,018

  2,044

  2,105

  2,189

  2,132

  1,788

  1,147

  960

  1,226

  1,519

  1,599

  Source: Labour Force Survey.

  Note: Figures are based on the eligibility rules for claiming unemployment related benefits at the time of each survey.

  Industrial Inquiry
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what amount was recovered, under section 22 of the Social Security Act 1989, from the damages paid to victims of industrial injury for Durham for each year since 1989.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Numbers of injuries for County Durham, as reported to the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division and local authorities—who enforce the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for certain premises—for each year since 1989 are:

  Year

  Number of injuries

  1988–89

  2,916

  1989–90

  2,890

  1990–91

  2,932

  1991–92

  2,679

  1992–93

  2,344

  This does not include numbers of reported injuries in mines and on railways which are not available in the form requested.

  The Health and Safety Executive does not hold, and has no access to, information relating to payments as a result of industrial injury.

  Misbehaviour Dismissals
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what instructions are provided to unemployment benefit offices on the rules regarding reduction of unemployment benefit for dismissal for misbehaviour and the number of weeks that any reduction should be imposed.
  360
  the number of households where either the head, or the cohabiting partner of the head, is claiming unemployment related benefits are given in the following table, for each spring since 1983. Prior to this, the monthly administrative unemployment figures were based upon a registrant count rather than a claimant count. As a result no complete information about those claiming unemployment-related benefits is available from the labour force survey before 1983.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Bob Cryer, dated 27 January 1994.
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question regarding the reduction of unemployment benefit for dismissal for misbehaviour.
  The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 Section 28 (1) (a) contains provisions for disqualification from receiving unemployment benefit if employment is lost through misconduct.
  Copies of the legislation are held in all Employment Service Offices responsible for paying unemployment benefit, and adjudication offices.
  When a client has been dismissed from their employment, payment of benefit is suspended whilst enquiries are made of the employer. The Benefits Agency (BA) is informed and if Income Support is claimed it may be payable at a reduced rate. It is for BA to decide the percentage of any reduction in accordance with Income Support Regulations 1987.10, and Income Support (General) Regulations 1987.22. Copies of these Regulations are held in Benefits Agency Offices.
  If the reply from the employer indicates that employment was lost through the employee's misconduct the claim is referred to an adjudication officer, as it is a matter for the independent adjudication authorities to decide the length of any disqualification arising from misconduct. The current maximum period of disqualification is 26 weeks.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Job Interviews (Travel Expenses)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what regulations prevent the payment of travel allowance for job interviews to unemployed persons unless they have been unemployed for at least four weeks; and if he will make a statement.
  361
  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. Bob Cryer, dated 27 January 1994.
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the four week unemployment regulation which excludes people from assistance to travel to job interviews.
  I assume you are asking about one of the Travel to Interview Scheme (TIS) eligibility rules. One of the TIS rules, i.s as you suggest, that people need to be unemployed for four weeks before they can become eligible. This eligibility condition is not a statutory requirement but part of the arrangements of the scheme. The reason for this is that there would be no advantage in spending money on encouraging people to broaden their jobsearch if there were jobs available locally. The qualifying period helps target the assistance on those who have explored their locality for work but who now have a need to look further afield.
  The Travel to Interview Scheme was introduced in 1986 to help with the travel costs of unemployed people attending job interviews beyond daily travelling distance of their home area, thus widening the applicant's jobsearch improving their chances of obtaining work and encouraging labour mobility. During 1992–93 the scheme helped over 45,000 applicants at a cost of £.1·5 million. A few basic conditions must be met before assistance can be granted, to ensure that the funds available are concentrated on those unemployed people in most need. A leaflet outlining the scope of the scheme is enclose.
  I hope this is helpful.

PRIME MINISTER

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the public appointments made by(a) Her Majesty the Queen in Council and (b) the Privy Council; and if he will give details of the appointments made by these categories since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested at(a) and (b) is as follows:

  (a) Appointments made by Her Majesty in Council

  Members of the Privy Council

  Members of the Cabinet

  High Sheriffs for the Counties of England and Wales (excluding Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster)

  Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation

  Visitor of Brunel University

  Civil Service Commissioners

  Visitor of Cranfield Universit

  Visitor of the University of Essex

  6 Members of the General Dental Council

  13 Members of the General Medical Council

  6 Members of the Governing Body of Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

  (Until April 1992) Inspectors of Schools in England and Wales Chief Inspector of Schools in England

  Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales

  Inspectors of Schools in Scotland

  Visitor of King's College, London

  3 Members of the Court of the University of Leeds

  5 Members of the Court of the University of London

  Holder of the Lord Northcliffe Chair at University College, London

  Members of the Board of Visitors of The Queen's University Belfast

  Visitor of the Royal Postgraduate Medical School

  Visitor of the University of Ulster

  Visitor of the School of Oriental and African Studies

  The Clerk of the Privy Council

  The Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council

  362

  (b) Appointments made by the Privy Council

  2 Members of the Council and 5 Members of the Academic Advisory Council of the University of Buckingham

  5 Members of the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine

  3 Members of the Court of the University of Kent at Canterbury

  Chairman and 5 other Members of the General Optical Council

  4 Members of the Court of the University of Lancaster

  3 Members of the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and Chairman of the Statutory Committee of the Society

  One Member of the Council of the University of the South Pacific

  4 Members of the Court and 3 Members of the Conference of the University of Stirling

  3 Members of the General Convocation of the University of Strathclyde

  3 Members of the Court of the University of Sussex

  4 Members of the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

  One Member of the Council of the Royal Veterinary College.

  Well over 1,000 appointments under these categories have been made since 1979, and details of the individuals concerned could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on discussions held and agreements made with China in regard to safety arrangements and precautionary evaluation procedures for the Crown territories of Hong Kong for the Daya bay nuclear plant near Hong Kong.

  The Prime Minister
  Talks with the Chinese authorities on the co-ordination of contingency arrangements for an emergency at the Guangdong nuclear power station at Daya bay began in June 1992. A memorandum of understanding was signed with the Guangdong authorities on 22 September 1993 on the contingency arrangements for information release and co-operation in the event of an off-site emergency at Daya bay. Discussions on the arrangements for on-site incidents are still in progress.

  Lords Lieutenant
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will advertise in the national press vacancies for Lords Lieutenant as and when they become available and give the details of the qualities sought.

  The Prime Minister
  Lords Lieutenant are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen under the royal prerogative, on my advice.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 January.

  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.
  363

  Malaysia (Hydro-electric Project)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister how many files marked, "Not for NAO eyes", relating to the Pergau hydro-electric project in Malaysia are held by his secretariat and the Cabinet Office.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  One-Parent Families
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if the comments made by the Secretary of State for Wales on 10 January, with regard to one-parent families, reflect Government policy; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 January 1994]: My right hon. Friend was correct in saying that the single parent issue is important to the Government. The growth in single parent families inevitably has an impact on Government policies. For example, rates of pregnancy among 13 to 15-year-old girls have risen substantially in recent years, which is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has adopted a target of a minimum reduction of 50 per cent. on the 1989 rates by 2000. Similarly, the Child Support Agency was established because of concern about absent fathers and support for children in single parent families.

  British Legion Medal
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will recommend Her Majesty the Queen that her permission be granted for any uniformed members of the public services and armed forces who did national service to wear on their uniforms the medal struck for ex-national service men by the Royal British Legion, or the related ribbon.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: The medal struck on behalf of the Royal British Legion is unofficial and produced as a commercial venture to raise funds for their Poppy appeal. It would not therefore be appropriate for me to approach Her Majesty the Queen as requested. People who served on national service were eligible for the various official medals approved by the sovereign at the time.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Agencies (Letters)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many letters addressed to Ministers in his Department in the last 12 months by(a) hon. Members and (b) others have been forwarded for reply to each agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The number of letters from hon. Members forwarded to each executive agency during 1993 is in the table.

  Number

  Benefits Agency

  1,820

  Contributions Agency

  189

  Child Support Agency1

  548

  Resettlement Agency

  2

  Information Technology Services Agency

  1

  1 April-December 1993 after achieving agency status.

  364
  Information on letters from other people which have been forwarded to agencies is not available.

  Heating Equipment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what supplementary help is to be made available to pensioners and benefit receivers for extra heating equipment necessitated by the reduction in voltage in electricity supplies.

  Mr. Burt
  The effect on the output of electrical heating equipment in making the change to a nominal voltage of 230 volts in accordance with the time scales and tolerances required for EC voltage harmonisation will be insignificant. Additional supplementary help is not appropriate.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support recipients have been subject to a benefit penalty as a result of awards made by the Child Support Agency since April 1993.

  Mr. Burt
  A reduced benefit direction is issued by a child support officer to the Benefits Agency only where a parent with care has refused to co-operate in pursuing child support maintenance without good cause.

  The Child Support Agency issued 81 reduced benefit directions in the period 5 April 1993 to 30 November 1993. These include parents with care on income support, family credit, and disability working allowance. Separate figures for income support are not available.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if instructions have been given to officials of the Child Support Agency on requests from community groups for a speaker to address public meetings and answer questions from the audience.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mrs. Maria Fyfe, dated 27 January 1994.
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security on whether instructions have been given to Child Support Agency staff in respect of the provision of speakers for public meetings.
  No general instructions have been issued about the provision of speakers for meetings. Since the formation of the Agency, it has been a function of Agency Customer Services Managers to provide help and information to organisations and groups representing our clients. Liaison with many such organisations is now extensive, and requests for speakers at meetings are considered locally.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford will receive a reply from the chief executive of the Child Support Agency to her letters concerning(a) B. Lawrence, (b) P. Bennett, (c) C. S. Chaplin, (d) A. Hawkins, (e) M. Smith and (f) T. Rickward; and what is the reason for the delay.

  Mr. Burt
  Recent press interest has stimulated a great deal of correspondence from constituents and the necessary steps are being taken to ensure that correspondence from
  365
  hon. Members will be answered as promptly as possible. I am sorry that the responses have been slower than usual from this Department. However, I replied to the hon. Member concerning Mr. M. Smith on 25 January, and Mr. B. Lawrence today. The other cases are in an advanced state of preparation, and the chief executive of the Child Support Agency will reply to the hon. Lady shortly.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what instructions his Department has given the chief executive of the Child Support Agency to expedite answers to letters from hon. Members about constituents' problems on child maintenance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  All letters from hon. Members addressed to the chief executive of the Child Support Agency are acknowledged and she aims to respond within an average of 20 working days. Recent press interest has stimulated a great deal of correspondence from constituents and although that target is not being met at the moment, the necessary steps are being taken to ensure that correspondence from hon. Members will be answered as promptly as possible.

  Retirement Pensions>
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing what the retirement pension for a single person and a couple would be in April if it had continued to be uprated with earnings or prices, whichever the higher, since this link was broken.

  Mr. Hague
  It is estimated that the weekly rate of category A retirement pension would be £76·70 from April 1994 and the combined rate of category A pension and category B pension payable to a couple would be £122·75.

  Children (Statistics)
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 16 December,Official Report, column 836, if he will recalculate the last column of figures to show the number of children in families getting income support as percentages of the number for whom child benefit was being paid.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table and is for Great Britain only.

  Supplementary Benefit/Income Support Recipients and Dependants

  Year

  Number of dependants of SB/IS recipients (000's)

  As a percentage of children attracting child benefit

  1979

  955

  7·2

  1989

  2,138

  17·9

  1992

  2,874

  23·2

  Notes:

  1. Sources: supplementary benefit/income support statistics annual inquiries, November 1979, May 1989, May 1992. Social Security Statistics.

  2. The figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand. Percentages are correct to one decimal place.

  3. The number of dependant children is expressed as a percentage of the number of children for whom child benefit was in payment.

  4. The figures are for dependant children under the age of 19.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the latest figures showing how 366
  many (a) families with children are living on income support and (b) how many children are living on income support; and how these figures compare with 1979.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Income support supplementary benefit cases with children

  1979 (000's)

  1993 (000's)

  Cases with children

  477

  1,574

  Number of children

  923

  2,970

  Notes:

  1. Source: Supplementary Benefit Statistics Annual Enquiry, November 1979 and the Income support statistics quarterly enquiry, February 1993.

  2. All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Children are defined as being under 16 years of age.

  Photographs
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to buy or borrow photographs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no such plans.

  Paintings and Photographs
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) paintaings and (b) photographs there are on the walls on his rooms.

  Mr. Hague
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has 10 paintings on the walls of his rooms of which four were painted and provided by his wife. He has one photograph.

  Weather Stations
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what records he has maintained, or intends to maintain, on the number of weather stations which record temperatures of 0°C or less for three, four, five and six nights in any given week.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of cold weather payments is a matter for Mr Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. he will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mrs. Margaret Ewing, dated 26 January 1994.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recently Parliamentary Question about what records are currently maintained, and what records it is intended will be maintained on the number of weather stations which record temperatures of 0 degrees Centrigade or less for three, four, five and six nights in any given week.
  As I stated in my letter to you of 2 December 1993 [OR Vol 233 Cols 811–812] data provided by the Meteorological office does not include information on those Meteorological stations which have registered an average of 0 degrees Centrigade for three, four, five or six nights. This is because the regulations relating to cold weather payments define a period of cold weather as a consecutive period of seven days during which the average mean temperature is 0 degrees Centigrade or less.
  The Agency therefore, has no plans to begin requesting this information from the Meteorological Office, and will not be compiling and maintaining records relating to the information you require.
  I hope this reply has been helpful.
  367

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will modify the regulations relating to the independent living fund in order to enable local authorities to make direct payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have currently no plans to enable social services authorities to make direct cash payments.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Licences
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has in regard to the application for export licences from(a) Heckler and Koch, (b) Royal Ordnance and (c) GEC for exporting military equipment to the former Yugoslavia since July 1992.

  Mr. Needham
  It has been the practice of successive administrations not to disclose information about export licence applications from individual companies. A mandatory UN arms embargo was imposed in September 1991; export licences have been issued in respect of equipment for UN and EC peacekeeping activities, and for the protection of those undertaking humanitarian and media work.

  EC Business Support
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total budget of the European Community's scheme to support business under(a) BC-NET, (b) EUROPARTENARIAT and (c) SPRINT in each year since their establishment; and what was the total allocation of each to (i) the northern region and (ii) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  BC-NET (Business co-operation network) and Europartenariat

  BC-Net and Europartenariat are part of the Community's action programme for small and medium-sized enterprises. Separate information on budgets for them is not readily available, but the total budget for the action programme since its commencement in 1989 is as follows:

  Year

  Mecu

  £ million

  1989

  18·0

  12·1

  1990

  21·3

  15·2

  1991

  20·4

  14·2

  1992

  24·7

  18·2

  1993

  24·8

  18·7

  1994

  26·8

  20·2

  Separate figures for expenditure in the northern region and the United Kingdom are not available.

  SPRINT (Strategic Programme for Innovation and Technology Transfer)

  Prior to 1989, SPRINT was an experimental programme with a comparatively small budget of 18·6 mecu over the period 1983–89.

  The main phase of the programme started in 1989 and the annual expenditure since then is as follows:
  368

  Year

  Mecu

  £ million

  1989

  5·1

  3·4

  1990

  17·5

  12·5

  1991

  22·8

  16·0

  1992

  22·0

  16·2

  1993

  23·0

  17·4

  1994

  19·0

  14·3

  Again separate figures for the northern region and the United Kingdom are not available.

  Sterling/Ecu conversion rates are shown at average rates prevailing in each calendar year.

  Comité Européen des Normes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the composition of the Comite Européen des Normes by nationality to give the names and backgrounds of the British members.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Comite Europeen de Normalisation—CEN—consists of the national standards organisations of the 17 countries of the European economic area and Switzerland. The United Kingdom member is the British Standards Institution—BSI—which was founded in 1901 and is an independent body incorporated under royal charter.

  The United Kingdom delegation to the CEN General Assembly is led by the director and general manager of BSI Standards and normally comprises appropriate BSI staff, together with representatives of industrial and other economic interests. The BSI divisional director, Standards International represents the organisation on the CEN technical board which is responsible for overall control of the CEN technical programme. The United Kingdom delegation to each of the seven CEN sector technical boards usually comprises two representatives from the sector together with a member of the BSI staff. CEN prepares individual standards in technical committees. The United Kingdom representatives on these committees are usually experts from industry: they are appointed by the relevant BSI committees and are accompanied when appropriate by BSI staff.

  Off-shore Fabrication Yards
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many full-time employees were registered at each offshore fabrication yard in the United Kingdom for each of the past five financial years.

  Mr. Eggar
  I regret that this information is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many fabrication orders relating to the United Kingdom continental shelf gas and oil industry have been allocated per company to United Kingdom-based fabrication yards in each of the past five financial years; and how many orders from operators in the United Kingdom continental shelf area have been allocated to(a) EU countries and (b) Korea.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information on major orders for the calendar years 1988–1993 is contained in the table:
  369

  Yard

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Amec

  2

  3

  1

  4

  3

  1

  Consafe

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  Hi-Fab

  2

  4

  2

  5

  1

  1

  McDermott

  —

  5

  2

  —

  —

  —

  SLP (L)

  —

  2

  2

  —

  1

  1

  SLP (M)

  —

  3

  1

  2

  1

  2

  THC

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  THOF (Methll)

  1

  1

  4

  2

  1

  1

  THOF (Teeside)

  1

  1

  3

  2

  —

  1

  UIE

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  United Kingdom Total

  7

  19

  17

  19

  9

  9

  Other EU Yards

  —

  1

  5

  5

  3

  2

  Korea

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Jewellery Industry
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what cost-benefit assessments have been made of the impact of the proposed EC directive 76/769/EEC: Restrictions on the marketing and use of dangerous substances and preparations; and what assessment he has of the effect of consequential job losses in the jewellery industry.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on the possible costs to affected United Kingdom industries—in particular the suppliers of costume jewellery, certain suppliers of items to the clothing industry, such as buttons, and the makers of spectacle frames—as well as potential cost savings in treatment of nickel dermatitis arising from this proposal were set out in the Department's supplementary explanatory memorandum dated 9 December 1993 reference 5916/93. It should be noted that when political agreement on a common position was reached at the subsequent Internal Market Council meeting of 16 December it was decided to delete spectacle frames and ordinary buttons from the text of the proposal.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish figures which show the level of balancing losses for(a) franchised post offices and (b) Crown post offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This is an operational matter for the Post Office.

  Deregulation
  Ms Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the proposals in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill with existing obligations under European Community legislation currently in force.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I am satisfied that the proposals in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, if enacted, would be consistent with the United Kingdom's European Community obligations.

  Regional Development Funds
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the outcome of the negotiations between the European Commission and United Kingdom Government 370
  over the designations of Saltash and Torpoint for eligibility for European regional development funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The European Commission eventually agreed to my request to include these areas among the United Kingdom's objective 5(b) areas.

  As a result the whole of Cornwall is eligible under objective 5(b). Together with the coverage of much of Devon and part of Somerset, this is an excellent result for the south-west.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the current state of negotiations in the GATT, listing the tariffs concessions so far agreed.

  Mr. Needham
  The GATT Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations was substantively concluded on 15 December. Tariff concessions tabled at that date cannot be withdrawn but may be improved up to 15 February, the deadline for the submission to the GATT secretariat of final schedules of tariff reductions. The European Community is seeking improvements where possible in the concessions offered by other countries and in particular from India, Pakistan and Indonesia on textiles and clothing.

  Eighty-seven participants in the round, including the European Community, have so far lodged draft schedules of tariff concessions with the GATT secretariat in Geneva where comprehensive details, which are too extensive to list, are held. My Department's international trade policy division has received some schedules. Inquiries about particular concessions may be addressed to it.

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 25 January concerning Christmas cards sent out in 1993 by the Minister for Trade, how many Christmas cards were sent at public expense in 1993 by himself and by each of the other Ministers in his Department; and for each Minister, how much this cost.

  Mr. Eggar
  Other DTI Ministers did not send out Christmas cards at public expense last year.
  371

  Iron and Steel Industry Employees
  Mr. Milligan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the transitional arrangements to apply to the termination of the iron and steel employees readaptation benefit scheme—ISERBS.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A statutory instrument was laid today and comes into force tomorrow.

  When I announced the termination of the scheme on 29 October 1993 I said that permanent closures, capacity cuts or changes in activities at steel companies which were imminent would be considered under transitional arrangements. The proposals for those arrangements, that closures and capacity cuts occurring on or after 1 January 1994 should not be eligible for consideration, were issued in a consultation paper and all the comments received have been considered.

  The regulations provide that, subject to the other provisions of the scheme, benefits may still be paid where such events have occurred before 28 January 1994 and the transfer or redundancy relating to those events, including any period of notice, occurs on or before 1 May 1994; providing that the European Commission approves the provision of aid in respect of those events and the individual concerned.

  Where such events have already been accepted by the Commission as justifying payments under the ECSC treaty, the regulations provide that, subject to the other provisions of the scheme, payments may be made to any steel employee whose redundancy or transfer—whenever it occurs—relates to those events, provided that the Commission also approves the provision of aid in respect of that individual.

  One-stop Shops
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the estimates he has made since 1 July 1992 of the number of first-stop shops, one-stop shops or business links he wished to see established with the dates on which his estimates changed; and if he will give reasons for the changes in the estimates.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 19 January 1994]: When I announced in July 1992 our intention to run a competition for pilot one-stop shops, I said that in the longer term I wished to see a network of about 200 such shops established across England. My estimate has not changed since then. I expect a national network of over 200 business links to be established over the next two to three years.

  Already, approval in principle has been given to 16 business link plans which will lead eventually to the establishment of 54 business link outlets. Four of these outlets are already open, in Birmingham, Congleton, Leicester and Macclesfield. Plans are at an advanced stage of preparation in many other areas and the national assessment panel, which I have appointed to advise me on the quality of proposals, will shortly consider plans from a further five areas involving 18 business link outlets.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on the number of facilities equivalent to first-stop shops, one-stop shops or business links currently provided in Germany.
  372
  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 19 January 1994]: In Germany there is no equivalent to the business link programme.

  Business support activities are carried out by a number of different agencies including the Federal Government, the individual landers and municipalities. Policy for smaller firms in relation to education and training is the responsibility of the 83 chambers of industry and commerce—which have public law status—and the 57 chambers of handwerk. The chambers are responsible for vocational training and organise skill centres and examinations under statutory federal training regulations. The landers are responsible for start-up, investment promotion, company consultancy and apprenticeships.

  In England our intention is that the business link will provide one place for companies to obtain access to the full range of available business support services.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the budget provided for the establishing of first-stop shops, one-stop shops or business links in each year for 1992 to 1995; how much has actually been spent; and what proportion this is of the sum allocated.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 19 January 1994]: There was no DTI expenditure on the business link programme in the financial year 1992–93. The forecast for DTI expenditure on the programme in the financial year 1993–94 is £2·9 million, £496,000 of which has now been spent. This is 14·6 per cent. of the original 1993–94 budget of £3·4 million. In 1994–95 the budget is £17·1 million.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to accelerate the establishing of more first-stop shops, one-stop shops or business links.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 19 January 1994]: Since the initial one-stop shop competition for pilots in March 1993, we have moved to create a national network through a rolling programme of assessment panels which are scheduled on a quarterly basis: November 1993, February 1994, June 1994 and November 1994. My Department is working closely with local partnerships, to help them put proposals together and to implement them.

  I am keen to complete the national network as soon as possible, but we must put quality first. In addition, we have to recognise that it takes time to achieve such a radical step change in the provision of business support services.

  Warrants
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the Director General of Fair Trading to report on the warrants provided to consumers by manufacturers and retailers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 25 January 1994]: The Office of Fair Trading is gathering information from the suppliers of extended warranties and the director general will make his views known shortly.

  Office of Water Services
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the criteria used by the Director General of the Office of Water Services, in appointing or reappointing to the role of chairman of regional customer service committees.
  373
  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 24 January 1994]: This is a matter for the director general of Water Services.

  Angola
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government on arms shipments and weapons sales to the Government of the Republic of Angola.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 25 January 1994]: Under the Angola (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1993 (SI 1993 No. 2355)—made in pursuance of the United Nation Security Council Resolution No. 864—it is prohibitied to export arms to Angola without licence issued by the Department of Trade and Industry. The Department considers each application for a licence on a case-by-case basis.

  Nora Heeren
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  ; To ask the President of the Board of Trade what cargo is being carried by the German registered vessel Nora Heeren; for where that cargo is destined; whether the cargo manifest is in order; whether he is aware of any breach of either United Kingdom or international law in connection with this vessel and its cargo; why the vessel is being held by his Department at Plymouth; when the vessel will be allowed to continue to its destination; if he will make a statement.

  Consultant

  Date

  Scope of work

  Completion

  John T. Boyd

  20 November 1992

  Viability of the 21 pits identified for closure by British Coal

  22 January 1993

  Caminus Energy

  20 November 1992

  Study of the markets for coal

  22 January 1993

  Ernst and Young

  20 November 1993

  Study of British Coal's competitiveness

  22 January 1993

  Ernst and Young

  1 December 1993

  Study of the costs of nuclear generation

  8 February 1993

  PIMS Associates

  20 November 1993

  Study of British Coal's cost structure and productivity in relation to international comparators

  22 January 1993

  In addition, the Department commissioned other pieces of analysis that, in the event, were not directly relevant to the conclusions in the White Paper and were pursued no further.

  "Back to Basics"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the implications of the Government's "back to basics" policy for his Department during 1994.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Friday 21 January,Official Report, column 849.
  374
  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 25 January 1994]: It has been the practice of successive Administrations to control the transhipment of licensable goods in accordance with procedures agreed with COCOM partners; it has also been the practice not to disclose information about such licences. My officials are currently reviewing the basis of United Kingdom transhipment controls with other interested Departments.

  Post Office Review
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the cost to date of the review of the Post Office conducted by Kleinwort Benson.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 24 January 1994]: The cost of work undertaken by individual contractors is commercially confidential.

  "Prospects for Coal"
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all the consultants commissioned by him to help produce the White Paper, "Prospects for Coal"; what were their terms of reference; when each piece of work was commissioned; and when it was completed.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: Details of the consultants appointed by the Department to assist in production of the White Paper were:

HEALTH

  Disability Information Projects
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what direct contribution her Department makes to disability information projects in the west midlands; and if she will make a statement on the changes proposed as a result of the plans to abolish the regional health authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Since October 1991 the Department of Health has provided funding of over £314,000 to disability information projects in the west midlands as part of the national disability information project.

  A rigorous analysis of the functions carried out in the national health service is currently being undertaken to determine how the new structure will operate in practice. Functions provided by regional health authorities and the NHS management executive are being considered to establish what can be more appropriately dealt with at local level.

  Decisions on this matter have yet to be reached.
  375

  Mental Health
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) health personnel were attacked by patients and (b) patients were attacked by doctors and other health personnel in each year since 1973.

  Mr. Sackville
  In line with the recommendations of the Lord Skelmersdale "Advisory Committee on Violence to Staff—Report 1988", copies of which are available in the Library, the collection of data has not been centralised but all health care organisations have been recommended to have a system of reporting and recording of incidents to enable the development of an accurate data base on their cause and nature of the problems which arise. If the hon. Member has an interest in data for a particular locality he may wish to approach the individual national health service unit direct.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 30 November,Official Report, columns 457–58, if she will publish figures showing the percentage of calls to which the London ambulance service failed to respond within its 14-minute call-out standard time in November and December.

  Mr. Sackville
  The percentage of calls to which the London ambulance service failed to respond within 14 minutes in both November and December was 43 per cent. The information was supplied by the London ambulance service. On 15 December 1993,Official Report, column 721, we announced the further investment of £14·8 million in the London ambulance service which will be tied to firm targets for improving ambulance performance.

  Nursing and midwifery staff in NHS hospitals by regional health authority at 30 September Whole-time equivalents

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  England

  352,160

  352,560

  348,810

  346,720

  333,400

  Northern

  24,640

  24,720

  24,250

  24,320

  22,040

  Yorkshire

  26,660

  26,610

  26,560

  26,060

  24,290

  Trent

  33,760

  33,630

  33,750

  33,470

  31,310

  East Anglia

  14,230

  14,440

  14,490

  14,030

  13,720

  North West Thames

  22,970

  23,210

  22,920

  23,140

  21,630

  North East Thames

  29,130

  29,130

  29,210

  29,110

  27,620

  South East Thames

  26,820

  27,090

  25,620

  25,130

  25,290

  South West Thames

  20,160

  20,040

  19,180

  18,950

  19,710

  Wessex

  21,110

  20,830

  21,140

  21,000

  19,520

  Oxford

  14,660

  14,650

  14,770

  14,460

  14,090

  South Western

  24,240

  24,120

  24,290

  23,930

  23,050

  West Midlands

  36,940

  37,160

  37,170

  36,390

  36,330

  Mersey

  19,620

  19,450

  18,630

  17,670

  17,020

  North Western

  32,680

  32,700

  32,210

  31,740

  30,610

  SHAs

  4,550

  4,780

  4,610

  7,330

  7,170

  Nursing and midwifery staff in the community by Regional Health Authority (excluding agency) at 30 September — Whole-time equivalents

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  England

  42,660

  42,270

  43,160

  42,220

  42,040

  Northern

  2,940

  2,900

  2,870

  2,770

  2,890

  Yorkshire

  3,260

  3,270

  3,200

  3,130

  2,990

  Trent

  4,270

  4,230

  4,210

  4,190

  4,160

  East Anglia

  1,610

  1,590

  1,540

  1,580

  1,530

  376

  Portable Oxygen Containers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances a patient is entitled to a portable oxygen container for use in a car; what arrangements are made to issue the container on prescription; what is the cost of this service; and what special regulations apply to this provision.

  Mr. Sackville
  Consultants may prescribe portable oxygen cylinders to patients which can be topped up from standard 1,360 litre cylinders supplied against a general practitioner's prescription. Information on the cost of this service is not separately identifiable. If a portable oxygen container was for use in a motor vehicle the driver would be required to be fit at all times to drive the vehicle safely. The safety aspect would fall to the police to enforce. A driver using oxygen in a motor vehicle must not have a relevant disability within the meaning of section 92 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Such a disability might include obstructive airways disease causing sleep apnoea. Drivers suffering such disabilities are required by law to notify the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

  Nurses
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses were employed in NHS hospitals by region in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what are the corresponding figures for nurses employed in the community alongside family doctors.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of nurses and midwives employed within NHS hospitals are shown in the table:

  The number of community nurses, from within the hospital and community health service, and practice nurses, who are employed by general practitioners are shown in the following tables.
  377

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  North West Thames

  3,320

  3,230

  3,200

  3,140

  2,990

  North East Thames

  3,400

  3,450

  3,450

  3,320

  3,320

  South East Thames

  2,340

  2,090

  3,360

  3,020

  3,130

  South West Thames

  2,610

  2,610

  2,580

  2,270

  2,300

  Wessex

  2,450

  2,390

  2,410

  2,430

  2,490

  Oxford

  2,120

  2,130

  2,120

  2,190

  2,110

  South Western

  2,820

  2,870

  2,880

  2,900

  2,920

  West Midlands

  4,660

  4,680

  4,600

  4,610

  4,660

  Mersey

  2,310

  2,330

  2,270

  2,220

  2,160

  North Western

  4,530

  4,480

  4,450

  4,420

  4,370

  SHAs

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Practice Nurses by Regional Health Authority at 30 September Whole-time Equivalents

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  England

  3,480

  4,630

  7,740

  8,780

  9,120

  Northern

  220

  280

  430

  500

  550

  Yorkshire

  210

  280

  570

  610

  650

  Trent

  320

  460

  770

  850

  930

  East Anglia

  240

  270

  440

  550

  510

  North West Thames

  320

  390

  610

  680

  700

  North East Thames

  210

  280

  540

  730

  700

  South East Thames

  230

  360

  660

  630

  650

  South West Thames

  200

  280

  490

  550

  560

  Wessex

  210

  330

  530

  680

  590

  Oxford

  230

  340

  450

  490

  540

  South Western

  330

  460

  680

  710

  760

  West Midlands

  410

  490

  750

  830

  910

  Mersey

  100

  170

  330

  340

  440

  North Western

  170

  250

  490

  640

  640

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.

  2. The tables show that, in England, during the period 1988 to 1992 there was a 5·3 per cent. decrease in the numbers of nurses and midwives employed within NHS hospitals; this decrease was mainly a result of the exclusion of Project 2000 student nurses from workforce statistics. Project 2000 learners are regarded as supernumerary and are not included in workforce numbers. In 1992 there were 18,300 Project 2000 students. In addition a number of senior nurses have transferred to senior management grades. During the same period there was an insignificant decrease of 1·4 per cent. in nursing and midwifery staff in the community and a 162 per cent. rise in the number of practice nurses.

  Child Abuse
  Sir Jerry Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases, in the most convenient period for which records are kept, have come to light of abuse or of welfare concerns as a result of the inspection of independent boarding schools under the Children Act 1989;

  (2) how many cases have come to light of abuse or of welfare concerns as a result of the inspection of independent boarding schools under the Children Act 1989 in the most convenient period for which records are kept.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Intensive Care
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions children's intensive care units have had to turn away critically ill patients for the years in which records have been kept.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on non-admissions may be held on individual patient records, but the Department does not hold confidential personal information of this nature.
  378

  Press Releases
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many press releases were issued for each quarter since she became Secretary of State; and how many were issued in each of the past 12 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information for the years 1981 to 1988 is not available in the form requested. The number of press releases issued from 1989 are:

  Number

  1989

  575

  1990

  632

  1991

  638

  1992

  471

  1993

  675

  The number of press releases issued in each quarter from April 1992 are:

  Number

  1992

  April to June

  80

  July to September

  99

  October to November

  158

  Total

  337

  1993

  January to March

  208

  April to June

  151

  379

  Number

  July to September

  150

  October to December

  166

  Total

  675

  Parents' Visiting Costs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will issue a guidance circular to general practitioners and health authorities classifying the right of medical practitioners to specify visiting costs incurred by parents in visiting their children in hospital as an integral part of the cost of medical treatment, when that is appropriate and necessary; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  I have undertaken to keep under review the arrangements for helping parents participate in the treatment of children admitted to hospital.

  Day Care (Children)
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she plans to publish the report of the survey on day care services for children carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in 1991.

  Mr. Bowis
  The preparation of the report is nearing completion and we expect it to be published in the early summer.

  Pharmaceutical Product Licences
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers she or the Medicines Control Agency has to terminate or vary a product licence held by a pharmaceutical manufacturer; and under what circumstances those powers may be used.

  Mr. Sackville
  Section 28 of the Medicines Act 1968 sets out the powers of the licensing authority—United Kingdom Health Ministers—to suspend, revoke or vary a medicinal product licence. Section 28 also specifies the grounds on which the powers can be used. The procedures to be followed when the licensing authority proposes such action are contained in section 29 and schedule 2 of the Medicines Act. The licensing authority also complies with the requirements of the European Directive 65/65.

  Dentists
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of dentists under contract with family health services authorities in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table.

  Numbers of dentists1 2 under contract to family health services authorities at 30 September from 1989 to 1993

  Year

  Numbers

  1989

  15,351

  1990

  15,480

  1991

  15,451

  1992

  15,411

  1993

  15,773

  1 Includes principals, assistants and vocational trainees.

  2 Principals counted only once: some have more than one contract.

  380

  Hepatitis B
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of hepatitis B have been recorded in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of notifications of hepatitis B in England and Wales 1988–1992.

  Year

  Notifications

  1988

  390

  1989

  432

  1990

  435

  1991

  488

  1992

  489

  Day Nurseries
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time day care places in day nurseries for under-fives are provided in the Durham area.

  Mr. Bowis
  The latest available information about full-time day nursery places in Durham is contained in the publication "Children's day care facilities at 31 March 1992, England". Copies are available in the Library.

  Non-human Somatotropins
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has funded into the possible effects of non-human somatotropins on diabetics and people with liver complaints.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is not at present undertaking research into the possible effects of non-human somatotropins on diabetics and people with liver complaints. The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Tickhill Road Hospital
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the long-term plans of the Doncaster Healthcare Trust for continuing care of the elderly at the Tickhill Road hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a local matter for the Doncaster healthcare national health service trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact the trust chairman, Mr. David Bertram, for details.

  Wythenshawe Hospital
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to be able to reply to the representations, under urgent cover, made to her by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, in regard to facilities at Wythenshawe hospital for admission and treatment overnight there in cases of emergency.

  Mr. Sackville
  Shortly. The right hon. Member's representations of 13 January have been put to South Manchester health authority which is responsible for the management of the facilities at Wythenshawe hospital.
  381

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 14 January,Official Report, columns 317–20, how many whole-time equivalent speech therapists there are in East Cumbria, West Cumbria, South Cumbria and Darlington; and if she will give the exact number in each case.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information available is shown in the table.

  Qualified speech therapists by district health authority area as at 30 September 1992: Whole-time equivalents and numbers

  WTE

  Number

  East Cumbria

  12·45

  15

  South Cumbria

  12·66

  13

  West Cumbria

  4·50

  6

  Darlington

  8·00

  8

  Source: Department of Health non-medical work force census.

  Number of places for people with mental health problems in staffed residential care homes by regional health authority, at 31 March 1988 to 1992, England

  Regional health authority

  11988

  11989

  11990

  1991

  1992

  Northern

  2,300

  2,410

  2,680

  2,940

  2,910

  Yorkshire

  3,020

  3,590

  3,830

  4,050

  4,360

  Trent

  3,110

  3,440

  3,770

  4,170

  4,400

  East Anglian

  1,810

  1,890

  2,070

  2,220

  2,320

  North West Thames

  2,500

  2,590

  2,610

  2,940

  3,030

  North East Thames

  2,680

  2,830

  3,260

  3,530

  3,860

  South East Thames

  4,170

  5,210

  5,460

  5,920

  6,200

  South West Thames

  2,880

  3,040

  3,660

  3,900

  4,330

  Wessex

  2,430

  2,840

  3,000

  3,150

  3,400

  Oxford

  1,770

  2,270

  2,340

  2,560

  2,700

  South Western

  4,120

  4,050

  4,390

  4,700

  5,470

  West Midlands

  4,740

  4,760

  5,000

  5,250

  5,480

  Mersey

  2,260

  2,390

  2,460

  2,630

  2,690

  North Western

  3,210

  3,590

  3,680

  3,670

  3,730

  England2

  41,000

  44,900

  48,200

  51,600

  54,900

  1 The figures for 1988 to 1992 include estimates for a minority of records which did not have details of the health authority area concerned.

  2 Totals may not agree due to rounding.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animals (Transport)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a further statement on efforts to achieve common EC rules on the transport of live food animals.

  Mr. Soames
  In December the United Kingdom blocked the introduction of a European Community package of further measures on the transport of animals because they did not offer real improvements in standards of protection.

  We shall continue to press for the United Kingdom's high standards to become the norm throughout the Community.

  Milk Marque
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received recently about the proposed creation of the Milk Marque.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I received a number of representations on the board's reorganisation scheme in response to our recent consultation on it.
  382

  Community Residential Places
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community residential places have been established within each regional health authority in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: The figures available by regional health authority, for places in staffed residential care homes catering primarily for people who are mentally ill or have learning disabilities, are shown in the table.

  Field Drainage
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action she is taking to advise farmers of the need to ensure that run-off water from fields does not inundate property; and what help is available to farmers to pay for drainage work.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Farmers have access to a range of advice from our regional offices and the Agricultural Development Advisory Service.

  Free Trade Agreement
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of the implications for British agricultural exports of the North American free trade agreement; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The North American free trade agreement principally removes tariffs in trade between the three participating countries.

  In so far as it leads to increased economic activity in north America it should benefit all exports to these markets.
  383

  United Kingdom Enterprises
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being taken to generate opportunities for United Kingdom agricultural enterprises in the developing world.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My Department's trade promotion programme in 1993 included ministerial-led business missions to six countries in the developing world as such.

  We also target the developing markets of central and eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and China, where plans this year include attendance at trade fairs in China, the Baltic States, Russia and Poland.

  In total, the Ministry promoted United Kingdom industry at four overseas exhibitions, generating some 500 business inquiries.

  Apple Juice
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she next expects to meet apple growers in East Anglia to discuss output of apple juice.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend and I meet apple growers regularly to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Park Land
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sales of Forestry Commission land in England have involved park land since the start of the current programme of sales.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Forestry Commission owns very little park land and does not identify it separately in its disposal records. The information requested is therefore not available.

  Mushrooms
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to have a meeting with her Irish counterparts to discuss the question of subsidies on the production of mushrooms.

  Mr. Jack
  Responsibility for enforcing the EC rules relating to state aids rests with the Commission with whom we have raised the legality of assistance to Irish mushrooms growers.

  Wages Board
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people are covered by the agricultural wages board.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  All agricultural workers in England and Wales are covered by the provisions of the Agricultural Wages Orders produced by the agricultural wages board.

  The total number of regular family and hired workers, including seasonal and casual workers, at 1 June 1993 was 217,770.
  384

  Fishing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals she has for reducing the British fishing effort to the multi-annual guidance levels.

  Mr. Jack
  As I explained on 14 December to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) our decision to suspend the implementation of controls on days at sea means that we have to review the means by which we can work towards our MAGP targets—which require action on fishing activity as well as on capacity.

  Fishery Discussions
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she plans to meet her French counterpart to discuss fishery issues.

  Mr. Jack
  I meet my French counterpart regularly at meetings of the Council of EU Fisheries Ministers, the next meeting of which' is scheduled for 12 April.

  Forestry Review Group
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland about the forestry review group.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have not had any recent formal discussions with my right hon. Friend about the forestry review group.

  Organic Aid Scheme
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she expects to launch the organic aid scheme in England; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Our proposals for the organic aid scheme in England are currently with the European Commission.

  I expect to make an announcement on the starting date for the scheme in the near future.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of the outcome of the meeting of the EC Council of Fisheries Ministers in Brussels on 20–21 December 1993; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on 12 January at column 226–28.

  Equine Exports
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how she ensures that minimum values apply to all equines leaving the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Animal Health Act 1981, and orders made under the Act, require a minimum valuation to be provided for specified categories of equines before a welfare export licence is issued. There are exemptions for
  385
  thoroughbred horses certified by the Jockey Club and other horses intended for breeding, riding, exhibition, jumping and polo are also exempted.

  EC Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total budget awarded to the EC's guidance section of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund in each year since its establishment; and what proportion of this was granted to (i) the northern region and (ii) the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Jack
  Total EC payments from the guidance section of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, and the proportion of this received by the United Kingdom since its accession to the EC, is set out in the table. The reduction in the proportion of total payments received by the United Kingdom since 1981 is due in part to the accession to the EC of Greece in 1981, and of Spain and Portugal in 1986. I regret that figures for the proportion of these payments received by the northern region could be provided only at disproportionate cost, as information on the various schemes subject to funding by guidance section is not kept on regional basis.

  Total EC payments from the EAGGF Guidance Section

  Of which United Kingdom receipts per cent.

  Million units of accounts

  1973

  124

  0·00

  1974

  128

  0·04

  1975

  184

  9·00

  1976

  218

  20·00

  1977

  297

  22·00

  Million European units of account

  1978

  324

  12·00

  1979

  403

  16·00

  1980

  601

  18·00

  Million ECU

  1981

  566

  19·00

  1982

  638

  11·00

  1983

  720

  21·00

  1984

  647

  17·00

  1885

  690

  16·00

  1886

  727

  11·00

  1987

  863

  9·00

  1988

  1,142

  7·00

  1989

  1,349

  5·00

  1990

  1,825

  5·00

  1991

  1,915

  5·00

  1992

  2,584

  4·00

  Sources: Annual Reports of the European Court of Auditors except for United Kingdom receipts 1973–1975 (EAGGF Annual Reports).

  Rabies
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to reduce the British quarantine period for animals with rabies vaccination certificates imported from rabies-free countries; and if she will make a statement.
  386
  Mr. Soames
  The Government have no plans to reduce the present six months quarantine requirement for imported pet dogs, cats and a wide range of other rabies susceptible animals. Separate arrangements were agreed under the Balai directive (92/65/EEC) for commercially traded animals from other member states in the European Community. A statement on those changes was given in the reply to the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on 16 June 1992,Official Report, column 455–56.

  Biodiversity Objectives
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action she intends to take to develop clear biodiversity objectives for the range of schemes available for the positive management of farming habitats.

  Mr. Jack
  The steps we are taking to apply environmental conditions to agricultural support will help maintain farming habitats.

  The objectives of the environmentally sensitive areas schemes include the conservation, enhancement and restoration of specific wildlife habitats and, where appropriate, increases in species diversity. Similar objectives are being developed for the proposed habitat scheme and moorland scheme.

TRANSPORT

  Airport Landing Charges
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing, for a number of typical aircraft, the landing charges expressed per passenger, on the assumption that the aircraft are 80 per cent. full, at peak times at Gatwick, Stansted, Manchester, Birmingham and East Midlands airports.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Charges are based on the assumption that the aircraft concerned meets ICAO chapter 3 noise standards and qualify for any noise rebates available at the airports concerned. The following aircraft assumptions also apply:

  Maximum take off weight

  Seats

  Passengers at 80 per cent, load factor

  747–200B

  378

  374

  299

  737–200

  53

  109

  87

  BAe 146–2

  43

  84

  67

  All landing charges include aerodrome navigation services charges.

  All passenger charges include security charges and are based on charges for international services.
  387

  Comparison of off-peak airport charges

  BAe 146–200

  737–200

  747–200

  Landing

  Pax

  Total

  Landing

  Pax

  Total

  Landing

  Pax

  Total

  Total Charges

  Gatwick

  £130

  £130

  £260

  £149

  £169

  £318

  £618

  £580

  £1,198

  Stansted

  £125

  £141

  £266

  £156

  £183

  £338

  £923

  £628

  £1,551

  Manchester

  £193

  £426

  £619

  £238

  £553

  £791

  £1,697

  £1,902

  £3,599

  Birmingham

  £507

  £697

  £1,204

  £625

  £905

  £1,530

  £4,460

  £3,110

  £7,570

  East Midlands

  £495

  £688

  £1,183

  £611

  £893

  £1,504

  £4,355

  £3,071

  £7,425

  Charges per Passenger

  Gatwick

  £1·94

  £1·94

  £3·88

  £1·72

  £1·94

  £3·66

  £2·07

  £1·94

  £4·01

  Stansted

  £1·87

  £2·10

  £3·97

  £1·79

  £2·10

  £3·89

  £3·09

  £2·10

  £5·19

  Manchester

  £2·88

  £6·36

  £9·24

  £2·74

  £6·36

  £9·10

  £5·68

  £6·36

  £12·04

  Birmingham

  £7·57

  £10·40

  £17·97

  £7·19

  £10·40

  £17·59

  £14·92

  £10·40

  £25·32

  East Midlands

  £7·39

  £10·27

  £17·66

  £7·02

  £10·27

  £17·29

  £14·56

  £10·27

  £24·83

  These charges are based on winter, off-peak rates. However, the periods covered by these rates are different for each airport and the off-peak periods which apply for each airport follow:

  Airport

  Charges

  Times

  Gatwick

  Landing Charges

  Any time, 1 November to 31

  Passenger Charges

  March 1600–0529, 1 May to 30 September and any time between 1 October and 30 April

  Stansted

  Landing Charges

  Any time, 1 November to 31

  Passenger Charges

  March 1600–0659, 1 May to 30 September and any time between 1 October and 30 April

  Comparison of peak airport charges

  BAe 146–200

  737–200

  747–200

  Landing

  Pax

  Total

  Landing

  Pax

  Total

  Landing

  Pax

  Total

  Total Charges

  Gatwick

  £350

  £630

  £980

  £368

  £818

  £1,186

  £655

  £2,811

  £3,465

  Stansted

  £138

  £515

  £652

  £191

  £668

  £859

  £1,485

  £2,296

  £3,782

  Manchester

  £387

  £691

  £1,078

  £476

  £898

  £1,374

  £3,047

  £3,086

  £6,133

  Birmingham

  £507

  £697

  £1,204

  £625

  £905

  £1,530

  £4,460

  £3,110

  £7,570

  East Midlands

  £495

  £753

  £1,248

  £611

  £978

  £1,588

  £4,355

  £3,361

  £7,715

  Charges per Passenger

  Gatwick

  £5·23

  £9·40

  £14·63

  £4·23

  £9·40

  £13·63

  £2·19

  £9·40

  £11·59

  Stansted

  £2·05

  £7·68

  £9·73

  £2·20

  £7·68

  £9·88

  £4·97

  £7·68

  £12·65

  Manchester

  £5·77

  £10·32

  £16·09

  £5·48

  £10·32

  £15·80

  £10·19

  £10·32

  £20·51

  Birmingham

  £7·57

  £10·40

  £17·97

  £7·19

  £10·40

  £17·59

  £14·92

  £10·40

  £25·32

  East Midlands

  £7·39

  £11·24

  £18·63

  £7·02

  £11·24

  £18·26

  £14·56

  £11·24

  £25·80

  These charges are based on summer, peak rates. However, the periods covered by these rates are different for each airport and the peak periods which apply for each airport follow:

  Airport

  Charges

  Times

  Gatwick

  Landing Charges

  0600–1509 and 1700–1859, 1 April to 31 October

  Passanger Charges

  0530–1559, 1 May to 30 September

  Stansted

  Landing Charges

  Any time, 1 May to 31 October

  Passenger Charges

  0700–1559, 1 May to 30 September

  Manchester

  Landing Charges

  Any time except 1400–1559 Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday 1 November to 30 April

  Passenger Charges

  Any time, 1 May to 31 October

  Birmingham

  All Charges

  Any time of the day throughout the year

  388

  Airport

  Charges

  Times

  Manchester

  Landing Charges

  1400–1559 Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday 1 November to 30 April

  Passenger Charges

  Any time, 1 November to 30 April

  Birmingham

  All Charges

  Any time of the day throughout the year

  East Midlands

  Landing Charges

  Any time of the day throughout the year

  Passenger Charges

  Any time, 1 November to 29 February

  Airport

  Charges

  Times

  East Midlands

  Landing Charges

  Any time of the day throughout the year

  Passenger Charges

  Any time, 1 March to 31 October

  London-Warsaw Flights
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when and on what basis Ministers were involved in negotiations with their Polish counterparts and representatives of Lot Airlines during October;

  (2) why Lot airlines has been forbidden to land at Heathrow with effect from 1 November;

  (3) what representations the Government have received from Lot Airlines or the Polish Government on the number of winter flights to Warsaw by British Airways originating in (a) London and (b) North America, and on the summer schedules;
  389
  (4) when and in what circumstances agreement was made between Her Majesty's Government and the Polish Government and Lot Airlines on the winter flights schedule; and what is his policy on the number of British Airways flights between London and Warsaw;

  (5) on what occasions over the past 10 years a dispute has occurred between British Airways and the national carriers of other countries about the increase in the number of flights from London to the other countries' principal airports where (a) Her Majesty's Government have been involved and (b) the sanction of removing the permit for the other national carriers to land at Heathrow has been imposed;

  (6) what is the policy underlying Her Majesty's Government's support for British Airways to increase the frequency of its winter flights between London and Warsaw; and what impact he expects the increase to have on transatlantic flights made by United Kingdom and Polish air carriers;

  (7) what intergovernmental agreements govern flights between London and Warsaw.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 4 November 1993 and the subsequent letter I wrote to him on 16 November which was deposited in the Library. Since then there has been continuing contact between the United Kingdom and Polish Governments and between the airlines concerned and I hope that it will be possible to reach agreement on the resumption of services soon.

  Trunk Road Assessment
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 15 December,Official Report, column 714, when he expects the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment to finish looking into the question of generated traffic and report to his Department.

  Mr. Key
  I understand the standing advisory committee on trunk road assessment is aiming to submit its report on generated traffic to Ministers in the spring of this year.

  Traffic Area Office Network
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on executive agency status for the traffic area office network.

  Mr. Key
  We are considering the traffic area offices as possible candidates for executive agency status.

  Goods Vehicles
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many prohibition notices were issued in respect of large goods vehicles in 1992–93; and how many were(a) immediate, (b) delayed or (c) defect notices.

  Mr. Key
  During 1992–93, the vehicle inspectorate examined 196,475 large goods vehicles. The examinations resulted in 11,041 immediate prohibitions, 11,040 delayed prohibitions and 18,379 defect notices being issued.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by traffic area office(a) the number of goods vehicle operator licences and (b) renewal applications for goods vehicle operator licences refused on environmental grounds over the last five years.
  390
  Mr. Key
  The number of goods vehicle operator licences and renewal applications for goods vehicle operator licences which were refused over the last five years are listed in order of traffic area office:

  Traffic Area Office

  Applications refused (1988–89—1992–93)

  North Eastern

  158

  North Western

  271

  West Midland

  233

  Eastern

  196

  South Wales

  155

  Western

  212

  South Eastern and Metropolitan

  717

  Scottish

  221

  Figures for applications refused on environmental grounds are not available and could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by traffic area office the number of objections received from members of the public, local authorities and the police to the renewal of goods vehicle operator licences during the last two years.

  Mr. Key
  The number of objections received from members of the public, local authorities and the police to applications for goods vehicle operator licences during the last two years—1991–92 and 1992–93—are listed in order of traffic area office:

  Traffic Area Office

  Number of objections and representations (1991–92—1992–93)

  North Eastern

  908

  North Western

  1,121

  West Midland

  1,663

  Eastern

  4,467

  South Wales

  733

  Western

  2,815

  South Eastern and Metropolitan

  5,429

  Scottish

  786

  Figures for the number of objections that were made to applications for the renewal of goods vehicle operator licences are not available and could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by traffic area office the number of renewal applications for goods vehicle and passenger carrying vehicle operator licences that have been refused due to(a) poor maintenance records or (b) poor conduct or repute.

  Mr. Key
  The number of renewal applications for goods vehicle and passenger carrying vehicle operator licences which were refused during 1992–93 are listed in order of traffic area office:

  Traffic area office

  Applications refused

  North Eastern

  11

  North Western

  5

  West Midlands

  6

  Eastern

  9

  South Wales

  5

  391

  Traffic area office

  Applications refused

  Western

  21

  South Eastern and Metropolitan

  41

  Scottish

  7

  Figures for applications refused due to (a) poor maintenance records or (b) poor conduct or repute are not available and could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Ms Walley) of 15 December,Official Report, column 709, on how many of the 132,000 cheques DVLA took prosecution action; and on how many of these the DVLA recovered money.

  Mr. Robert Key
  A total of 13,205, of which 12,842 resulted in revenue recovery.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which functions of the traffic area office network are intended for market testing.

  Mr. Key
  I keep all parts of my Department under review with the aim of identifying scope for market testing. including the traffic area offices.

  Deregulation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of the deregulation of goods and passenger operator licensing and the staffing levels of traffic area offices.

  Mr. Norris
  It is not possible at this stage to make a detailed assessment of the likely effect of the deregulation proposals for goods and passenger operator licensing on the levels of staff in the traffic area offices. Our best estimate is that the effect of deregulation and changes to the fee system will be broadly neutral in terms of staffing.

  Prohibition Notices
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many prohibition notices were issued against passenger carrying vehicles in 1992–93; and how many of them were(a) immediate prohibitions, (b) delayed prohibitions and (c) defect notices.

  Mr. Key
  In the financial year 1992–93 the vehicle inspectorate examined 39,065 public service and other passenger carying vehicles. The examinations resulted in these vehicles being issued with 1,825 immediate prohibitions, 1,363 delayed and 4,275 defect notices.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by traffic area office the number by grade of staff employed and the salary costs.

  Mr. Key
  The total number of staff employed in the traffic area offices is 447·5 and the total salary cost is £6·3 million. The number of traffic area office staff by grade and salary cost is as follows:392

  North Eastern

  Grade

  Number

  £

  Commissioner

  1·0

  58,562

  Grade 7

  1·0

  37,240

  HEO

  3·0

  68,367

  EO

  7·0

  125,363

  AO

  26·0

  331,604

  AA

  14·5

  141,491

  Personal Secretary

  1·0

  13,625

  Typing Manager

  1·0

  16,973

  Typists

  4·0

  43,160

  SGB1

  0·0

  0

  SGB2

  2·0

  19,128

  Total

  60·5

  855,513

  North Western

  Grade

  Number

  £

  Commissioner

  1·0

  58,562

  Grade 7

  1·0

  37,240

  HEO

  3·0

  68,367

  EO

  7·0

  125,363

  AO

  34·0

  433,636

  AA

  14·0

  136,612

  Personal Secretary

  1·0

  13,625

  Typing Manager

  1·0

  16,973

  Typists

  4·5

  48,555

  SGB1

  1·0

  11,247

  SGB2

  2·5

  23,910

  Total

  70·0

  974,090

  West Midland

  Grade

  Number

  £

  Commissioner

  0·5

  29,281

  Grade 7

  0·5

  18,620

  HEO

  2·0

  45,578

  EO

  5·5

  98,500

  AO

  20·0

  255,080

  AA

  10·0

  97,580

  Personal Secretary

  1·0

  13,625

  Typing Manager

  1·0

  16,973

  Typists

  3·5

  37,765

  SGB1

  0·0

  0

  SGB2

  5·0

  47,820

  Total

  49·0

  660,822

  Eastern

  Grade

  Number

  £

  Commissioner

  1·0

  58,562

  Grade 7

  1·0

  37,240

  HEO

  3·0

  68,367

  EO

  7·5

  134,317

  AO

  28·0

  357,112

  AA

  13·5

  131,733

  Personal Secretary

  1·0

  13,625

  Typing Manager

  1·0

  16,973

  Typists

  3·0

  32,370

  SGB1

  1·0

  11,247

  SGB2

  2·0

  19,128

  Total

  62·0

  880,674

  South Wales

  Grade

  Number

  £

  Commissioner

  0·5

  29,281

  Grade 7

  0·5

  18,620

  HEO

  2·0

  45,578

  EO

  4·0

  71,636

  AO

  12·5

  159,425

  AA

  6·0

  58,548

  393

  Grade

  Number

  £

  Personal Secretary

  0·0

  0

  Typing Manager

  1·0

  16,973

  Typists

  2·0

  21,580

  SGB1

  0·0

  0

  SGB2

  1·0

  9,564

  Total

  29·5

  431,205

  Western

  Grade

  Number

  £

  Commissioner

  1·0

  58,562

  Grade 7

  1·0

  37,240

  HEO

  3·0

  68,367

  EO

  6·0

  107,454

  AO

  25·5

  325,227

  AA

  12·0

  117,096

  Personal Secretary

  1·0

  13,625

  Typing Manager

  1·0

  16,973

  Typists

  4·0

  43,160

  SGB1

  0·0

  0

  SGB2

  2·0

  19,128

  Total

  56·5

  806,832

  South Eastern

  Grade

  Number

  £

  Commissioner

  1·0

  58,562

  Grade 7

  1·0

  37,240

  HEO

  3·0

  68,367

  EO

  5·5

  98,500

  AO

  27·5

  350,735

  AA

  15·0

  146,370

  Personal Secretary

  1·0

  13,625

  Typing Manager

  1·0

  16,973

  Typists

  2·0

  21,580

  SGB1

  0·5

  5,623

  SGB2

  3·5

  33,474

  Total

  61·0

  851,049

  Scottish

  Grade

  Number

  £

  Commissioner

  1·0

  58,562

  Grade 7

  1·0

  37,240

  HEO

  3·0

  68,367

  EO

  7·0

  125,363

  AO

  26·5

  337,981

  AA

  14·0

  136,612

  Personal Secretary

  1·0

  13,625

  Typing Manager

  1·0

  16,973

  Typists

  2·5

  26,975

  SGB1

  0·0

  0

  SGB2

  2·0

  19,128

  Total

  59·0

  840,826

  School Transport
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he intends to bring forward to help prevent or mitigate accidents involving school transport.

  Mr. Key
  Draft regulations, which will make the display of a distinctive sign on buses carrying children to or from school mandatory, are currently being finalised. They will also allow vehicles displaying the sign to use 394
  their hazard warning lights, when stationary, to indicate to other road users that children are boarding or alighting or are in the vicinity of the vehicle.

  We are also reviewing the full technical and cost implications of seat belts in minibuses and coaches, irrespective of their use. Until this review is complete we do not feel that it would be wise to introduce new legislation in this area.

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the electrification of the Leeds, Bradford, Ilkley and Skipton railway lines to be completed; and vihat rolling stock will be provided.

  Mr. Freeman
  These are matters for British Rail and the West Yorkshire passenger transport executive. However, I understand that electrification is expected to be completed next winter, and that this will be followed by a phased introduction of local electric services. A full service is expected to start in May 1995. It is planned to use refurbished class 308 rolling stock initially; the PTE is still examining possible arrangements for the leasing of new rolling stock in the longer term.

  Motor Vehicles
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders regarding prohibition of use of vehicles older than 10 years; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what proposals he has to introduce legislation to curtail the use of motor vehicles manufactured prior to 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  No representations have been received from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. There are no proposals being considered by the Department to curtail the use of motor vehicles which are more than 10 years old.

  High Speed Rail Link
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the total amount of public expenditure used for(a) the King's Cross project and (b) the now abandoned south London route for the channel tunnel high speed link.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail's accounts show £332 million cumulative expenditure on the channel tunnel rail link project up to 31 March 1993 £252 million net of interest payments. Of this net cost Union Railways assign some £46 million to Kings Cross and £89 million to the abandoned section of the southerly route. A more detailed assessment is not possible because the Kings Cross project was not conceived solely for the rail link and a proportion of the southerly approach is still part of the route. It also remains to be seen what additional reduction in net cost will be achieved through further property sales.

  Channel Tunnel Stations
  Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the Stratford Promoter Group to discuss the proposal prepared by the group for the siting of an international channel tunnel station at Stratford.
  395
  Mr. Freeman
  Yes. I suggest that the promoter group first study Union Railways' report published on 24 January, in the light of my right hon. Friend's statement on the same day; have further discussions with Union Railways; then contact my office to arrange a mutually convenient time.

  Airport Passengers
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a table showing the total number of passengers leaving from United Kingdom airports for each year since 1989 and as a total over the same period, broken down into passengers travelling to (i) destinations within the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the EC including the Channel islands and Isle of Man and (ii) elsewhere.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: The information requested is shown in the table:

  Departing terminal passengers at United Kingdom airports

  Departing passengers to

  Domestic and EC

  Other international

  1989

  32,533,219

  16,074,396

  1990

  33,571,797

  17,125,797

  1991

  31,665,121

  15,848,694

  1992

  34,374,452

  18,296,967

  January to October 1993

  31,395,765

  16,826,031

  Total of above

  163,540,354

  84,171,885

  Source: CAA Airport Statistics.

  2. Includes United Kingdom and Foreign Airlines.

  3. Includes Scheduled and Non-scheduled services.

  4. Domestic passengers on return journeys will be counted twice, once on the outward leg, once on the return journey.

  5. Passengers are allocated to the point at which they disembark from their flight. This may not be their ultimate air destination.

  6. Includes Departing passengers at the following airports:

  Aberdeen

  Islay

  Belfast

  Kirkwall

  Belfast City

  Leeds/Bradford

  Bembridge

  Liverpool

  Benbecula

  London City

  Birmingham

  Luton

  Blackpool

  Lydd

  Bournemouth

  Manchester

  Bristol

  Manston

  Cambridge

  Newcastle

  Cardiff

  Norwich

  Coventry

  Prestwick

  East Midlands

  Southampton

  Edinburgh

  Southend

  Exeter

  Stansted

  Gatwick

  Stornoway

  Glasgow

  Sumburgh

  Gloucester

  Teesside

  Hawarden

  Tiree

  Heathrow

  Tresco

  Humberside

  Uist

  Inverness

  Wick

  "Back to Basics"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the implications of the Government's "back to basics' policy for his Department during 1994.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what working definition of "back to basics" is used by his Department; and what his Department has done in the past three months to implement the policy.
  396
  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 20 January 1994]: I refer the hon. Members to the Prime Minister's answer to the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey on 21 January at column 849.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Attachment of Earnings
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Lord President of the Council which legislation allowing for the attachment of earnings includes an exemption for(a) hon. Members or (b Ministers of the Crown; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton The Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 includes no specific exemptions for hon. Members or Ministers and I am not aware of any exemptions in any other legislation. But attachment of earnings orders can be served only on a debtor's employer, and there is no employer for this purpose in the case of hon. Members and Ministers.

DEFENCE

  Porton Down
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what work his Department has carried out on the alcohol-amine binary reactant OPA; when and at which establishment these experiments were carried out; and what was the assessment of this work;

  (2) when the chemical and biological warfare establishment at Porton Down and Nancekuke carried out experiments on (a) sea wasp toxin, (b) ricin toxin and (c) abrin toxin; what was the purpose of the work; and what were the conclusions and assessments of each toxin;

  (3) how many liaison officers from the former military establishment at Nancekuke were stationed at United States military chemical and biological warfare establishments before Nancekuke was dismantled; what were the functions of these officers; at which US establishments they were stationed; and through which defence agreement these liaison officers were arranged;

  (4) what studies and trials the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down has carried out into the dissemination of agent aerosols at sea; what are the names of these experiments; when and where these experiments took place; and what was the conclusion of each of the experiments;

  (5) in which year the Department's research into phencyclidine referred to in his answer of 20 July 1993, Official Report, column 171, ended; when the results of the research were first shared with the United States of America; with which United States military establishment the information was exchanged; and in what form this exchange occurred;

  (6) pursuant to his answer of 20 July 1993, Official Report, columns 170–74, what tests and studies Porton Down has carried out on (a) trytamines and (b) mescaline sulphate; if these experiments involved animals and service personnel; and where the results were published;

  (7) when staff from the chemical warfare establishment at Porton Down and Nancekuke visited or were stationed at the United States Department of Defence naval weapons

  397
  centre in China Lake, California; what was the purpose of these visits; how many staff were involved; and through which defence agreement the visits were organised;

  (8) in which years the chemical and biological warfare establishment at Porton Down and Nancekuke carried out research into saxitoxin/shellfish poison; how many animals and service personnel were involved in the research; what was the conclusion of the research; when the results of the work were exchanged with the United States of America, Canada or Australia; and under which defence agreement this exchange was arranged.

  Mr. Hanley
  These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letters from Graham S. Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 27 January 1994.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what work his Department has carried out on the alcohol-amine binary reactant OPA; when and at which establishment these experiments were carried out; and what was the assessment of this work (Question 13, Order Paper 19 January 1994) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to have available small quantities of the materials which may he used as chemical or biological warfare agents by a potential aggressor.

  3. The alcohol-amine binary reactant (OPA) consists of isopropylalcohol and isopropylamine. Our records indicate that no work has been carried out by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment or its precursor establishments on the binary reactant (OPA) although isopropylalcohol has been used as a precursor in the preparation of the unitary nerve agent, Sarin (GB), at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down, at Nancekuke and at Sutton Oak.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when the chemical and biological warfare establishment at Porton Down and Nancekuke carried out experiments on (a) sea wasp toxin, (b) ricin toxin and (c) abrin toxin; what was the purpose of the work; and what were the conclusions and assessments of each toxin (Question 18, Order Paper 19 January 1994) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.

  3. Our records indicate that no work has been carried out on sea wasp toxin by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment or its precursor establishments.

  4. Ricin has long been recognised as a potential chemical warfare agent and experiments involving ricin were first carried out during World War II. Since then ricin has been considered as appropriate in studies of the potential hazards to the United Kingdom Armed Forces experimental work on ricin aimed at medical countermeasures started in the early 1990s.

  5. Abrin is structurally related to ricin and work on medical countermeasures to abrin also began in the early 1990s.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many liaison officers from the former military establishment at Nancekuke were stationed at United States military chemical and biological warfare establishments before Nancekuke was dismantled; what were the functions of
  398
  these officers; at which United States establishments they were stationed; and through which defence agreements these liaison officers were arranged (Question 19, Order Paper 19 January 1994) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. Our records indicate that no liaison officers from Nancekuke were stationed at United States military chemical and biological warfare establishments before Nancekuke was dismantled.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what studies and trials the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down has carried out into the dissemination of agent aerosols at sea; what are the names of these experients; when and where these experiments took place; and what was the conclusion of each of the experients (Question 20, Order Paper 19 January 1994) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. Studies into the potential hazard to the UK Armed Forces resulting from the use of chemical or biological agents are carried out on a continuing basis in order to ensure that effective protective measures are taken against the threat of chemical or biological weapon attacks.

  3. Trials into the dissemination of agent aerosols at sea have taken place over a number of years. These are as follows:

  (a) Scapa Flow trials carried out in 1923 which examined the vulnerability of Naval vessels to attack with a toxic chemical particulate agent.

  (b) Operation HARNESS which took place in Caribbean waters off the Behamas from December 1948 to February 1949 to determine the practicability of conducting biological warfare trials at sea.

  (c) Operation CAULDRON in Scottish waters off Stornaway in the Isles of Lewis in May-December 1952 which established that several pathogens could constitute a hazard if used as BW agents.

  (d) Operation HESPERUS in Scottish waters in May-August 1953 which aimed to consolidate data and compare several dissemination and collection methods.

  (e) Operation OZONE in Caribbean waters at a site 20 miles off Nassau in February-May 1954 when data on the decay of viability at longer ranges was obtained.

  (f) Operation NEGATION again in Caribbean waters off the Bahamas in November 1954-March 1955 which consolidated data from the previous trials.

  4. The United Kingdom abandoned offensive chemical and biological weapons in the late 1950s and since then the role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has been to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking in which year the Department's research into phencyclidine referred to in his Answer of 20th July 1993, Official Report column 171, ended; when the results of the research were first shared with the United States of America; with which US military establishment the information was exchanged; and in what form this exchange occurred (Question 21, Order Paper 19 January 1994) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.

  3. As stated in the Answer of 20 July 1993, Official Report, column 171, this work was carried out in the early 1960s. Information gained was then drawn upon in subsequent years as required by the chemical defence programme and additional work carried out when necessary. It is therefore not possible to say when research ended as the information obtained continues to be drawn upon as required. Likewise, it forms part of the technical database drawn upon in cooperation with the United States of

  399
  America under the Memorandum of Understanding on Chemical and Biological Defence, the Technical Cooperation Programme and its predecessors.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer to the honourable Member for Leyton on 20th July 1993, Official Report, column 171, what tests and studies Porton Down has carried out on (a) trytamines and (b) mescaline sulphate; if these experiments involved animals and service personnel; and where the results were published (Question 22, Order Paper 19 January 1994) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.

  3. Tryptamines are indole derivatives, some of which produce psychotomimetic effects similar to those produced by lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD25). In the early 1960s a series of tests were carried out to determine structure activity relationships and all the tryptamines synthesised were found to be less potent than LSD25 and were therefore regarded as a less serious toxic hazard than LSD25. These tests involved the use of animals but did not involve the use of Service volunteers. The following publication was published following this research: BRIMBLECOMBE R W, DOWNING D F, GREEN D M and HUNT R R (1964). Some pharmacological effects of series of tryptamine derivatives. Brit J Pharmacol 23, 43–54.

  4. Mescaline is a substituted phenylalkylamine compound possessing similar psychotomimetic activity to that produced by LSD25 and tests and studies were carried out in the 1960s and early 1970s to determine whether or not mescaline might be used by an aggressor as an incapacitating agent. The studies showed that mescaline was considerably less potent than LSD. The tests involved the use of animals but did not involve the use of Service volunteers. The work on mescaline resulted in the following publications:

  a. BRIMBLECOMBE R W (1963). Effects of psychotropic drugs on open field behaviour in rats. Psychopharmacologia, 4, 139–147.

  b. ALDOUS FA B, BARRASS B C, BREWSTER K, BUXTON D A, GREEN D M, PINDER R M, RICH P, SKEELS M AND TUTT K T (1974). Structure-activity relationships in psychotomimetic phenylalkylamines. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 17, 110–1111.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when staff from the chemical warfare establishment at Porton Down and Nancekuke visited or were stationed at the US Department of Defence Naval Weapons Center in China Lake, California; what was the purpose of these visits; how many staff were involved; and through which defence agreement the vists were organised (Question 24, Order Paper 19 January 1994) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. Our records do not indicate that staff from the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down or Nancekuke have visited or been stationed at the US Department of Defense Naval Weapons Center in China Lake, California. Some members of staff, however, may have visited the US Naval Weapons Center before or after their period of duty at CBDE Porton Down or Nancekuke.

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking in which years the chemical and biological warfare establishment at Porton Down and Nancekuke carried out research into saxitoxin/shellfish poison; how many animals and service personnel were involved in the research; what was the conclusion of the research; when the results of the work were
  400
  exchanged with the United States of America, Canada or Australia; and under which defence agreement this exchange was arranged (Question 30, Order Paper 19 January 1994) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work it is necessary to investigate the effectiveness of protective measures against the range of potential agents.

  3. A study on saxitoxin was carried out in 1982 to determine whether such toxins have any effect on medical countermeasures against nerve agents. This study involved the use of about 90 mice but did not involve the use of Service volunteers. This study indicated that futher work on the interaction between saxitoxin and nerve agents was not required.

  4. Information arising from this study was part of the chemical and biological defence programme and would therefore be part of the technical database drawn upon in cooperation with the United States of America, Canada and Australia under the international agreements referred to by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the Rt. Hon. Archie Hamilton, MP in his answer of 21 May 1992, Official Report, columns 255–256.

  Housing Stock
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the salary of the person appointed to manage his Department's housing stock; and what comparisons he undertook of salary levels in housing associations with similar levels of stock.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Ministry of Defence has advertised for a chief executive of a new private sector organisation which will own and manage the defence married quarters estate of some 68,000 properties in Great Britain. An appointment to the post has not yet been made. The post was advertised at a salary level of circa £100,000. There are no housing associations with housing stock of a similar size.

  Officers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers of two-star rank are in the medical services of(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Numbers

  (a) Army

  3

  (b) Royal Navy

  2

  (c) Royal Air Force

  125

  1 Includes one Tri-service rotational post currently filled by the RAF and from September 1995 by the Royal Navy.

  2 Due to reduce by 2 as of 1 April 1994.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers of two-star rank there are in each of the armed services; and what have been the figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:
  401

  1 January

  RN Services Rear Admiral RN Major General RM

  Army Major-General

  Royal Air Force Air Vice-Marshal

  Total

  1979

  45

  83

  43

  171

  1980

  46

  81

  47

  174

  1981

  50

  75

  47

  172

  1982

  48

  72

  44

  164

  1983

  46

  70

  42

  158

  1984

  40

  74

  41

  155

  1985

  40

  73

  43

  156

  1986

  43

  67

  45

  155

  1987

  42

  58

  50

  150

  1988

  42

  64

  48

  154

  1989

  42

  61

  48

  151

  1990

  40

  67

  42

  149

  1991

  41

  66

  41

  148

  1992

  35

  59

  46

  140

  1993

  32

  56

  40

  128

  19931

  33

  57

  37

  127

  1 (1 October) Latest available figures.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the rank of the commanding officer of each of the military districts; and if he will make a statement on the reasons underlying variations.

  Mr. Hanley
  United Kingdom Land Forces—UKLF —is divided into five military districts; Southern, Eastern, Wales and Western, London and Scotland. With the exception of Southern district, each General Officer Commanding—GOC—is a major general (2 star). The GOC of Southern district is a Lieutenant General (3 star). The variation is a consequence of the comparative size of the district, measured in terms of units under command.

  Mr. Dennis Thomas
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Mr. Dennis Thomas, a constituent of the hon. Member for Ilford, South, will receive the campaign stars and medals earned by his service in the second world war 402
  with the British Army in India and Malaya; and when he first applied to. the Army medal office for these decorations.

  Mr. Hanley
  Mr. Thomas applied to the Army medal office for his medals in November 1992. That office expects to issue Mr. Thomas with his full medal entitlement in the very near future. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member to advise him of the outcome: of Mr. Thomas's claim, as soon as his full entitlement of awards is known.

  Contracts (Prices)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those Ministry of Defence contracts in the past year which cost over the contract price, giving the figures for bid price and final cost for each contract.

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

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

The Natural Resources Institute
Lord Taylor of Blackburn Lord Taylor of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for the future of the Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute at Chatham.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Natural Resources Institute is being restructured in the light of a strategic review of its performance and prospects. In the same context, as announced by my noble friend the Minister for Overseas Development on 26th January, a study of options for transferring NRI to private sector ownership is being launched.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that there is great concern among the scientists at the NRI, who have contributed a great deal of work to our overseas aid programme? They do not know what their future will be. They do not know whether they will be cast on the slag-heap or whether they will be used or not. Is he further aware that the expertise of the scientists has been of great benefit to this country? Surely, more should be said and more should be done rather than allow rumours to float around as they are at present.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that people are not fearing rumours floating around, as I shall go on to explain. The need for change is to ensure that the NRI's capacity adapts to changing patterns of demand for its services. A strategic measure of this kind is essential if the NRI is to preserve its position as a centre of excellence in natural resources and if best value is to be obtained for the aid programme. We have appointed the consultants Segal Quince Wickstead and Hambros Bank and they will report shortly. We shall then take the matter forward. It is possible that staff reductions may be necessary but I can give the noble Lord an assurance that there will be full and frank consultation with all involved.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, whatever the other explanations, this is the first evidence of cut in real terms in the aid programme? Does he not also agree that there is room for grave anxiety that such an important and rich resource of talent and expertise, which is so desperately needed in the groundwork of development in the third world, is being lost in this way?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I reject totally the allegations that this is evidence of a cut in the aid
1080
budget. We believe that we have a very good record on aid. We have maintained and increased our programme in very difficult times—it has increased by 10 per cent. in real terms in the past six years. I accept that the NRI performs a valuable role. We want to ensure that it continues to perform a valuable role. That is why we are ensuring that the consultants look at the future of the NRI to see that it can perform its role in the best possible manner.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the aid programme is being cut in real terms now?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords, I do not.
Baroness Young: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that negotiations are proceeding between the University of Greenwich and the NRI with a view to developing research links between the two? Is he further aware that there is also under discussion a proposal that the university might become a tenant of part of the land of the NRI? Would he like to say something further on that matter?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is not much further that I can say. I can confirm, as my noble friend has informed the House, that the university is planning to develop a new Medway Towns campus. That is very good news for the Medway Towns and a welcome boost for the east Thames corridor. We also believe that the university's decision to rent accommodation at the NRI's Chatham site is an excellent opportunity for collaboration in teaching, research and consultancy. We certainly hope that the consultants will look at various options which involve the University of Greenwich, but I cannot prejudge any suggestions they may come to.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the reputation of the NRI is high not only in this country but internationally. In those circumstances, why is an inquiry necessary in the first place? Will the noble Lord be precise and explain that to the House?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I would be the first to agree with the noble Lord that the NRI is an internationally recognised centre of excellence in natural resources. It will remain a significant contractor of specialised services to the British aid programme. We believe that it should provide the best possible service. There is no reason whatever why that could not be provided just as well in the private sector and no reason whatever why the service could not be just as objective in those circumstances.

Broadcasting of Parliament: Effect
3.5 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the televising of parliamentary proceedings contributes to their campaign on law and order.
The Minister of State, Home Office(Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the purpose of televising the proceedings of

1081
Parliament is so that the public may be better informed of parliamentary opinion. There is no evidence that it has had —nor, indeed, that it was intended to have—any particular effect on law and order.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his good answer. However, does he not feel that the behaviour of parliamentarians was sufficiently considered before this House and the other place invited television into their Chambers? Does he not feel that the criticism and condemnation of certain of the electorate's behaviour deserves respect when it is considered that obvious public disrespect is shown to authority by certain Members in Parliament?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, all of the advantages and disadvantages of televising the proceedings of Parliament were gone into in great depth both in this House and in another place. It was decided, first in this House and then in another place, that the proceedings should be televised. That is what is happening. Of course, it is up to everyone, whether in this House or another place, to conduct themselves with the correct decorum.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the broadcasting of the proceedings of this House has done a great deal to build up the standing and admiration felt for this House among all the more intelligent parts of society?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend; but I am not so sure that I would restrict it to that part of society to which he referred in the latter part of his question. The televising of the proceedings of the House has done the House an enormous amount of good and has shown its proper standing as a whole.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl for his advice as the Deputy Leader of the House as to whether Questions of this kind, particularly supplementary questions, reflecting on the conduct of another place are in order, remembering the second report of the House's Procedure Committee of 1991–92, which stated:
"Criticism of proceedings in the House of Commons and of Speaker's rulings are undesirable"?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to draw attention to this matter. We have to be very careful how we proceed on such Questions. I would only refer your Lordships to the Companion to the Standing Orders, which states:
"Criticism of proceedings in the House of Commons and of Speaker's rulings are undesirable, but criticisms of the institutional structure of Parliament or the role and function of the House of Commons may be made".
It is as well that we bear in mind those strictures.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that both Houses of Parliament are currently conducting the mid-term review of the contract that provides the broadcasting of Parliament? Your Lordships' Select Committee on Broadcasting considered the matter last week. It reported that it was satisfied that those doing it were conforming well to the
1082
rules. It noted that the broadcasting of Parliament is better here than in other countries of which we were given evidence. Our only criticism was that there should be better coverage of your Lordships' House, including its committees.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, makes an important point. I am glad that he has drawn our attention to the fact that these matters are being considered. I remind your Lordships that, according to the House of Commons Select Committee on the televising of proceedings, a broadcaster must have regard to the dignity of the House and its functions as a working body rather than a place of entertainment. I am sure that the broadcasters take note of that.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, while it can be conceded that televising the proceedings of this Chamber has allowed people to know that the House of Lords exists in a way which was not done before, one cannot be quite so certain that Parliament as a whole, encompassing both Houses, has benefited in terms of its reputation by what we see on television?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that was a carefully phrased question. It is for the advantage of the people of the country who wish to see parliamentary proceedings being televised to be able to do so. It is up to Members of both Houses of Parliament, in their own ways, to conduct themselves with decorum.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that far from being a criticism, anything which demonstrates that parliamentarians are ordinary human beings, warts and all, must be good for democracy?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it depends on the size and the nature of the warts.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the sturdy exchanges in another place are vital to democracy and that as such they ought to be televised? Does he further agree that the sturdy exchanges in this place—and the sturdier they are the better—should equally be covered? Can the Minister give an assurance that neither this Question nor any other will impede the Government or affect in any way the televising of our proceedings?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the televising of the proceedings of your Lordships' House is not a matter for the Government, but for your Lordships. I have no reason to suspect that this question will have any impact on that any more than it does on law and order, to which the original Question mysteriously refers.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Prime Minister's Question Time in the House of Commons is regularly shown on American television and that, overall, Britain gains thereby because Americans are so impressed by a system where Members of the legislature can ask questions of the head of the Executive?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is one of the many advantages of broadcasting the proceedings of Parliament.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are moments during debates in this House which are not televised to the extent that we would like? For example, last week we had a very important debate on quangos introduced by my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter. Is the noble Earl aware that, although parliamentary proceedings were shown on BBC television from 8.15 a.m. to 9 a.m., the only part of the whole of that debate which was broadcast by the BBC was the moment when my noble friend Lord Lester was speaking when the lights went out?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that was obviously considered a very important part of the debate.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm to the House what percentage of the total of the broadcast proceedings relates to the Lords and what percentage to the House of Commons?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, no. If I could I would say only that that has nothing to do with the Question.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Earl will recall that the proceedings of this House were televised for five years before the proceedings of another place. Does he also recall that an undertaking was given at that time that, if the proceedings of the other place were televised, this House would have a fair share of the allocation of time? Does he believe we have a fair share?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that we are getting into difficulties. The original Question asked whether the televising of the proceedings of Parliament had any impact on law and order. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, is now asking whether there was a fair relationship between the proceedings televised from the House of Commons and those televised from your Lordships' House. That is a different matter.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the reason I asked the noble Earl that question was because I am absolutely certain that we have a better effect on law and order than the other place.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am very glad that I gave the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the opportunity to ask a second supplementary question. It was not clear that that was the object of his first supplementary question.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us on this side of the House are grateful to him for distancing himself from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who recently said in a notorious speech that the televising of the proceedings of Parliament was ill-advised? Does he agree that Parliament is an institution which has to deserve respect rather than receiving it as of right, which Mr. Portillo seems to believe to be the case?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is not up to me to rise to that particular question from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which, again, has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper. But I do agree 'with him that the way in which people conduct themselves is very important.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as one who opposed televising Parliament, is it not a fact that the reason why the House of Commons gets a bad name is because of the editing of the programmes about the proceedings of the House? Would it not be as well if more of the proceedings of the House of Commons was broadcast rather than less—
Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone: My Lords, next Question!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Oh, shut up, you!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I failed to hear the last part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. Would he be kind enough to repeat it?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I said "Shut up, you!" I was referring to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it might just as well have applied to me and I shall take the noble Lord's advice.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the response to the Question that I asked and I also thank the noble Earl. I hope that he has the same opinion—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, does the Minister have the feeling that it is Parliament's aim to communicate to the public instructive information as opposed to destructive information when it comes to debate on the nation's future and to give an example to the people who watch television?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, when Parliament debates issues it debates them for Members of Parliament and for the assembly of which they are part. Television repeats what the Members of Parliament in either House say to each other. That is not a question on which it is right for the Government to interfere.

Cyprus
3.18 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they remain committed to a federal settlement of the Cyprus problem.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are committed to the search for a settlement to the Cyprus problem acceptable to both Cypriot communities. The "Set of Ideas" of the United Nations Secretary-General, endorsed in Security Council Resolutions 774 and 789, set out the basis for a single, bi-communal, bi-zonal federal republic. This remains the best hope for a solution.

1085
The package of confidence-building measures proposed by the United Nations Secretary-General is aimed at improving the atmosphere for negotiating a lasting settlement.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. It will clear up some of the misunderstanding. My Question was prompted by remarks reported to have been made by the Minister's noble friend Lady Chalker in Cyprus implying that a confederal solution could not be ruled out. That caused a great deal of consternation in Cyprus. Can the Minister tell the House when the next round of United Nations sponsored talks will take place? Can he confirm whether the Government have received any recent reports from the United Nations Secretary-General's representative for Cyprus, Mr. Joe Clark, and, if so, what responses have they made?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I ought to make it clear in response to what the noble Lord said about remarks which my noble friend might have made that we are certainly not in the business of prescribing any final details of a settlement. Any settlement has to meet the interests of both communities and have their agreement. The history of this dispute—and certainly of others—shows that a settlement imposed without that agreement will not last. It therefore must be for the individual parties to play their part in coming to any agreement. Having said that, we obviously accept that we have a significant role to play as one of the guarantor powers and because of our presence in Cyprus, and we shall continue to play that important role in making representations to the Turks, to the Turkish Cypriots and to the legitimate government in Cyprus. But in the end it has to be a matter for the Cypriots themselves to get together and to work for peace.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did not the last report of the Secretary-General state that in the absence of agreement on the confidence building measures, the Security Council would have to consider what further steps to take to enforce them? Can the noble Lord give us any indication of what steps the Secretary-General or the Security Council might be able to take, such as further sanctions against the Turkish Cypriots in the North, which would compel them to accept this very modest package of measures towards reaching a final solution?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord's use of the word "compel" in terms of asking people to accept a package is possibly unacceptable. The point that I am trying to make is that if any package is going to work—and is going to work in the long term—it has to be acceptable to both sides. We shall continue to work with the United Nations and with all parties towards securing a lasting and secure settlement. It must be one with the agreement of both sides in this dispute.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in my capacity as one who lectured for many years on the subject of federalism, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware of the fact that there has never been a successful federation
1086
with only two components? It is a recipe for breakdown and deadlock. Therefore, does he agree that some other way ought to be sought of reconciling the interests of the two communities?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am aware of my noble friend's strongly felt views on federalism which he has given to the House on many occasions. What we are saying here is that we believe that this probably is the best way forward but in the end it has to be a matter for both sides in the dispute. If we cannot find agreement between the two parties, we cannot have a secure and lasting settlement between them. There must be agreement.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind the extraordinarily good and remarkable work of the United Nations Good Offices Commission in trying to get both the Greek and Turkish factions to agree, first, to a two-zone federation and, from there, to take the next step of a united federation, do the Government give the UN Good Offices Commission all the support that it obviously deserves?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have given a great deal of support to all the United Nations measures. That is why I stressed that we have supported those two United Nations resolutions and other United Nations resolutions relating to Cyprus. I have also stressed that we have played a very extensive role in Cyprus and we shall continue to play an extensive role in providing a major contribution to the United Nations force in Cyprus. I can assure the noble Lord that we are due to spend something of the order of £24.5 million this year on maintaining that force. I understand that in today's terms we have spent something of the order of £500 million since 1963 on maintaining forces in Cyprus for this very purpose.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, do the Government consider that there can possibly be a peaceful and stable solution as long as there are Turkish troops in the island of Cyprus?
Lord Henley: My Lords, certainly, as the United Nations resolutions have stressed, we would like to see a reduction in all foreign troops in Cyprus. If those troops could be withdrawn, that would be one measure which could greatly assist confidence building, one hopes, among both communities.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can give us some clarification. In answer to an earlier supplementary question, he talked about both sides having to come to agreement, implicitly on an unequal basis, but in another answer he talked about the "legitimate government" of Cyprus. There seems to be a contradiction there. I wonder whether the Government can explain it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, there are two sides and those two sides must come to an agreement. There is a legitimate government in Cyprus; there is then a republic in Northern Cyprus which neither we nor any other country, with the exception of the Turks, recognise.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was glad to hear the Minister accept that we have a special role in Cyprus that goes back to the 1960 agreement. In the light of that, surely we have some responsibility to play a pro-active part in securing a negotiated settlement in Cyprus. Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Government intend to take in the near future in the light of the discussions that are taking place in the United Nations and with the Government of the United States to secure that settlement?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept that we have a major role to play. I do not accept that we should be in the position of imposing a settlement on the two parties for the very reasons that I gave: the settlement must be one to which both parties agree. We shall continue to make representations to all relevant people, just as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made representations to the Turks when he was in Ankara the other day, and for the reasons that he will make the same representations on 2nd February to the Cypriot Government when he meets them.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I think that we should move on.

Overseas Aid and Arms Sales
3.25 p.m.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they can give an assurance that no overseas aid grants have been tied to any kind of bilateral agreement that involves the purchase of arms from British companies.
Lord Henley: My Lords, yes, I can give such an assurance. Our aid is not linked to arms sales.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I should like to ask him about Oman and Indonesia. Aid to those countries has significantly increased over the past 10 years although they have relatively high incomes per capita. Is it a coincidence that those countries rank third and fourth in the amount of arms that they buy from the United Kingdom?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept what the noble Lord is suggesting. The main criteria that we use in allocating aid are sustainable development, good government and need. That is why the United Kingdom's aid programme has been commended for its poverty focus. As regards the analysis produced by the World Development Movement, on which I imagine that the noble Lord is relying, we believe that it is deficient: for example, the statistics on aid to Jordan include aid to refugees during the Gulf War.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us in this House will find it difficult to believe that the Government can give the assurance that they have just given, particularly in the light of the £238 million grant to the Malaysian Government in respect of the dam that was built which
1088
has already been condemned widely and upon the legality of which the Foreign Secretary received adverse advice from his own permanent staff?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know well, we do not comment on advice between officials and Ministers. That is a long-standing convention. We believe that it is right so to do. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary indicated on 25th January in a Written Answer in another place:
"During discussions in 1988 about the proposed memorandum of understanding on defence sales, the Malaysians expressed their wish to make a reference to aid. A protocol was signed during the visit to Kuala Lumpur in March 1988 by the then Defence Secretary, my noble Friend, Lord Younger of Prestwick. This set out the Malaysian Government's intention to buy defence equipment from the United Kingdom, with the details to be elaborated in the later memorandum. The protocol included a reference to 'aid in support of non-military aspects under this programme'.
After consultation with ministerial colleagues in London, the Secretary of State for Defence wrote to the Malaysian Minister of Finance in June 1988 to say that aid could not be linked to defence sales. As a result the issue was not taken up in the, memorandum of understanding on defence procurement which the British and Malaysian Prime Ministers signed in September 1988, and which did not cover aid".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/1/94; col. 145–6.]
I repeat that our aid programme is not linked to arms sales.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, without questioning in any way the assurance given by my noble friend in his Answer, I should like to ask this question. Will he confirm that Article 51 still stands part of the United Nations Organisation chatter, and as long as it does stand part of the United Nations Organisation charter, it does not necessarily follow that sales of arms are intrinsically immoral?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is quite correct. We do not oppose in principle exports to other countries. Exports to both developed and developing countries make a very large contribution to the success of our own defence industry, which directly and indirectly employs some 560,000 people. I believe that that is a point that we ought to bear in mind.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is it not the case that the Minister's answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was a classic fudge? Did not the Foreign Secretary admit that there was a link between arms and aid? Is it not the case that that link is in breach of the spirit and the letter of the Overseas Aid Act 1966?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is certainly not in breach of the letter of the current Act which provides no proscription against arms sales. I shall not repeat at length my right honourable friend's answer which. I gave earlier; but I refer the noble Lord to the Written Answer that my right honourable friend gave on 25th January in another place.
Lord Judd: My Lords, notwithstanding the detailed answer the Minister gave, does he agree that it is extraordinary that the considered professional advice of the Permanent Secretary of the ODA was overridden, and that the only conclusion can be that there were some wider understandings which were being honoured? Will

1089
the Minister give us a categoric assurance that as provided for under the 1966 Act, the Government will never use aid, directly or indirectly, for the promotion of arms sales to any country within the third world?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have given the assurance that we do not use aid for the promotion of arms sales. As regards the first point made by the noble Lord, I can only repeat that it is a long-standing convention that we do not disclose discussions between Ministers and their officials, or between Ministers. We believe that that confidentiality is necessary to ensure that all policy options can be considered fully and frankly.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the new guidelines for conventional arms sales which were agreed by the CSCE in November 1993, among the criteria were that the arms were not likely to be used for internal repression, and that they were required for the legitimate defence of the state concerned against external aggression? Will he consider how those factors apply to Indonesia where there is a substantial military operation against the people of East Timor and where there is no threat from any of its neighbours such as Malaysia, the Philippines and Australia?
Lord Henley: My Lords, arms sales are another matter. I do not believe that now is the time or this is the place to repeat our policy on arms sales. I am trying to make it clear to the House that we at no point linked aid to arms sales.

Non-Domestic Rating Bill
3.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill does two things. It honours the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget on 30th November last year to give more help to business ratepayers in the next financial year. It also gives the Government greater flexibility to introduce transitional arrangements following the 1995 revaluation, if such arrangements prove necessary.
Without the changes announced by the Budget, businesses in transition would have faced increases in their rates bills for 1994–95 of up to 20 per cent. above the rate of inflation. Although there are clear signs of economic recovery, we do not think that businesses should have to sustain such large increases. But neither could we afford again to limit increases across the board to the rate of inflation, particularly when some ratepayers are a considerable way away from their true liability. The Bill will therefore reduce the increases to no more than 10 per cent. above inflation for large businesses and 7.5 per cent. for smaller ones. For small properties which contain both domestic and non-domestic parts, which includes corner shops and sub-post offices in rural areas, the Bill will hold rate increases for the third year running to the rate of inflation. In all, some 360,000 businesses will benefit.
1090
That relief—some £90 million for businesses in England and £5 million in Wales—comes on top of the £1.8 billion provided by the 1992 and 1993 Acts. While the Bill does not affect Scotland, the rates bills of all 220,000 businesses north of the Border will be reduced by £10 million overall under separate powers. Their reductions will, on average, be broadly in proportion to the reduction in England. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that that represents a very substantial package of support.
In 1995 there will be a further revaluation of business property based on market rents at 1st April last year. By the early summer we hope to be ready to consult ratepayers on any proposals for further transitional arrangements which might then be necessary. Parliament will have an opportunity to consider any new arrangements later this year. The regulations which will give effect to the scheme require the approval of both Houses by affirmative resolution and must come into force by 1st January next year.
The Bill will give us greater flexibility to make such regulations. Existing powers require any scheme to be self-financing. The Bill removes that restriction. It will enable the Government to devise rules to reduce the overall burden on businesses. It will, therefore, be possible to devise a scheme for 1995 which would reduce the burden for those facing large increases but without placing the full cost of that relief on other ratepayers. The difference could be made up by an Exchequer contribution to the non-domestic rating pool.
I am happy to repeat the commitment given in another place by my honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning that if we use our powers to reduce the burden on businesses in that way we will make up any shortfall using the pool rather than any other mechanism. That is why we have included in the Bill a power to top up the pool. We are seeking a power rather than a statutory duty because the need to top up any shortfall will occur only if the transitional arrangements are not self-financing. So that it is clear beyond doubt, let me assure the House that if a shortfall to the pool should occur after 1995 because transition was not self-financing, the pool will see that shortfall made up.
Under existing powers it is necessary to make regulations governing the transitional arrangements before the start of each five-year period between revaluations. With the removal of the self-financing requirement, the Government would be required to forecast up to five years in advance the extent to which the arrangements might need to be supported centrally each year. By allowing the regulations to be made one year at a time, the Bill provides the flexibility to take a view each year, in the light of prevailing economic circumstances.
The Bill will also give us the flexibility to ensure that protection against rate increases is not lost under any transitional arrangements after 1995 if a property is altered to form a new property for rating purposes. Rateable values will need to be certified for that purpose. The Bill will allow that and will also give ratepayers the right to appeal if they are dissatisfied with the certified value.

1091
We believe that overall these measures will provide a further valuable fillip for many businesses and pave the way for a smoother transition to new rates liabilities in 1995. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Arran.)
3.37 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on this side we want to make clear that the Labour Party is not opposed to the principle of business receiving subsidy while the recession continues. But we remain fundamentally opposed to the uniform business rate—that is, the national non-domestic rate—because, at the core, the Government have persistently and perversely claimed "a problem" with business rates. It is a problem which led them in 1988 to abandon the old locally levied business rate and to introduce in 1990 the national uniform business rate.
Since then there has been a problem with the UBR because it was introduced at a time of revaluation. As a result, it has had to be abated annually in the form of transitional arrangements which are again the subject of the Bill. To coin a cliché, as with the poll tax, the solution has become the problem.
Poll tax and UBR were introduced at the same time. The poll tax had to be abandoned rapidly. Each and every year, UBR has had to be muted, abated and amended. That might just suggest that the Government's touch is not entirely secure when it comes to local government finance.
Why was the old system of locally levied business rates abandoned? As a result of a number of fallacies. It was assumed, and indeed asserted, that business rates had, and have, a significant detrimental effect on business. That is not true. The first argument advanced was that because business did not have a local vote, it should not pay a local tax. But let us remember that business rates are a levy for services enjoyed as well as a property tax. In my authority, for example, the business rate contributed towards the cost of housing for key workers, training schemes, refuse collection, street lighting, police and fire protection, roads and public transport, economic development strategies, industrial estates, small rent-free development units and, above all, an airport jointly run by the city and county council which was a loss leader to promote local businesses. They were all services which business enjoyed, and they were funded effectively by the business rate.
As the operations director of Courtaulds said, local business, whether part of multinational companies or local enterprises, is an essential part of the life of the community. It consumes local services; it requires local supplies; it employs the young people who were educated and trained through the local system; and it is affected by local decisions. We believe that as a result there should be funding by local rates. The question for business is not whether the rates are levied locally but whether they obtain value for money and whether they are predictable in their incidence.
The second point argued against the old business system is that the rates were too high and too unpredictable. Again, that is false. In most firms
1092
business rates averaged about 2 per cent. of their costs, the same as for the domestic ratepayer, as Layfield showed, and in many cases rather less than their telephone bills. And whereas they could not get to the phone company they could get to local authorities, It is true that businesses could not reduce their levy any more than they could their rental, but that was because it was a fixed charge. As regards predictability, even if in any one year business rates rose by, say, 10 per cent. when inflation was, say, 5 per cent. that would have added only about 5 per cent. on a 2 per cent. annual charge. In other words, the fluctuations posited on business by local domestic and non-domestic rates were infinitesimal compared to the fluctuations and unpredictability of interest rates produced by government monetary policy, which have totally determined businesses' capacity to invest and to survive.
The third and final argument used against the old business rate and in support of the introduction of UBR is that differing levels of the local business rate had a detrimental effect on business and employment. There is no evidence for that fallacy either. Surveys carried out in the 1980s on a county-by-county basis show no connection between business rates and their incidence and unemployment and its incidence. Indeed, the Government's own Green Paper on rates published in 1986 confessed that,
"between 1974 and 1981 rates could not be shown to have a significant overall influence on manufacturing employment".
It added:
"It is not possible to detect an influence of rates on the location of employment".
As we know, what affects employment is the location, the transport links, the quality of labour and the quality of the environment. The rates have always been largely irrelevant.
It is of course the case that business rates rose through the 1980s, as did domestic rates, and above the level of inflation. But the explanation lay not in the profligacy of local authorities, not in their hostility to local business and not in the extravagance of their agendas. It was because central government grant fell from some 61 per cent. in 1978–79 to barely 45 per cent. in 1985–86. Even for services to stand still both domestic rates and business rates had to rise in compensation. In my authority of Norwich, but for the withdrawal of government grant business rates and. domestic rates would have risen each year by less than the rate of inflation.
In other words, local government was fingered by central government for the consequence of central government's withdrawal of grant. It was central government which forced up the business rates, using that as an argument to nationalise them into the uniform business rate and then having the effrontery to blame local government for it. Added to that we have faced the issue of revaluation due every five years but abandoned in England and Wales since 1973.
With UBR in place in 1990, business rates have been levied by government on local industry but have been returned to local authorities on the basis not of their industry but of their population. Each year any rises have been limited to inflation plus a phased change towards the new revaluation basis.

1093
We quickly learnt that the poll tax was disastrous, and the Government reversed it. In my view, UBR is similarly disastrous, and for three main reasons. The first is that the uniform business rate breaks the link between what business pays locally and what it gets back locally in services. My authority ran a municipal airport as a loss leader. It did so to attract and to keep local firms whose business revenues and employment enriched the local economy. Why now should it bother? Why should my authority produce small starter units at a loss? Why should it produce key worker housing? Whatever we do to aid business benefits our local economy, in terms of revenues, by not a single farthing.
So why spend council tax, which is capped, to enhance business prospects when all the financial returns from it are filtered off and filched by central government to re-allocate on a population basis? Whether my local authority is energetic or supine in adding business makes not a ha'penny of difference, so why should it bother? If I or my colleagues had been the government we should have done all that we could to strengthen and reforge the links between local authorities and the local economy. Instead, government snapped those links, unhooked the connection and divorced the fate of the local business economy from the finance of the local authority. That was folly, absolute folly.
Under the old system statutory consultation was required when rates were set. That was not a formality. My authority of Norwich wanted the chairman of the local chamber of commerce to share its reading of the future of Norwich's economy and work together to enhance it. There was give and take on both sides—but no more. Local authorities find business irrelevant to the task of balancing their finance. Local business finds local authorities indifferent to a plight they cannot afford to aid. Why bother to consult about an outcome which neither party—business or local authorities—can affect? Both sides are the losers. As the British Chambers of Commerce stated in a position paper of December 1990, the incentive for local authorities to welcome and co-operate with business should be restored. It should be restored urgently.
If the first argument against UBR is that it breaks the link between local authorities and local economies, the second is that it is unfair in its incidence. Perhaps I may again cite my own patch, Norwich. Aided by its local authority, more than £30 million-worth of business rates were paid in the 1980s. Under UBR barely £20 million was received in return. Neighbouring rural authorities, which had done little or nothing and had largely coasted off the backs of neighbouring cities, contributed approximately £8 million. However, on a population basis they got back about £20 million. My authority was penalised but its neighbours were rewarded for their lack of endeavour.
I accept that the consolidation of the business rate with central government grant into an aggregate Exchequer finance muted some of the problem. Nonetheless, the combined effect is to inflate the errors
1094
associated with population factors in the standard spending assessment. That is a point to which I hope we shall return in Committee.
My third and final criticism of UBR is that it is extremely damaging to the health of local authority finance. In the 1980s domestic and business rates contributed about half of local expenditure. With business rates now hijacked by central government and re-distributed on a population basis, the only independent source of finance that local authorities have is the council tax which raises between 12 and 20 per cent. of local revenues. And even that is capped across the country. The only element that can vary is that tiny fraction of our spending. That means that every £1 of additional spending must be found from only one-eighth of total income; that is the council tax element. The consequent gearing means that for every £1 increase in overall spending £7 has to come from the council tax. Council tax has now too narrow a base to carry increased spending without violent and unnecessary fluctuations from year to year. It is not sufficiently robust because it is not sufficiently broadly based. That must change.
As the Association of County Councils said, there is now no meaningful link between the movement in local tax bills and the changes in local service levels. That diminishes accountability. From the very beginning, all the local authority associations and all the business organisations—the chambers of commerce, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses—were unhappy about UBR, with the exception perhaps of the CBI although even that body criticised UBR on grounds of fairness. That view was endorsed by the Audit Commission, which called for the return of business rates to local decision-making in order to widen the local tax bases and to reforge links between local authorities and the local community.
UBR is designed to end the perceived but fallacious inequalities of the old rating system. It is designed to reduce the load on local business caused by "excessively high poundages". However, because it was accompanied by revaluation, two-fifths of all businesses under UBR faced increases or reductions of 50 per cent. or more in their bills. That is far more than under the old business rates. Therefore, those changes had to be phased in to cushion the losers, who did not like losing at all, while the winners wanted to benefit immediately from their gains. Therefore, transitional arrangements, as the noble Earl rightly said, were adopted to phase in the changes, thus perpetuating the very inequalities that UBR was designed to overcome.
We had a national business rate to reform the inequalities of the old business rate. We then had transitional arrangements to phase that in. Now, with this Bill, we have transitional alterations to the transitional arrangements provided by the original Act. Equity is ever receding and we shall not even have reached the old valuation ratios before the new valuations come into effect in 1995. While those distortions continue, we perpetuate the problems that UBR was designed to overcome. UBR is a bad tax and, as with the poll tax, the Government should scrap it and

1095
return to a locally determined property tax on local businesses, brigaded in a responsible way to domestic council tax and underpinned by statutory consultation.
Having said that, we shall obviously not oppose the Second Reading. After all, in the 1970s there were 10,000 business failures per year; in the 1980s, 20,000; and in the 1990s, something like 50,000. Business clearly needs help. However, we shall move amendments so that we can discuss the issues further.
First, we shall try to ensure that the help is better targeted on small businesses, which are proving the most vulnerable during the recession, rather than throwing money at healthy multiples which do not need it.
Secondly, we shall wish to ensure that if the winners receive their gains quickly while the losers are cushioned from increased levies, the shortfall is made good by central government rather than local taxpayers. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, repeated the assurances given in the other place that central government, rather than local taxpayers, will make up the pool. We had assurances before about targets not being for capping and three years later, they became so. Assurances are not enough. We shall seek to have that written on the face of the Bill in primary legislation.
Thirdly, as the noble Earl said, the Bill gives greater flexibility to make regulations. Again, we are uneasy about reliance on statutory instruments in the Bill and we wish to seek to amend that provision. We are concerned also about where the levy falls. We want to look at the position of the utilities—water and so on—and the special situation of the City of London. We have wider worries too about the pattern of change which will result in the North and the Midlands being disadvantaged to aid the South and South East. In the transitional arrangements, manufacturing industry will be disadvantaged to help shops and offices.
We shall return to those and similar anxieties in Committee. At this point, we wish to give an unambiguous message to the Government that we believe that UBR is a bad system of taxing local business. The transitional arrangements proposed by the Bill do not address that central issue. We shall seek to amend the Bill to make it better but at the end of the day the Government must change their system of financing local government through their national business rate.
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it is desirable that any tax should not only be fair but it should be also transparent, certain and accountable. This small Bill provides a great deal of material on which to base discussions on those subjects. I shall not detain your Lordships for as long as one might with philosophical and economic discussions to which that could give rise. I shall merely make one or two remarks on those three topics.
The tax itself is clear to an extent, although it is not linked to the services provided to the taxpayers. But I do not believe that the Government could begin to claim that the Bill is clear. I take this opportunity to thank the drafters of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, without which I should have been extremely puzzled. I
1096
ask that when existing legislation is to be amended, we should see the full amended provision in the Bill, rather than merely the replacement words. It would be extremely helpful to have the full paragraphs.
Is the tax certain? It is not certain for local authorities, given that there may be changes on an annual rather than a five-yearly basis. We know the difficulties of planning far ahead, but we know also of the difficulties that arise when one cannot do so.
Is it certain for the ratepayers? The failure to revalue between 1973 and 1990, with the hike based on 1988 values, which came into effect in 1990, has been a clear problem. Many people are looking forward to the reduction which there is likely to be in 1995 because of the revaluation based on 1993 values. But that could lead into a long discussion about the problems caused by wild fluctuations in property values. Perhaps this afternoon is not the time for that, but there is a clear lack of certainty arising from the structure.
We know all about business bankruptcies and the fragility of small businesses, many of which have made it quite clear that they believe that they have been tipped over the edge by the non-domestic rate. I believe that that applies in particular to small shopkeepers. The average revaluation factor in 1990 for shops was 9.6; it is an enormous increase if that multiplier is applied.
Not only does that cause problems for the individual businesses which are the subject of that revaluation because of the increased burden upon them; it has also caused a major effect on the communities of which they were a part. There has been a change in the character of many communities because of the failure of small businesses, including small shopkeepers. That has been particularly apparent in London and the South East, which have suffered more than other parts of the country from the wild fluctuations in property values which I mentioned. I hope that the Government will at least admit that they recognise the dangers of any increase whatever to businesses which have clung on until this point.
The question of transitional relief is always difficult. It begs the question as to the reasons underlying it. Understandably, questions were asked about whether the imminence of the last general election had an effect on the arrangements for transitional relief a couple of years ago. Questions are asked in the local government world now about the transitional relief "damping", as it has been called; in other words, the extra grant put back into some local authorities because the transitional arrangements had proved to be so difficult and had involved such large and unexpected figures. Some authorities have benefited extremely well from the Government's damping arrangements devised to avoid huge fluctuations. Of course, the authorities which have benefited are the ones which the Government wanted to benefit. They are the Government's friends.
The Minister has alluded to the question of the pool and whether it would be reduced. Of course, I welcome his commitment that the pool will be made up if there is a shortfall. However, I fail to understand his approach. He says that it is not necessary for the Bill to make the provision mandatory because there may not be a shortfall. But if there is no shortfall, the question does

1097
not then arise. Therefore, I am unconvinced by the Minister's logic. There needs to be a commitment, and I do not believe that the noble Earl has sufficiently explained the change in the terminology from "shall" in the existing legislation to "may" in the Bill.
The latter raises another very broad question; namely, the centralisation of all our government services. Yet again we have the ability in the Secretary of State to decide whether to take a certain action which will have huge effects on government as provided at local level. It is yet another one of a great series of centralising measures.
Finally, I turn to the question of accountability. The problems as regards the non-domestic rate being unaccountable have been well aired both this afternoon and on many previous occasions. In that regard, I must say that I fear it simply does not matter to the Government.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that the comments both of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, are not altogether unexpected. I believe, having read Hansard very carefully, that they have been more or less par for the course in what has happened in the past couple of years in your Lordships' House. They are certainly consistent with their somewhat begrudging acceptance of various measures. The only difference this time is that your Lordships will have more opportunity to discuss the Bill as it goes through the House in all its stages. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, cantered over the course of the uniform business rate, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
However, there are just a few brief points that I should like to make about uniform business rates. A return to local business rating would mean that businesses could, therefore, be asked to pay more but still without any guarantees that they would receive more by way of local services. Authorities in areas with high concentrations of businesses have never kept the entire proceeds of the business rate. If they did, many authorities would not need to raise any money from their domestic taxpayers. That would completely destroy local accountability. The fact is that many areas have high concentrations of business for commercial reasons; other areas have industries which are declining.
Resource equalisation has always been necessary to ensure that authorities' reasonable spending needs are met. However, that is not to say that local authorities have no incentives to help business. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out, businesses are the lifeblood of the local community. If local authorities ignore their needs, they do so at their peril. That is true, irrespective of whether local authorities can keep part of the business rate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, also mentioned the fact that the Government grant dropped from 61 per cent. to 45 per cent. during the 1980s. But I should say that, although government grant may have dropped by some 16 per cent. in the 1980s, the average rate
1098
poundage increased by 37.4 per cent. over the same period. That is more than double the drop in government grant.
Perhaps I may for the time being end this discussion on Second Reading by making two further points. Over the past two years we have introduced measures worth some £1.8 billion to help businesses with their rate bills during the recession. The Bill provides a further £90 million boost to hold down rate increases. Secondly, the regulations will be introduced after Royal Assent to enable authorities to recalculate their contributions to the non-domestic rating pool. The Bill requires the Government to make good the shortfall to the pool by adding to the amount which authorities receive from the national pool next year. As I said in my opening speech, and I shall say it again, we will make similar additions to the pool in future years if we decide to support any future transitional arrangements centrally rather than through a self-financing mechanism. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
4.5 p.m.

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Bonham-Carter: 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.—(Lord Bonham-Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [British Citizens "otherwise than by descent"]:
Lord Bonham-Carter Lord Bonham-Carter moved the amendment:
Page 1, line 25, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2) A person who but for his registration prior to commencement as a British citizen under section 1(4) of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990 would be a British citizen "otherwise than by descent" under this Act, shall be treated as having become such a citizen at the time of his registration, notwithstanding the provisions of section 2(1) of the 1990 Act.".
The noble Lord said: On Second Reading, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said:
"However, if the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in Clause 2 were put into effect, they would in fact give citizenship benefits both to the ethnic minorities and to the spouse and child beneficiaries of the selection scheme which are not enjoyed by other British citizens who are born abroad". —[Official Report, 13/12/93; col. 1219.]
That is not an interpretation which I or my legal adviser accept. However, in order to make assurance doubly sure, I am moving an amendment to delete Clause 2(2) and replace it with the proposed subsection (2).
Perhaps I may explain the amendment. The 1990 Act set up the Hong Kong selection scheme providing for the registration of 50,000 key people in the colony. Section 1(4) of the Act also provides for the spouses and

1099
minor children of successful applicants under the scheme to he registered. Section 2(1) goes on to say that those spouses and minor children who are registered under the selection scheme in that manner shall be British "by descent". That means, generally, that they will be unable to transmit that citizenship.
However, among those persons—that is, among the non-Chinese ethnic minorities to whom the Bill is directed —there may be spouses and minor children who have registered under the selection scheme of the 1990 Act and who would therefore become citizens by descent. If such person or persons would under the Bill have become British citizens "otherwise than by descent" and are able to transmit that citizenship for one generation, they should be so treated. In other words, they should be treated as citizens "otherwise than by descent" from the time when they registered.
No provision needs to be made in the Bill for people registered under the 1990 Act after the Bill comes into force because such registration would be redundant and unnecessary. That is because those persons becoming British citizens as a result of the Bill (when it comes into force) or being born after the legislation comes into force would therefore be British citizens and no longer eligible for registration. I hope that that explains the rather legal phraseology of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Members of the Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for his explanation of the proposed new subsection. I must confess that I found the original wording totally incomprehensible. The explanation that the noble Lord has just given makes it almost totally incomprehensible, but there are little glimmers coming through to me from time to time. I hate legislation which deems things to be what they do not appear to be. The noble Lord seems to have got rid of the word "deem". However, he is still making things what they do not appear to be on the face of it. I suppose that there is no way of avoiding that. This is a worthwhile Bill. Its effects are minimal in terms of numbers. That the Government should seek to oppose it is as incomprehensible to me now as it was at the beginning. Any improvement in wording to overcome what might be legalistic objections to the Bill is worthwhile.
Earl Ferrers: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that this is a complicated matter. If he finds it so complicated, I cannot imagine why hp should think the Government would be wrong to oppose something which he himself does not understand. However, we understand these difficulties.
Clause 2(2) as it appears in the Bill provides for all the spouses or minor children of the 50,000 principal beneficiaries registered under the selection scheme to be British citizens "otherwise than by descent", as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said. That means they can pass down that citizenship to their children.
The 1990 British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act makes no provision for the spouses or the children of the 50,000 principal beneficiaries registered under the scheme to be able to pass on citizenship automatically to
1100
the next generation. It provided for them to be British citizens "by descent," a form of citizenship which is of lesser value.
Lord Bonham-Carter's amendment seeks to change this—but only in respect of the ethnic minorities with whom his Bill is concerned. It seeks to allow the members of the ethnic minorities only, who have applied and who have been successful in their application under the scheme, to have an enhanced status. It proposes that the spouses and dependants should have citizenship "otherwise than by descent" rather than "citizenship by descent" as the 1990 Act provides. Citizenship by descent is what the other successful applicants under the scheme will get.
I am bound to tell the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that his amendment conflicts with the clearly stated principle behind the 1990 legislation that its benefits should not in general be enjoyed by future descendants of those who are selected under the scheme. It would, therefore, mark a departure from a fundamental principle of British nationality legislation which is that British citizenship should not be transmissible to people who have no close connection with the United Kingdom. I accept, though, that the amendment which the noble Lord proposes is art improvement in the context of the Bill as seen through the eyes of the noble Lord. It restricts Cause 2(2) to members of the ethnic minorities, rather than seeks to cover all spouses and children registered under the selection scheme.
As both the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, these are complicated matters. I would not seek to oppose the amendment because it is an improvement to the noble Lord's Bill. But, as the noble Lord knows only too well, the Government regrettably do not view the noble Lord's Bill with approbation. I would say in short that the noble Lord's efforts with the amendment can be described as trying. His efforts with the Bill can only be described as very trying.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister misunderstands me. My incomprehension is limited almost entirely to Clause 2(2). The Bill itself, which I wish the Government would support, I understand very well. That is why I support it. The Minister said that, regrettably, the Government do not support this Bill. It is indeed regrettable that that is the case.
Lord Bonham-Carter: The noble Earl has said that my amendment is trying. I wish the noble Earl and the Government would try to meet the demands which this Bill makes. I would be ready to consider a minor alteration so long as the principle to which this Bill is directed is put into effect and that the future of the ethnic minorities at which it is directed is ensured and made safe. I am perfectly ready to hear suggestions from the Government's own draftsmen as regards meeting arty fundamental objections as long as that does not affect the principle of the Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Earl will try to meet my remarks.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
The schedule agreed to.
House Resumed: Bill reported with amendment.

Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1994
4.15 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee 1993–94].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to this order and the following order together.
The proposals before the House this evening seek authority for the Construction and Engineering Construction Industry Training Boards to impose a levy on the employers in their industries, to finance the operating costs of the boards and to fund their range of training initiatives, including grants schemes. Provision for this is contained in the Industrial Training Act 1982 and the orders before the House would give effect to proposals submitted by the two boards.
Both proposals include provision to raise a levy in excess of 1 per cent. of an employer's payroll. The Industrial Training Act 1982 requires that in such cases the proposals must be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses. In each case the proposals are almost exactly the same as those approved by the House last year. As in previous orders they are based on employers' payrolls and their use of sub-contract labour. Both have special provision for excluding small firms from paying levy.
For the CITB the rates are 0.25 per cent. of payroll and 2 per cent. of payments made by employers to labour-only sub-contractors. Employers with a payroll of £61,000 or less will be exempt. This is an increase from the previous threshold of £45,000. The ECITB treats its head offices and construction sites as separate establishments and applies different levy rates which reflect the actual costs and the different arrangements for training particular workers. For head offices the rates are 0.4 per cent. of payroll and 0.5 per cent. of payments to labour-only sub-contractors. Firms employing 40 or a smaller number of employees are exempt. The rates for sites are 1.5 per cent. of payroll and 2 per cent. of labour-only payments with exemption for employers with a payroll of £75,000 or less. In each case the proposals have the support of the employers in the industry as required by the Industrial Training Act and have the full support of the respective boards, which consist of senior employers, trade unionists and educationists.
The House will know that the CITB and the ECITB are the only two statutory industry training boards. Most other sectors of industry are covered by independent, non-statutory arrangements. In these two industries though, employers are firm in their support for a statutory board and the House will recall that last year we reconstituted the CITB for a further five years. In doing so, we recognised the strong feelings of the employers and the performance and achievements of the board.
1102
The House will also be aware that the ECITB is currently being similarly reviewed. Such reviews are necessary if we are to ensure that the training arrangements we have in place are right for the employers in a particular sector. As with the CITB we have consulted fully with the industry about the effectiveness of the board and the levy system more generally. The ECITB's current term of office is due to expire in July and the Government expect to make an announcement about the board's future around the beginning of April.
The draft orders before the House will enable the two boards to carry out their training responsibilities in 1994 and I believe it is right that the House should agree to approve them. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Order laid before the House on 18th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee 1993–94].—(Lord Henley.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the noble Minister for his usual lucid explanation of these orders. It is not my intention to oppose them this evening but I wish to make some comments. First, the Minister will be aware that we on this side of the House have always supported industrial training boards. It is a matter of regret to me that most were disbanded some time ago, leaving only the CITB and the construction side of the EITB. I am quite prepared to agree that some of them may have become redundant and that the system should have been examined since nothing remains good and viable for ever. However, the ITBs had a role which was industry specific. In other words, they were focused directly on particular industries and able to plan and organise with the peculiarities of those industries in mind.
I am glad to say that the Government accepted that argument in regard to the CITB and have decided, as the Minister said this evening, that it should remain in being for another five years. I am very glad about that and so, I am sure, are the CITB staff since I know that they were concerned for their future. However, there is still a time limit rather than a situation in which the CITB is seen as having a continuous existence well into the future. But at least it is an improvement.
The support of everyone in the construction industry—the large employers organised through the Federation of Master Builders and the unions with membership in the industry—has been crucial in persuading the Government that there is something very special about the construction industry and therefore that the arrangements for the board should stand. Long may it continue that way, for construction is very special. It is a key economic component in the UK. If we are really to work our way out of the recession and into an era of rather better employment prospects, then construction will have to lead the way.
However, the industry has been hit very hard by the recession. The downturn in housing and the inability of local authorities to engage in large housing initiatives have had a bad effect. The result is that the number of new trainees on CITB schemes has fallen to around 10,000. There is considerable unemployment in the

1103
industry. Indeed, the federation reports that there have been substantial and damaging reductions in training and recruitment programmes for both apprentices and graduates.
All that must obviously have had some effect upon the revenue of the CITB, since that is forthcoming via a levy raised as a percentage of the payroll. This is an industry in which the operations are often inherently hazardous. There is a high rate of industrial injury and sometimes, regrettably, fatal injury. The CITB's training programmes play a vital role in ensuring that sites are as safe as possible, but the operation of training programmes in which the protection of health and safety feature very largely is extremely important.
Against that background, quite obviously more money must be raised via the levy, and we do not object to that. However, I believe that the industry generally is unhappy that the threshold exempting small builders from paying the levy is to be increased from £45,000 to £61,000 of yearly emoluments. The effect will be to decrease income to the board. The view of the Federation of Master Builders, with which I agree, is that no one should be exempt from paying the levy since all construction industry employers use skilled craftsmen and therefore all should contribute to the training costs. Moreover, the intended uplift in the threshold will exacerbate competitive problems between smaller employers represented by the federation.
The federation says that the margins are tight and the combined effect of raising the CITB threshold and the new VAT registration threshold announced in the last Budget will add to the problems of numerous firms of roughly the same size being able to compete on an equal basis. It also says that from the financial standpoint, by moving to a £60,000 exemption threshold, the CITB's income will decline by about £1 million over the next year. A nil threshold would yield an estimated £8.5 million per annum at the current rates of levy, with an extra 35,000 firms being involved.
I have always thought it unfair that firms which do not invest in training should be able to poach staff from those which do. That is one of the drawbacks of a voluntary system and one which the ITB grant and levy system was meant to obviate. I can understand the Government's concern about not putting too much upon small firms, but in the construction industry, where there are many small firms, it is often in those firms that safety standards are less good than in the larger ones and therefore training is that much more important. If good standards are to be obtained and maintained, everyone should make a contribution. I accept that we are unlikely to persuade the Minister tonight to accept a nil threshold because a threshold already existed, but I suggest that serious consideration is given in the future to the representations made by the industry about the inadvisability of raising the threshold exemption figure.
Much the same considerations apply concerning the Engineering Construction Board. Again I say how much I regret the demise of the former EITB. I believe that that board and the CITB performed their functions extremely well. That argument has been accepted by the
1104
Government in the case of the CITB but not for the EITB except for that section concerned with construction, and that also is under review.
The EITB had some very important initiatives, including a programme directed specifically at women and designed to attract more women into engineering as a career. That coincided with the campaign initiated by the Equal Opportunities Commission when I was a member and the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle, was Chairman—the WISE Campaign (Women Into Science and Engineering). I have not seen very much since then to indicate that similar initiatives are being continued under present arrangements.
We do not oppose the orders since that is not the custom of the House, and in any event of course we would not want to deprive these bodies of the funds they need. However, I ask the Government to pay more attention to those who work in the industries concerned. I know that the Government prefer the so-called voluntary system to the one inherited via ITBs, but at the same time I believe that the grant and levy system was a good one and ensured that everyone bore part of the burden of training in the industries concerned. I regret that that concept has been abandoned except in the CITB case, and in that case, as I indicated, there are anxieties about the exemption of small businesses However, I do not oppose the orders.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for having explained the orders so clearly. As he said, the proposals are almost exactly the same as those approved by the House a year ago. It is good to know that they have the support of the employers, trade unionists and educationists who comprise the respective boards.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I am glad that after these matters were last discussed in the House the Government decided to reconstitute the Construction Board for a further five years in recognition of its achievements. Having had the opportunity to read the 1992–93 report of the Engineering Construction Board and also the document detailing its strategy for the next three years, I hope that, following the current review, the Government will decide to reconstitute that board as well. I say that because the workforce moves from job to job just as frequently in the one case as in the other and individual employers are therefore equally unable to provide training for the broadly based skills that are needed.
I welcome both orders and have only one reservation to express. It is one to which the noble Baroness referred. As the Minister said, the Construction Board order provides for the payroll threshold for payment of the levy to be increased from £45,000 to £61,000, the intention apparently being to exclude firms with four employees whereas the number was previously three. The Federation of Master Builders took the view that all employers should contribute to the cost of training, as the noble Baroness said. I do not go so far as that because I recognise the burden that that would impose on very small firms. However, at a time when the need for more training is so widely acknowledged, I wonder whether it is right that as many as an estimated 35,000

1105
businesses should now be exempted from the levy and therefore in effect be subsidised by the rest of the industry. I shall be grateful if when the noble Lord, Lord Henley, replies he can relieve me and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, of our doubts on this matter so far as he can.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful for the support that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, gave to these orders. Perhaps I may deal with one or two points that they made.
The noble Baroness regrets that most industries used to have these statutory arrangements and that they have now disappeared. We believe that there are major differences between the construction and engineering construction industries—they have very different workforces. We also feel that statutory levies were not welcomed by all sectors. Many sectors felt that they should be given responsibility for their own training arrangements; and the Government certainly support those voluntary arrangements wherever possible. However, we believe that a different arrangement is necessary in this sector.
The noble Baroness also regretted that the CITB was to be reconstituted for only five years. It is normal for all non-departmental public bodies and not just ITBs to be subject to periodic review. As I said in my opening remarks, the review of the ECITB is currently under way and we believe that five years for the CITB is perfectly fair.
More importantly, moving to the question of relief for small employers, I understood the noble Baroness to say that she would prefer a nil threshold to bring in all employers. I am not quite sure how far the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, would go but he believed that the increase from £45,000 to £61,000 might be excessive. We believe that there is a strong need to protect small firms and to give them some advantage. We believe in the importance of small firms and in their importance to the economy. It will always be difficult to get the balance right. As the noble Lord said, the increase to £61,000 excludes those firms with four workers or fewer. Obviously these have to be rough approximations depending on levels of pay. That amount maintains very approximately the same level as existed in real terms in 1971 when the exclusion level was £6,000.
1106
I accept that within the industry there are many deeply held views on the issue of the balance between training needs and the pressure on small firms. I can give the assurance that we shall certainly keep the level of exclusion under careful review. However, as noble Lords will know from other legislation that has been or is before the House—one thinks of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill—it is always important to offer some protection to the smaller firms which are less able to cushion those costs.
Perhaps I may say a few words about help for women within the construction industry. The CITB has set targets for the training of women and has a range of initiatives to promote training of both women and ethnic minorities. Certainly we should very much like to see that go forward. We are as committed as the noble Baroness to equal opportunities in that field.
I stress, as the noble Baroness did quite rightly, the importance that we attach to training. I made that clear yesterday when I answered a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, on TECs. But we believe that training is absolutely vital. That is why the Government are committed to training and provide a great deal of money for it. We also believe that it is important for employers to make a contribution for training. That is why I quoted the figure yesterday of employers paying,
"something of the order of £20 billion",
to train their workforce. It will always be the employers who are the major contributors to training.
I conclude by stressing yet again that the proposals have the support of the respective employers and have been approved by both the boards. It is not therefore in dispute—I believe that the noble Baroness accepted this —that they should be approved by this House. I commend the orders to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1994
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1994 be approved.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee 1993–94].—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before five o'clock.

  M.25 MOTORWAY WIDENING: COMPLETION
  M.25 MOTORWAY WIDENING: COMPLETION
  CONSTRUCTION (DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS)
  CONSTRUCTION (DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS)
  PRISONERS: TRANSFER FROM ENGLAND TO NORTHERN IRELAND
  PRISONERS: TRANSFER FROM ENGLAND TO NORTHERN IRELAND
  ACCUMULATED CAMPAIGN SERVICE MEDALS
  ACCUMULATED CAMPAIGN SERVICE MEDALS
  OFFICIAL REPORT: COST APPORTIONMENT
  OFFICIAL REPORT: COST APPORTIONMENT
  NATIONAL INSURANCE: SMALL EMPLOYERS′ RELIEF
  NATIONAL INSURANCE: SMALL EMPLOYERS′ RELIEF