Sitting of 2 March 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Belize
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with his opposite numbers in the European Union concerning relations with Belize.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): We keep other member states informed of developments affecting Belize. The European Community welcomed Guatemalan recog-nition of Belize in 1991 and its reaffirmation by the new Guatemalan Government in 1993. The European Community also urged Belize and Guatemala to continue to work for a full settlement of their territorial dispute.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree, however, that there is a serious potential threat to Europe from the creation of a vacuum in Belize when the British garrison is withdrawn in October? These days, that vacuum is likely to be filled not so much by Guatemala as by the Colombian cocaine and crack cartels. That has happened already, since the pretty disastrous Drug Enforcement Agency spraying campaigns aimed at locally grown marijuana in the mid-1980s. The vacuum has already been partly filled by Colombia. Will the Minister therefore give some thought to how we can ensure that when the border ceases to be patrolled by a British garrison, there is no threat to Europe—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has obviously not heeded at all the statement that I made to the House on Thursday. I am sure that I have the support of the House in asking that hon. Members ask brisk questions.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We are not withdrawing entirely from Belize. There will continue to be a British training presence and an aid programme there. We have also made it clear that we stand ready to be consulted in the event of a real threat to Belize materialising, contrary to our present assessment.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Notwithstanding the good relations between the United Kingdom and Guatemala and between
    926
    Guatemala and Belize that happily exist at present, will my hon. Friend consider discussing not with the European Union but with the Government of Nepal the possibility of basing a Gurkha battalion in Belize? That would be beneficial to the Gurkhas, who have been drawn down from Hong Kong, and potentially to the defence of Belize as well.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Our position has been made clear. The garrison is being withdrawn—indeed, progress in withdrawing it is already in hand—but a training presence will remain. If the Gurkha units mentioned by my hon. Friend require jungle training in central America, doubtless they will be considered for that role.

    Kashmir
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Indian Government this year over the future of Kashmir.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): My right hon. Friend's most recent discussions with the Indian Government over the future of Kashmir took place during his visit to India in November.
    Mr. Madden: When Prime Minister Rao visits Britain later this month, will the Government tell him that they believe that the people of Kashmir have a right to self-determination?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no doubt that when the Prime Minister of India visits Britain, our Prime Minister will discuss with him a range of matters, including Kashmir. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we feel that four ingredients are essential: there should be a dialogue between India and Pakistan, respect for human rights, a political process in Kashmir and a cessation of external support for militants in that area.
    Mr. Jessel: Does my hon. Friend accept that Britain's historically excellent relations with India will tend to be upheld by India's welcome decision in relation to Kashmir to set up a human rights commission?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, that decision is most welcome, and we expect the first report from the Indian human rights commission shortly. It will deal with a wide range of issues that have been drawn to its attention.

    Bosnia
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council on Bosnia.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Members of the Security Council consult continuously on that subject in capitals and in New York. The most recent formal meeting of the Security Council took place on 14 February.
    Mrs. Mahon: Surely, if we are to have a lasting peace in Bosnia, agreements such as that declared today between the Croats and Muslims should occur after consultation with, and the agreement of, all five permanent members of

    927
    the Security Council. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Serbian leaders are claiming that the United States is bypassing the United Nations? Does that not make affairs much more difficult in that area, especially for the Russians?
    Mr. Hurd: As I told the House yesterday, we have welcomed the progress that the Americans have piloted between the Croats and the Muslims. We hope that that will form part of an eventual full settlement.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the progress that has been made between the United Nations and the North Atlantic Assembly, which have advanced the prospect of peace, continues to try to ensure that other areas that are surrounded can be relieved?
    Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I am sure that he is right.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Since everything that has been done so far in Bosnia has been done with the authority of the resolutions of the Security Council, is it not important that, whatever objectives are sought with the best of intentions, they should be acceptable to the Security Council of the United Nations? Is it not apparently dangerous to see the developing spheres of influence dominated, on one hand, by the United States of America and, on the other hand, by Russia? If part of Bosnia is to ally itself with Croatia, is not the danger that the concomitant will be that the other part of Bosnia will want to be merged into a greater Serbia—something which the whole conflict has been an attempt to prevent? In those circumstances, what position will the European Union adopt?
    Mr. Hurd: What we need and have been working for is a negotiated settlement. It cannot be imposed. It has to be negotiated. The content of that settlement is secondary; it has to be agreed. If the agreement announced yesterday between the Croats and the Muslims matures, if it takes full shape, the question will be how the Serbian part of Bosnia fits into that. That will be the next stage of the negotiation. Of course, all that has to be done under the basic authority of the UN.

    Exports
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help is given to British industry and commerce by British embassies and high commissions to promote British goods and services in the export market; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurd: Our posts concentrate hard on promoting British exports. We now have 201 commercial sections overseas and 20 new posts have been opened or reopened since 1990. Those posts provide a wide variety of help to British companies. They seek out export opportunities, advise companies on the business to be won in their markets, lobby on their behalf for major contracts and against discrimination and organise visits by trade missions and Ministers to win business. Research shows that 70 per cent. of our customers are satisfied with our service and 90 per cent. said that they would use those services again. The value of British exports world wide rose by £3.3 billion in the past year compared with 1992.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the role played by the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry in securing export orders and jobs for the country is disgracefully undermined by the naive, sanctimonious and dishonest campaign waged by certain newspapers and Opposition parties with regard to Malaysia? Does he accept that it will mean the loss of British exports and British jobs and that the only outcome will be that we will become the laughing stock of our major competitors, which will step in and pick up the jobs that British workers should be doing?
    Mr. Hurd: I spent two and a half happy hours on that subject this morning. What emerged is that, since June 1988, we have followed two policies of facilitating and building up defence sales to Malaysia and getting our share of civil contracts with the help of aid and trade provision under the rules. Those have been separately and successfully followed. The grave accusation that my hon. Friend and I are under is that we have done too much to help British business and protect British jobs.
    Mr. Enright: Notwithstanding that reply, will the Foreign Secretary give an absolute guarantee that not only will he not encourage the sale of land mines but he will forbid their export to anywhere else in the world?
    Mr. Hurd: I should like to write to the hon. Gentleman on that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, because there are various types of land mine and, as the hon. Gentleman certainly knows, an intricate international discussion is going on at the moment about how that area of arms sales can be limited and reduced. So, rather than chance my arm, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Alexander: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Department of Trade and Industry is seconding 100 business men with export expertise to that Department? Will he arrange for some of those people to be used in the high commissions and embassies abroad so that we can beef up our export strategies there?
    Mr. Hurd: We are doing that and I am in close touch with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I should like to draw the attention of the House to a letter in The Independent today from Sir Derek Hornby, chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board, and others bearing out what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) implies, about the substantial improvement in recent years in how the Foreign Office helps British exports.
    Mr. Rogers: Regardless of the synthetic bluster of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), does the Foreign Secretary agree that, whatever embassies and officials do, their work is undermined when a Government are prepared to abuse and distort trade negotiations and overseas aid provisions? In the case of Malaysia, are not the Government putting jobs in this country at risk by their shady, behind-the-door deals?
    Mr. Hurd: There has been a great deal of bluster on that subject and we can now see the harm that Opposition spokesmen and others have done to British interests. I am glad that the Select Committee concentrated on the core of the matter and went into it steadily. It was not beguiled into believing the nonsense spoken by the spokesman for the Liberals and the spokesman for the Labour party. They

    929
    tried to bring completely unrelated and extraneous matters into the argument—the bluster, to use the hon. Gentleman's word, which has done so much harm to British interests in the past few weeks.

    Israel
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations between Britain and Israel.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Our bilateral relations are excellent.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend express the sympathy of the whole House with the victims of the Hebron massacre? Will he also congratulate the Government of Israel on their speedy reaction to that massacre and express the hope that the act of one man will not derail the peace process in the middle east because, were it to do so, that would be victory for extremism?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right in every particular. It is vital that the peace process be kept alive. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent a message to Chairman Arafat expressing our great distress at the crime that had been committed.
    Mr. Galloway: Was not one of the swift reactions of the Israeli Government that their armed forces began to shoot down worshippers rushing from the mosque and, in the days that have elapsed since, including today in Hebron, have shot dead many people? Does not Israel bear complete responsibility under the Geneva convention for the safety and well-being of the people under its occupation? Did not Dr. Goldstein do and the rabbi who buried him say what many thousands of settlers in the occupied territories would like to have done and said?
    Mr. Hogg: In view of the hon. Gentleman's odious support for Saddam Hussein, I should have thought that he would think it wise to abstain from participating in questions on the middle east.
    Sir David Madel: Before any negotiations begin between Israel and Syria on the possible withdrawal of Israel from the Golan Heights, is it the Government's view that, first, full diplomatic relations should be established between Israel and Syria, with all that that entails?
    Mr. Hogg: I do not think that that is a condition precedent, but it is important that there should be early movement by both sides. The Government of Syria need to make it plain that what is on offer is a full friendly relationship with Israel, and Israel needs to make it plain that she will withdraw from the Golan Heights.
    Sir David Steel: Is the Minister aware that since the terrible tragedy in the mosque at Hebron, almost the same number of people have been killed or wounded in the disturbances that followed? Will he, therefore, support the initiative of the stationing of a UN observer corps on the west bank and assure the Israeli Government that that has proved very successful in diminishing communal violence in South Africa?
    Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the number of people who have been killed since the shooting in the mosque. There are attractions in
    930
    stationing an observer force. Discussions are going on in New York on the terms and siting of such an observer presence.
    Mr. Dykes: Does not the magnificent work for peace of Moshe Raviv, the Israeli ambassador in London, the fact that the Government resisted the foolish attempts to close a Palestine Liberation Organisation office many years ago and the fact that they are working together show that the majority of moderates both in Israel and among millions of Palestinians are yearning to reach a peace settlement? Therefore, the British Government must persuade the Israeli authorities to proceed to the disarming of extremist settlers.
    Mr. Hogg: It is extraordinarily important that the Government of Israel move towards disarming extremist settlers and act to prevent extremist settlers from coming into contact with Palestinians. I agree with my hon. Friend.
    Dr. John Cunningham: I join the Minister in denouncing this heinous crime—the wanton slaughter of innocent people at prayer in the mosque at Hebron. All friends of Israel will share the views of the Israeli Prime Minister that that action was a shame on Zionism and an embarrassment to Judaism. Is not the most important thing for Her Majesty's Government to do now to encourage the resumption of the peace process? In that connection, we should remind the Government of Israel of its duties under the Geneva convention to protect all citizens, especially the Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza. Should not other provisions of the agreement—the release of prisoners, the symbols of statehood, an international presence in the occupied territories and the establishment of a PLO civilian police force—be quickly accelerated?
    Mr. Hogg: It is extremely important that all parties to the peace process negotiations resume them as speedily as possible. I welcome a number of steps that have been taken by Prime Minister Rabin to disarm the extremist settlers and, indeed, to announce the release of a number of those held in detention.

    Bosnia
    Ms Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made to bring about peace in Bosnia.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The continuing ceasefire in Sarajevo and the recent ceasefire agreement between the Bosnian Government and Bosnian Croat forces are welcome steps towards an end to the fighting. We also welcome the agreement between the Bosnian and Croat Governments initialled in Washington today.
    Ms Hoey: Does the Minister recognise that millions of people in this country do not understand why the concerted action that has been taken in the past couple of weeks could not have been taken with Britain taking the lead over the past two years? Nevertheless, if General Sir Michael Rose comes back and tells the British Government that more British troops are needed to make the peace progress continue, will the Minister give an assurance that he will bring that request to the House?
    Mr. Hogg: I do not imagine that the electorate in this country will understand the hon. Lady's criticism. The

    931
    British Government have committed 2,400 troops to Bosnia. With the exception of the French, that is the largest contribution.
    Mr. John Townend: What is the total cost to the taxpayer of the British operation, and what proportion is refunded by the United Nations?
    Mr. Hogg: The overall figure that I have in the back of my mind is £170 million. However, because I might be misleading my hon. Friend, I should prefer to write to him with the details.

    Turkey
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Turkey to discuss the position of minorities.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Turkey on 19 and 20 January. He has no plans at present for a further visit.
    Mr. Rooker: Was it spelt out in clear terms to the Turkish Government that while they maintain discrimina-tion against minorities, particularly the Kurdish minority, by banning the use of the language, not allowing the teaching of the language and banning its use in public speeches, any application that they make to join the European Union is totally and utterly out of the question?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: When Turkey originally applied to join the European Community, the application was turned down and it was pointed out that its human rights record did not come up to the required European standards. I believe that that is the case even today. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised those matters with Mrs. Ciller, the Prime Minister. We believe that Kurdish aspirations must be pursued constitutionally. That is a message for the PKK—the terrorist organisation—and for the Turkish Government.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a world of difference between meeting Kurdish aspirations and the problem that the Turkish Government have in dealing with one of the most vicious terrorist organisations in the world?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes. The PKK does not respect human rights, but the message delivered forcefully by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was that the Turkish Government must not respond in kind. They must deal with the terrorist threat within the rule of law and by respecting human rights.
    Ms Quin: Did the Minister see the reports in the Financial Times of 20 and 21 January in which the United Kingdom and Germany were described as
    "Turkey's main friends and advocates within the EU"?
    It was also reported that the Foreign Secretary was seeking to deepen ties between Turkey and the European Union. Will the Minister confirm that there will be no question of making further progress with Turkey's application to join the European Union and that it should be a long way back in the queue, certainly behind the former communist countries of eastern Europe which are now democratic and are seeking to join the European Union?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The European Union has important relations with Turkey and it was important that
    932
    my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary should develop them further. There is no question of reassessing the possibility of Turkish membership of the European Union at present.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I recognise that there have been atrocities on both sides, but has my hon. Friend seen the recent report by Amnesty International which outlined the appalling atrocities committed by Turkish security forces in the eastern part of Turkey? One incident involved the burning by the security forces of a 16-year-old shepherd boy from Kurdistan. Will my hon. Friend confirm that Turkey's application to join the European Union will have no chance of further progress if that country continues to have an appalling human rights record?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Any such behaviour by the Turkish security forces is wholly unacceptable and I can confirm that when Turkey's application to join the European Union is reassessed, its human rights record will play a part in that assessment.

    Cyprus
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the most recent round of talks on Cyprus.
    Mr. Hurd: Negotiations resumed in Nicosia on 17 February. They are focusing on a package of confidence-building measures, which has been agreed in principle by both sides. It is important that the parties should take advantage of the present opportunity to make progress because it may not quickly recur.
    Mr. O'Brien: Missing persons and the settlement of land and buildings are issues which involve human rights. I should imagine that they are part of the 14 confidence-building measures arising out of the talks. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the confidence-building measures will continue and that pressure from the special UN representative, Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government will be placed on Athens and Ankara to get the talks under way and settled? Can we be assured that business arising out of the talks will not be withered?
    Mr. Hurd: In recent days, I have been in touch with Mr. Joe Clark, the Secretary-General's representative. I saw the Prime Minister of Greece about this matter the day before yesterday and, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, I have talked to the Turks recently. There is an opportunity here, starting with the measures proposed, for the reopening of Varosha and of Nicosia airport.
    We will do all that we can as a guarantor power to make sure that all the parties to the dispute seize the opportunity. As I have said, if the opportunity is lost it may not come again quickly.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is growing frustration in the south of the island at the length of time it has taken to get the confidence-building measures in place, particularly as, according to experts, it could take up to two years for the airport to be made usable again?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with that, and I share the frustration. We will urge those involved in the negotiations to press ahead as fast as they can.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: In welcoming the decision of the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots to accept in principle the UN proposals which were supported by the Government, may I ask the Foreign Secretary to confirm that the Government also support the recommendations of the UN working party to implement those proposals? Do the Government support in particular the suggestion that in the interests of air safety there should be only one air control system for the new international airport at Nicosia and the existing international airport 10 miles away at Ercan?
    Mr. Hurd: The proposal is that Nicosia airport should reopen under UN control. I am not familiar with what is proposed for air traffic control. I am sure that it is important, as the right hon. Gentleman says, and I will look into it further.

    Middle East
    Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Israel and the middle east to discuss progress on the peace talks.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend visited the region in January. He had useful discussions with the principal participants in the peace process. He has no plans at present for a further visit.
    Mr. Streeter: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a terrible tragedy would become an international disaster if a peace process which could bring meaningful and lasting benefit to millions were to be scuppered by the appalling Hebron tragedy, which was the work of just a few? Will he arrange for himself and the Foreign Secretary to visit the region, where their formidable powers of diplomacy can be brought to bear particularly on the Palestinians and their supporters to get back to the negotiating table as soon as possible?
    Mr. Hogg: Yesterday, I had a meeting with four middle eastern ambassadors and with representatives of the Arab League and the Palestine Liberation Organisation. I hope to have further meetings with representatives of the PLO this week and I will certainly stress to them—as has my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—the importance of resuming the peace process and talks as speedily as possible.
    Mr. Faulds: Would it not help the peace process between the PLO and Israel if the Foreign Office were to urge that, in the interests of peace, the Israelis should deal extremely stringently with the settlers and withdraw both them and the settlements? Does the Minister agree that it is not generally realised that the reasonableness of the PLO has led to Israel having 75 per cent. of what was Palestine while the PLO has less than 25 per cent?
    Mr. Hogg: I accept that the settlements are a major problem which stand in the way of a peace settlement. I strongly endorse the action taken by Prime Minister Rabin to disarm the extremist settlers, but there are grave difficulties in disarming all the settlers as many of them face substantive risks themselves.

    India
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of current relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of India; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Relations between Britain and India are excellent.
    Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend will be aware of the great strides being made by the Indian Government in liberalising and privatising the country's economy. Will he assure the House that help will be given to British exporters to access that growing and important market and to capitalise on the truly excellent relationship between the British and Indian Governments?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have massive commercial interests in India, and Britain is the second-largest overseas investor in that country. Our investment is rising dramatically, and last year trade increased by more than 20 per cent.
    Mr. Godsiff: Bearing in mind the excellent relations Britain has with India, will the Minister ask the Indian Government whether they have any objections to British Members of Parliament travelling to Indian-held Kashmir to see for themselves the situation there?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am always encouraging the Indian High Commissioner to persuade his Government to allow more visits by British parliamentarians. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) visited India in January this year, and went to Kashmir. Lord Weatherill has been to Kashmir recently. The International Commission of Jurists and several international lawyers, led by Sir Philip Goodhart from Britain, have been there. Many American and French senators have also travelled there. There is much independent observation of what is going on.
    Mr. Lord: Will my hon. Friend accept from someone who had the good fortune to visit India with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in January this year that relations between our countries seem to be better than they have been for a long time? Is he aware of the enormous boost given to trade between our two countries by the Prime Minister's visit last year and the truly excellent work done by our high commissioner in India? Will he urge British business men to make best use of the opportunities now offered in India?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that the opportunities exist. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last year launched a great trade initiative. It culminated at the end of the year with the Indo-British week in November, to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary went and at which 16 major deals worth £1.2 billion were signed.

    Middle East
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the middle east peace process.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has sent his condolences to chairman Arafat and, through him, to the families of the victims and the injured

    935
    of the massacre in Hebron. I very much hope that that crime will not be allowed be stand in the way of the peace process.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that I have written to chairman Arafat, whom I was pleased to meet in London, and to my friend, Afif Sofieh, his representative in the United Kingdom, to express my personal grief and anguish at the awful killings in Hebron? I wish to make it plain that that is the sentiment of the entire Jewish community of this country. I know that the members of that community would, like me, want to associate themselves with the words of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who hoped that the assassin would not achieve his end—the end of the peace process.
    Mr. Hogg: I know that what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said will be echoed and repeated by the entire Jewish community in this country.

    Taiwan
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to improve diplomatic and commercial links between the United Kingdom and Taiwan.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): Although the United Kingdom has no diplomatic relations with Taiwan, we attach great importance to our commercial, cultural and other links. British exports rose in 1993 by 22 per cent. to £668 million. The United Kingdom has attracted over half of Taiwanese investment in Europe. The British Trade and Cultural Office in Taipei, established in October 1993, is being reinforced with additional staff to develop those links further.
    Mr. Lidington: While accepting that we do not recognise Taiwan diplomatically, may I ask my right hon. Friend to assure the House that the Government will ensure that we have enough people of sufficient calibre in Taiwan to help to guarantee that British companies, rather than French or Japanese ones, make money out of that important market?
    Mr. Goodlad: Indeed, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Starting with the establishment of the British trade and cultural office in Taipei, we are taking steps to achieve a commercial presence in Taiwan. We are increasing the number of United Kingdom-based staff from three to four and strengthening the number of locally engaged commercial staff. The year 1994 has started well: Davy International announced at the weekend a blast furnace contract worth $97 million, which will also provide work for about 250 subcontractors in this country and spare parts will be supplied for many years to come.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not about time that we recognised the Taiwanese Government and set up diplomatic relations with them, given the importance of that country to our economy? Will the Minister convey to the Taiwanese authorities the great concern of many of us at the stockpiling of rhino horn in that country—[Interruption.] Rhino are an endangered species—I wish that Conservative Members would recognise that. Will the
    936
    Minister tell the Taiwanese authorities that if they would act against the dealers they could do something to preserve the endangered species of rhino in Africa?
    Mr. Goodlad: On the subject of recognition, the British Government acknowledge the position of the Peoples Republic of China and that Taiwan is a province of China. We recognise the Government of the Peoples Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. In our view the status of Taiwan is a matter for Peking and Taipei to resolve between themselves.
    On the subject of rhino horn, on which I know that the hon. Gentleman is a considerable expert, trade is a matter for the European Community as a whole. We made it clear that there was significant concern in the United Kingdom about rhinos. Other member states agreed to maintain pressure on Taiwan and review the need for further action in the light of progress later this year.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that although normal diplomatic relations between this country and Taiwan do not exist, the Chinese on Taiwan nevertheless give our representatives in Taipei de facto though not de jure diplomatic recognition? In view of growing trade and improving relations between our two countries, and the fact that the Republic of China on Taiwan is now a fully fledged democracy, is it not about time that we gave the same democratic status to Taipei's representatives in Britain, and the niceties that go with that?
    Mr. Goodlad: All Taiwan representative offices in the United Kingdom are private companies or institutions. Under British legislation, exemption from tax, import duties and so on is available only to diplomatic missions considered as such under the terms of the Vienna convention. We have no intention of using the legal situation to create difficulty for the Taiwanese offices here.

    South Africa
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to monitor whether the election in South Africa in April is free and fair.
    Mr. Hurd: Britain is contributing substantially to the observer operations of the United Nations, the European Union and the Commonwealth. The exact number of British observers in the election has yet to be finalised.
    Mr. Bayley: Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern about the withdrawal of Inkatha from the elections because people living in Inkatha areas who vote will be deemed to be African National Congress supporters and their lives may be at risk? How many polling stations will there be in the elections and is it the intention of Britain as the former colonial power, together with other countries under United Nations and Commonwealth control, to ensure that there are enough observers to have at least one at every polling station? Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman recall that for the first multiracial election in Zimbabwe Britain sent a large number of police officers, and will he consider doing the same on this occasion?
    Mr. Hurd: The United Nations plans to field 1,778 observers in the South African election, the European

    937
    Union 312 and the Commonwealth 60, so there will be enough observers. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are already giving help to the South African police.
    Even more important is the hon. Gentleman's first point: I understand that there was a good meeting yesterday between Mr. Mandela and Chief Buthelezi, and I hope that out of that improved atmosphere may come progress towards a fuller joining of all concerned in the elections on April 27.
    Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Nations estimate of some thousands of observers is a critical part of ensuring free and fair elections in South Africa? Does he agree that it would be a great tragedy if British parliamentarians alone were ruled out by the present situation in the House? Will he use his best offices and urge the Opposition to let us participate?
    Mr. Hurd: I will certainly follow up that point.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Foreign Secretary agree, as I think he does, that the monitoring of the election in South Africa would be much easier if Chief Buthelezi and Inkatha were to take part? Does he therefore welcome, as I do, the tentative moves made yesterday in that direction? Will he use his best endeavours and take every opportunity to encourage Chief Buthelezi to join the elections in full participation?
    Mr. Hurd: I have just said that I think that it is very important. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed what the President of the United States and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agreed yesterday—that our two countries would work hard to strengthen the tangible, practical steps we can take to promote the process of democratic reform in South Africa.

    Sudan
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to meet the Foreign Minister of the Sudan Republic to discuss the conflict in southern Sudan.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: At the moment, we have no plans for such a meeting.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I am disappointed that there are no such plans, bearing in mind that many people in the United Kingdom, the United States and elsewhere are concerned about the conflict in southern Sudan, which has been going on for far too long. The fact that they happen to be black upon black does not relieve us of any responsibility.
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. We share that concern and we endorse the peace initiative being promoted by the Kenyans, the Ugandans and others.
    Mr. Cash: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that 40,000 Muslim fundamentalists have been airlifted from Khartoum to southern Sudan; that 200,000 people from southern Sudan have been driven into Uganda over the past few months; and that there is a prospect that that figure could rise to a million, which Uganda simply could not cope with? Will he ensure that every effort is made to ensure that the people moving into Uganda are given every
    938
    support by the Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development and by the American and British initiatives that are currently under way?
    Mr. Hogg: What my hon. Friend says reinforces the importance of the present peace initiative. I echo what I have already said—that we think that the Government of Sudan should respond positively to that initiative.
    Mr. Gunnell: What steps has the Minister taken through the United Nations to seek a solution to this problem? Will he ensure that the negotiations that are under way are discussed with the United Nations so that it, too, may play its maximum role in sorting out this mess?
    Mr. Hogg: It is important not to undercut the present initiative. Therefore, for the moment I should prefer to see weight placed on the initiative to which I have referred —that promoted by the Kenyans, Ugandans and others. If it becomes plain that that will not succeed, one can consider other mechanisms.

    EC (Political Union)
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet his counterpart Ministers in the EC to discuss greater political union.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There are no plans for a meeting of Community Foreign Ministers to discuss greater political union.
    Mr. Cryer: When the Minister does meet the appropriate Ministers, will he make it clear that, despite the cosy consensus between the Front Benches, millions of people outside the House see no benefit from the Common Market, do not want greater political union and, given the chance, would get out? Those people recognise that that would immediately knock £24 a week off the average family food bill, reduce our payments by some £2,500 million a year and perhaps help to reverse the £10 billion deficit of payments that we have with the Common Market, which has been nothing but a millstone around our necks ever since we joined.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The vision of the European Union that the hon. Gentleman is scared of is written up in the socialist manifesto to which his party is fully committed, so I invite the hon. Gentleman not to vote Labour in the forthcoming European elections.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Should we not do our best to ensure that any deepening of the European Community does not preclude its widening, too? Is my hon. Friend not just a little bit ashamed of the position in the European Community? Having preached the benefits of open markets to the countries of eastern Europe for so long, the European Community is now refusing open access to goods from those countries just when they most need our help—and all to appease a few inefficient, cosseted vested interests such as the European steel industry and European farmers. Will we in Europe not look back with shame in future years at this selfish short-sightedness?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We are in the forefront of those European Union members calling for openness of markets with the former communist states of central and eastern Europe to help stabilise them, but I can bring my

    939
    hon. Friend some good news: I have just come back from an Accession Council meeting in Brussels, which lasted for five days. I am glad to say that we now have political agreement with three new member states—Finland, Sweden and Austria. When they join the Union, they will reinforce our model of a Community which is decentralised, free trading, diverse and open to the world.
    Mr. Radice: With respect to the successful enlargement negotiations, will the Minister tell the House what in his view now constitutes a blocking minority?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: A blocking minority is 23 votes.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that it will never be the Government's policy to embrace federalism in whatever form in the European Union and that we believe firmly in nation states, with more of the power returning to the nation states and fewer directives coming out of Europe?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, Conservative Members are against the establishment of a federal European state.
    Mr. Dafis: As the Minister will know, the new Committee of the Regions established under the Maastricht treaty will meet for the first time next week. Does he agree that it will constitute a vital mechanism for the representation of the interests of the small nations and regions of Europe, which should really be the building blocks of a new federal Europe? Does he also agree that the Committee of the Regions could and should become the second chamber of the European Parliament?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am not sure about a second chamber of the European Parliament, but the creation of a Committee of the Regions is certainly in line with our view of the European Union—a body that is decentralised and makes decisions as near to the citizen as possible.

    Middle East
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's support for the Washington accord on resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Her Majesty's Government are helping to fund 10 surgeons in Jerusalem and Hebron, together with the provision of specialist medical supplies and nursing to treat the victims of the massacre in Hebron. More generally, our aid to the occupied territories will amount to £20 million this financial year and £70 million over the financial years 1994–96.
    Mr. Townsend: Is it not to be regretted that the Security Council was unable to condemn the horrendous massacre in the mosque immediately and without reservation? Can my right hon. and learned Friend explain that? Is he satisfied that the commission of inquiry will be able to tell us what actually happened at dawn prayers? Finally, should not the British Government offer to fly some of the many people who were seriously injured in the massacre to this country for hospital treatment?
    Mr. Hogg: All members of the Security Council condemned the crime that occurred. We are now finding out whether a special Security Council resolution can be passed to assist a number of forward policies. For instance,
    940
    we want to establish whether we can station observers in the area, along the lines suggested by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel).
    Five members of the commission of inquiry have been appointed, under the presidency of the supreme court. I think that it will be fair and independent. As for the question of flying people to the United Kingdom, the consul general in Jerusalem has instructions to liaise with the Palestinians to find out whether there is any specialist treatment that they require and we can provide.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: I am sure the Minister will agree that, while we welcome the concern and anger that have been expressed about last week's murders in Hebron—and the letter from the Prime Minister will be very welcome—what is required is an early resolution of the peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians. If those talks are to resume, a more positive move must be made by the Israeli Government, along the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham).
    Does the Minister agree that it would not be unusual for us to have an international presence on the west bank? We have already had one in the form of European consuls general in Jerusalem. Surely we could use those immediately, as we did when our own consul general Ivan Callan went to Beit Sahour to investigate alleged incidents in that town. That would be a more positive move.
    Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree that it is very important for the peace talks to resume as speedily as possible. I think, however, that the hon. Gentleman would want to say of Prime Minister Rabin's response that many of the steps that he has taken were directed expressly to that end. Mr. Rabin is as deeply shocked as I believe the hon. Gentleman is, and has made it plain that that represents the attitude of all Israel. He has also indicated his willingness to release, I think, 1,000 detainees. He has set up a commission of inquiry which I believe to be fair and independent, and has announced a willingness to disarm extremist settlers. I hope that those steps will be seen as constructive.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is disgusting that a joint delegation of Members of Parliament will not be allowed to go to Israel next week because of Labour policy?
    Mr. Hogg: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the failure to observe the usual courtesies between the two sides is actually preventing hon. Members on both sides from engaging in activities that are helpful to international relations and advance the work of the House here.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it not sickening that there are extremist elements who have tried to make a hero of the mass murderer who carried out the recent terrible crime? Should it not be made clear to Israel—one recognises that there has been a substantial change since the last elections —that there can be no lasting peace until there is a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel? That is an absolute essential for justice for both Jews and Palestinians.
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is appalling if anybody in the state of Israel seeks to endorse this murder. But it is also fair to say that those who do are in a tiny minority and that the people of Israel as a whole must be deeply distressed and shocked by what has happened.

    EC (Intergovernmental Co-operation)
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to have discussions with his European Union partners concerning the strengthening of intergovernmental co-operation on foreign policy.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We regularly meet with other member states to discuss the strengthening of intergovernmental co-operation on foreign policy.
    Sir David Knox: Which particular areas have been identified in which the countries of the Community can work together during the next few months? Will my hon. Friend agree that this process has been greatly facilitated by the Maastricht treaty?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Maastricht treaty set up the intergovernmental pillar of the Union to allow us to carry forward these initiatives. My hon. Friend asks which areas. The middle east, the former Soviet Union, South Africa and the former Yugoslavia are four of them, and already we have a joint action to deliver humanitarian aid in Bosnia.
    Mr. Worthington: Is not the Sudan a further area in which the European Union could work together and throw its full weight behind the report of the special rapporteur on human rights, Gaspar Biro, and insist that the Sudanese Government allow international aid agencies and international observers into all parts of the Sudan and, in particular, into the Nuba mountains where there is mass destruction and mass killing?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The fact that the European Union is concerned about the Sudan does not mean that the problems are any more intractable and difficult, but this is certainly an area which concerns the Foreign Ministers of the Union, and I will pass on the hon. Gentleman's particular concerns.
    Mr. Paice: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the major benefits of the recent decision regarding the accession of three new member states which he mentioned earlier is that, whether we are talking about the foreign policy pillar or any other pillar, we have seen a substantial shift from net recipients to net contributors and that this shift in the balance of decision-making in the Community must be very good news for this country?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Probably all, but certainly three, of the new member states who we hope will accede will be net contributors to the budget and this will make them as interested as we are in budgetary discipline.

    Yugoslavia
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current developments in Yugoslavia.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier in reply to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey).
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House when the joint British-American reconstruction programme in Sarajevo is due to begin? Does he agree that this came as a result of the very worthwhile talks between President Clinton and our own Prime Minister?
    Mr. Hogg: The answer is soon and yes.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: What action have the Government taken in respect of the aggressive and oppressive action by Serbia against the people of Kosovo? Will the Minister also comment on recent incursions across the Albanian border by Serbia-Montenegro?
    Mr. Hogg: We deplore them. It is very difficult to see how Serbia will be readmitted fully to the community of nations unless and until civil and political rights in Kosovo are fully established.
    Mr. Dickens: In respect of the former Yugoslavia, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Great Britain can stand tall? Were we not the first to send troops to that area? Were we not the the first to send medical supplies, food, airborne warning and communication system aircraft and ground monitoring equipment? As far as the world, NATO and the Security Council of the United Nations are concerned, Great Britain has really played its part 100 per cent.
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend and I are entitled to wrap the Union Jack about ourselves, and we do so.

    Kashmir
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other Commonwealth Governments regarding the situation in Kashmir.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have frequently discussed the situation in Kashmir with both the Indian and Pakistan Governments. They are the Commonwealth Governments most directly concerned.
    Ms Lynne: I am grateful for that answer. Has the Minister had discussions with his Commonwealth partners about setting up an eminent persons group to visit Indian-held Kashmir to see for themselves what the situation is? Does he agree that the Indian Government's refusal to allow an all-party group of British Members of Parliament to see for themselves leads one to believe that they may have something to hide with regard to human rights abuses?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If it were the wish of the Indian or the Pakistan Government to have a special group from the Commonwealth to visit Kashmir, one or other would have drawn the attention of the Commonwealth secretariat to that matter. It would be for them to draw it to the Commonwealth's attention, not for us.
    As to the latter point of the hon. Lady's question, I said in an earlier answer that there have been many impartial visitors to Kashmir in recent months.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I do not need bogus points of order. I want a point of order from Mr. George Foulkes.
Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. The Minister of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), refused to answer a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) on some spurious grounds. Would he, on the same grounds, refuse to answer a question from the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)? Would he refuse to answer—
Madam Speaker: Order. I did say I did not want a bogus point of order. The hon. Gentleman might have something to say about the manner in which questions are answered, but that does not constitute a point of order.
Mr. Foulkes: Madam Speaker—
Madam Speaker: Order. That does not constitute a point of order. If there is a point of order, I will listen to it. I have to deal with the point of order. It has to be something that I can deal with.
Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. Members of the House, are elected, represent their constituents and have every right to have their questions answered. Is it not within your power to direct Ministers to answer those questions?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Speaker of this House cannot direct Ministers—or Back Benchers for that matter. All Ministers, all Back Benchers, are responsible for the comments that they make.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The ballot for motions and the box and book are kept in the No Lobby from half-past 2 and the normal closing time should be half-past 3. Do you not think that the latecomers' queue that forms in front of you and obscures our view of you should now be ruled out of order because it also militates against the more assiduous of us who get in there and put our names down earlier?
Madam Speaker: That is the most— [Interruption.] I must answer that because it is the best point of order I have had for a very long time. I have always been annoyed when Members like this— [Interruption.]— interfere in the business in the Chamber. I believe very firmly that the box should remain out until half-past 3, and at half-past 3 the procedure should be finished with. As those are the procedures at the moment, I have to allow Members to do this, but I certainly deprecate what is happening at the present time. I understand I can now stop it. In that case, I am going to. Finished.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was standing for virtually every question during Question Time. I was the only Conservative Member standing at the last question and you had not called an end to Question
944
Time before the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) got up on a point of order. Is that correct parliamentary procedure?
Madam Speaker: Yes, I watch the clock very carefully. I know that the hon. Gentleman is very assiduous at Question Time. It is not possible for me to call all Members, but I know how keen he is. It had reached half-past 3. There was nothing further that I could do.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does it not say in "Erskine May" that a Minister has a responsibility to give an answer, and did not the junior Minister at the Foreign Office give the impression to the House that he would not answer my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway)? Surely he has to provide an answer. Some people may not like that answer, but I think that he has a duty to provide one.
Madam Speaker: As far as I heard, the Minister did answer— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. The Minister did answer; it was the content that the hon. Gentleman did not like.
Mr. George Galloway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you will not comment on the rudeness and the lack of parliamentary manners shown by the Minister of State, which is legendary among Members on both sides of the House. However, if you consult the record you will see that the answer that the Minister of State gave was a stricture that I should abstain from asking questions in the House. Will you confirm that I have as much right as any other hon. Member to ask any question that is in order on behalf of my constituents? Leaving aside the question of manners, will you confirm that I have that parliamentary right and that you will uphold it?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman certainly has that right and that is why I call him on what may be regarded as a number of contentious issues—I want to hear all points of view expressed in the House.
Mr. Andrew Faulds rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I have heard enough.
Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Faulds: Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. There is no further point of order. I have just given a ruling on the issue.
Mr. Faulds: There is another aspect.
Madam Speaker: In that case, I must hear it.
Mr. Faulds: I am most grateful to you, Madam Speaker. You are most reasonable, as always.
Madam Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be equally reasonable.
Mr. Faulds: Invariably, Madam Speaker. There is another aspect. By what right does the Minister claim that he can refuse to answer a question because he disagrees with an hon. Member's views? In the House of Commons

945
that is wholly unacceptable and although, of course, you cannot reprimand this little Minister, perhaps he will have heard what I have to say and listen to my wise advice.
Madam Speaker: As I said, the Minister answered. What grieves some hon. Members is the answer that was given, which is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Riddick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to get back to this box. The box for the ballot for motions is always placed in the No Lobby. That might give an unfair advantage to Labour Members because at least some of them enter the Chamber via the No Lobby whereas we on the Government Benches enter through the Aye Lobby. Will you consider putting the box in the Aye Lobby next time?
Madam Speaker: I think that that would be far too confusing for hon. Members. The box will remain in one Lobby. Most hon. Members have been here long enough to know where to find it, so it stays in the No Lobby. We have the ballot now; let us see who is lucky.
Ballot for Notices of Motion for Friday 18 March
Members successful in the ballot were:
Mr. Richard Alexander
Sir Jim Spicer
Madam Speaker: I wish that hon. Members would write more clearly. The third name looks like "Nicholson", but the Clerks are good at reading hon. Members' writing. It looks like David Nicholson; he should write better next time.
Mr. David Nicholson

Severn Bridges Act 1992 (Amendment)
3.38 pm
Mr. Roy Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend sections 9 and 10 of the Severn Bridges Act 1992.
The Bill would freeze tolls on the Severn bridge at the January 1994 level. An observer standing on the English side of the Severn crossing will quickly notice that traffic going out of Wales moves freely, motoring as it should, whereas vehicles going in the opposite direction grind to a halt, belching out their fumes while drivers queue up to pay their tolls for the privilege of entering Wales.
I am reminded of the words of the Welsh poet Harri Webb, who said:
"Two lands by a span connected
By a bridge o'er the waters wide
And all the tolls collected
Are on the English side."
Hardly a day goes by when I do not receive a protest about this iniquitous system. The Severn crossing is merely a short stretch of the M4 motorway and there is an increasing tendency for traffic entering Wales, especially heavy lorries, to divert around Gloucester and thereby avoid toll charges.
In a letter to me dated 7 February, Mr. Richard Wigginton, the Gloucester county surveyor, mentioned the results of surveys that he had conducted from April 1992, when tolls began to be collected only for entry into Wales. The latest monitoring report of September 1993 shows that, on the A40 west of the Highnam roundabout, there has been a 59 per cent. increase in lorries travelling into Wales, compared with a 33 per cent. increase in traffic travelling in the opposite direction.
Similar trends are occurring on the A48 and on the A4136. Mr. Wigginton states that the issue has a very high profile in Gloucester. The effects of heavy lorries chugging through Gloucestershire villages can be readily understood.
Mr. M.S. Owen, the Gwent county surveyor, has complained of what he calls severance problems in Chepstow— people being unable to cross the road because of heavy traffic that is diverting from the Severn bridge.
The monitoring of traffic bears out the findings of the influential Lex report, which was published on 19 January 1994. The report shows that most drivers feel that they should not have to pay motorway tolls, and they divert accordingly.
The difficult position has been aggravated by the decision that Severn River Crossing plc took about six months ago to end the concession agreement for bulk ticket discounts. An electronic tag system has been introduced that requires substantial payments up front of more than £200 per account and £30 per vehicle. Mr. Brian Colley, director general of the Road Haulage Association, said in a letter dated 30 October 1993 that the company did not initiate any consultative discussions about the new arrangements. The system enables the company to bypass the Severn Bridges Act 1992 and to increase substantially its income in the process.
Mr. John Whitehead, the local secretary of Transport 2000, volunteers the suggestion that the arbitrary ending of the concession agreement is directly linked to the loss of revenue due to heavy goods vehicles travelling into Wales via Gloucester. He said that a more equitable arrangement

947
would have been to wipe out the £120 million debt on the existing bridge. After all, it is only a notional figure on the consolidated fund and no bank charges are involved.
Mr. Brian Colley compares the actions of the Severn Bridge River Crossing company with arrangements for the Dartford crossing, where there is no tag charge, tags are interchangeable, and there is a substantial discount of 7.5 per cent. for tag holders. Why is there that discrimination against Wales?
For toll purposes, there are three categories of vehicle. Lorries coming into Wales pay £10.10. A lorry coming to unload a ship in Newport docks would pay that toll, yet if the same lorry crossed the Clifton bridge into Avonmouth docks it would pay nothing. That is another illustration of discrimination against Wales.
The second category of toll is £6.80 for a small van. That charge is punitive for small business enterprises. A plumber or an electrician may need to cross the river two or three times a day, and that exorbitant cost is a disincentive to enterprise.
The third category is £3.40, for a car. Some years ago when Lord Tebbit was a Member of the House he urged people who were out of work to get on their bikes. Many redundant steelworkers in south Wales have followed his advice and secured employment in Avonmouth. But for showing a bit of initiative they are charged £3.40 per day on top of their normal motoring costs. All those charges increase annually at well above the rate of inflation, and even the right to a public inquiry to contest the increases has now been arbitrarily withdrawn under the Severn Bridges Act.
Tourism must be affected on both sides of the channel. After all, in economic terms everything is decided at the margin. The burghers of Bristol, too, must be concerned about the hundreds of Welsh people who, because of those iniquitous tolls, no longer cross the channel on shopping expeditions. In that context, I am glad that my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) and for Kingswood (Dr. Berry) have agreed to be sponsors of the Bill.
Why should south Wales be discriminated against in that way? We have to compete for new jobs with towns and cities in England, and all we ask for is a level playing field. My Bill will be a step towards ending that discrimination, and I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House to give it full backing.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roy Hughes, Mr. Paul Murphy, Mr. Win Griffiths, Ms Jean Corston, Dr. Roger Berry, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Alan W. Williams and Mr. Ray Powell.

SEVERN BRIDGES ACT 1992 (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Roy Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to amend sections 9 and 10 of the Severn Bridges Act 1992: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 March, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]
Orders of the Day
  Opposition Day
  [6TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Opposition Day

    Manufacturing Industry
    Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I have also had to limit speeches between 6 pm and 8 pm to 10 minutes.
    3.48 pm
    Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move,
    That this House is of the opinion that there are industries, such as the steel industry, the car industry and the airframe industry, which cannot be allowed to fail if Britain is to remain an advanced economy; believes that the future of the sole remaining British owned and British controlled motor manufacturer, Rover, must continue to be a matter for Her Majesty's Government; observes that all these views which were expressed by the President of the Board of Trade prior to his appointment are at odds with the continuing redundancies in steel and aerospace and the acquisition of Rover by BMW since his appointment; notes that, under this Government, employment in manufacturing has fallen faster and that output of manufacturing has risen more slowly than in other major industrial countries; regrets that Britain has run a deficit in trade in manufactured goods in every one of the past twelve years and has run an unprecedented balance of payments deficit even in the years of recession; rejects the Government's policies of promoting a low wage, low skills workforce; and calls for an industrial strategy both in Whitehall and in the regions to achieve competitiveness through a high-tech, high investment manufacturing base.
    The motion stands in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, but I had hoped to be able to move that wording on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade, too, because, in an attempt to achieve cross-party unity on the question, the first quarter of the motion consists of direct quotations from the right hon. Gentleman's writings before he was appointed to his present job.
    Sadly, however, it is not possible for me to include the name of the President of the Board of Trade in the motion, because he has put his name to the amendment to delete even those passages culled from his own writing. In case it has slipped his mind, I refer him to the passage, which he will find on page 113 of his book "Where There's a Will",where he said:
    "The future of the sole remaining British owned and British controlled motor manufacturer of Rover will continue to be a matter for the Government…Otherwise, the British motor industry will find itself further down the cul-de-sac to extinction."
    There is no doubt that, when he comes to speak, the President will explain precisely at what point between 1987 and 1994 he changed his mind, because Rover, the sole remaining British-owned and British-controlled motor car company, has ceased to be British owned and British controlled and it happened while he was President. No wonder that at the Tory party fringe meeting in 1989 the President warned the meeting that they should watch for the Conservative's claim on industrial performance in case:
    "Your empty words will come back to haunt you."
    Perhaps the President will follow the words of the Minister who said, when we discussed the matter in the House, that the purchase of Rover by BMW was somehow a triumph of the industrial strategy of the Government. If that is the case, it is an industrial strategy which the rest of Europe does not seem anxious to emulate. Italy still has

    949
    two volume car manufacturers, France has two, Germany has three and Japan has five. Britain is alone in having, as some hon. Members have already prompted me, only Rolls-Royce and the Reliant Robin under British ownership.
    Mr. Iain Mills: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cook: I shall happily give way. I was about to refer to a Conservative central office research department brief, but I am happy that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will anticipate that.
    Mr. Mills: Are those car manufacturers in Italy and France productive and making money?
    Mr. Cook: They are making cars, they are providing jobs—[Laughter.] Hang on. They are making cars, they are providing jobs. they are providing exports, they are also providing contracts for the suppliers to those industries and they are fulfilling a vital role in their economies. Part of that role, which is endangered by the loss of British control, is that they provide high technology, high design and the opportunity to take strategic decisions in the car industry. That is now at risk.
    I was about to refer to the Conservative research department brief on Rover and BMW because it attempts to put in perspective the purchase of the last volume car manufacturer by a foreign firm, by contrasting it with UK firms that control and own apparently foreign companies and brands. It lists Häagen Dazs, Fabergé, Courvoisiér and, to bring it to a climax, Jacuzzi. I will not take anything away from those market industry success stories, but they are not in the same league as the last major British car volume producer.
    Häagen Dazs has its virtues, but it does not play the same role in Britain's engineering base. Courvoisiér does not make the same contribution to developing our engineering skills. I suspect that not even Fabergé provides the same orders for supply industries in Britain. If I must choose between the British ownership of Rover and Fabergé, I can express myself best with another quote from the President. In the past week, I reread the President's speech in the debate on Matrix Churchill and was much taken by a sentence of his which I rediscovered. He said:
    "If I must rely on the Attorney-General or the hon. Member for Livingston it is the simplest decision that I have ever had to make in my life."
    At the time, in my naivete, I assumed that the decision was simple because he was going to rely on his colleague the Attorney-General. I now understand that that was a coded message that he preferred the advice of even his opposite number to the advice of the Attorney-General. To echo the President of the Board of Trade, if I had to choose between British control of Faberge and Rover, it would be the simplest decision that any of us could make.
    Clearly, it does matter whether Rover is controlled in the midlands or in Bavaria, for the reasons that the President gave in 1987:
    "Foreign investment is of course to be welcomed, but control has its dangers. For the major parts of the British motor industry to fall entirely into foreign hands would leave it a hostage to decisions in foreign capitals."
    The threat to Rover is that those decisions will now be taken in Munich rather than the midlands. The risk is of a "headquarters effect" in which there will be a concentration of advanced technical skills and strategic management decisions in Bavaria. Youngsters who want to
    950
    get to the top of motor engineering design will have to go to Munich to get there. There will be a gradual increase in import controls on the content of Rover models and, ultimately, BMW will take the up-market, high value-added models, leaving Rover the low-cost, mass-volume cars that are most vulnerable to competition from low-wage economies.
    Mr. Graham Riddick: The Leader of the Opposition has now said that the ownership of companies is no longer important. Will the Labour party therefore drop clause 4 from its constitution? If not, why not?
    Mr. Cook: I am not entirely clear how that intervention arises naturally from the matter that I am rehearsing before the House. However, the issue is adequately and clearly distinguished in the writings of the President of the Board of Trade. What is at stake here is not just the question of ownership; it is the question of control. Just as Germany and BMW would not dream of letting the control of BMW pass outside Bavaria, we are also right to be concerned about the control of our last major volume car manufacturer. That point is understood in France, Germany and, most certainly, Japan.
    Mr. Riddick: What about clause 4?
    Mr. Cook: May I tell the hon. Gentleman that British Leyland was taken into the public sector because it collapsed in the private sector. While in the public sector, it was turned round and the Government passed it on to British Aerospace for a song. Given the profit that British Aerospace has now made on that ownership, Conservative Members would do well to keep quiet about public ownership.
    The real disgrace of the Rover purchase is not that it has been bought by a foreign firm but that there was no British bid to purchase it. The real indictment of the Government's stewardship of this nation's industrial financial affairs for the past 15 years is that no company, organisation or consortium had the capability or will to put up the £800 million necessary to keep Rover under British control. The most telling criticism of the Government is their lack of commitment to manufacturing industry and the fact that they made no attempt to put together a British solution.
    I presume that the President knew that British Aerospace was trying to sell the whole outfit and about the financial pressures on British Aerospace. I presume that he read the report presented to him last year by his aviation committee, pointing out that levies from the Treasury on aerospace sales now exceed current Government contributions to grant aid for research and technology in aerospace.
    Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cook: No, I should like to continue this passage. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall give way to him. I have never failed to do so because it is always highly worth while. If he will be patient, his turn will come.
    I presume that the President noticed his aviation committee's conclusion that our level of support has declined relative to other countries, that we are the only country that now deducts EC research funding from

    951
    Government funding for research and technology in aerospace, and that unless we match other country's budgets we shall be
    "forced out of key areas of aeronautics".
    British Aerospace has advertised that very danger in the past two months by declaring 1,900 redundancies since the beginning of this year. Is there any doubt that there were troubles at Rover's parent company? They were banished when British Aerospace decided to sack its chairman with a payment of £3.2 million for his year and a half in office. That is enough to meet the redundancy payments of 1,000 ordinary workers. When the Prime Minister was asked about it, he told the House that it was not a matter for him.
    The Government cannot insist that work forces should be flexible and on low wages and casual terms and conditions, and then stay silent when top executives take small fortunes when they are sacked by the same companies. That is a double standard which will destroy any attempt to build a common purpose which is necessary to regenerate our industrial base.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Does the hon. Gentleman have any recollection of the state of the British car industry when Labour was in power? Does he have any shame for Labour's record when they were in power? Is not it true that under the last Labour Government we lost the chance of having a genuine British global player in international car markets? It is both a miracle and a tribute to what this Government have achieved that we have brought the British car industry back to this state when companies such as BMW are willing to take it over.
    Mr. Cook: I remember what the situation was like at the end of the last Labour Government. I remember that we had a trade surplus—and we had run a trade surplus in every year of that Government, in a way that this Government have never managed in any year. I remember that we achieved an investment rate of over 3 per cent. of gross domestic product in manufacturing industry in a way that this Government have never managed to achieve. I remember that we had an unemployment level that this Government would regard as a major triumph if they ever once achieved it.
    Mr. John Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cook: No. I remember one other thing, since this Government are so adept at claiming that they have no responsibility for what is happening in industry: I also remember that we had a mining equipment industry. I know what has happened to that industry over the past two years. Butterly Engineering has laid off one third of its work force since the President took office; the Dale Group has more than halved its work force since the President took office; and the Anderson Group is down one quarter in its work force.
    There is no point in the Government congratulating themselves in their amendment on achieving low inflation and creating the conditions for business success and then telling those companies that the conditions for business success have been put in place. Those companies are going down because the President has destroyed their market by presiding over the closure of the most profitable pits in
    952
    Europe with the richest coal reserves in Europe. Let us not hear the Government say that that is not their responsibility.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cook: I shall give way in a moment—I want to conclude this passage.
    There is an evasion of responsibility in the Government's amendment. The opening line of the amendment invites the House to regret the Opposition's denigration of the achievements of United Kingdom companies. For the record, the achievements of United Kingdom companies over the past 15 years have been heroic, given the background against which they had to operate. But I must disabuse the Government. The subject of the debate is not how well companies have done against that background, and it is not the achievements of United Kingdom companies over the past 15 years—it is the Government's record as the stewards of Britain's industrial prosperity over those 15 years.
    Dr. Liam Fox: Will the hon. Gentleman include in that list of heroism of British industry British Steel, which cost the taxpayer £300 million a year when it was in the state sector and which is now a major contributor to this economy? That is the real success of privatisation under this Government.
    Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to debate steel —I know that a number of my hon. Friends intend to speak on steel—and if he speaks to senior executives in British Steel, he will not find a warm echo for the Government. Those executives remember how only last December a Minister of State, having given an assurance that he would agree to no deal rather than a bad deal, went to a meeting in Europe and agreed to the continuation of subsidies for companies that are undercutting British Steel. The problem for British Steel now is that it has in Britain some of the most successful and most efficient plants in Europe, which are now at risk.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Cook: I appreciate the enthusiasm of hon. Members to take part in this debate. I wish to ensure that there is some time for them to take part when I conclude, so if they will forgive me I shall continue my speech. [Interruption.] My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) presents me with some advice with regard to the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes). It may be advice that tempts me to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene at a later stage, which I would not object to.
    Why have we seen that decline in investment in British industry over those 15 years? In case we are accused of running down the British people as well as United Kingdom companies, I must say that there has been no reduction in the inventiveness or creativity of British people. British designers are working all round the world. They are designing Yamaha motor cycles, Pentax cameras and Tefal kettles and they are providing two thirds of the software for Nintendo and Sega. Any other nation would be harnessing that wealth of talent to build its own manufacturing base.
    The Government must explain why, after 15 years in charge of Britain's industry, those creative designers, at the

    953
    top of the global profession, are not working in Britain on goods to be made in Britain. One reason is that we have been through 15 years, during which at least one of the predecessors of the President of the Board of Trade told the nation that we need not worry about the decline in manufacturing, because we can all get jobs in the service industry, showing tourists round museums of industrial archaelogy after the factories have shut down.
    There is another reason. Those 15 years include two of the worst post-war recessions into which the Government tumbled Britain, by a combination of record high interest rates and an overvalued exchange rate on both occasions. Both recessions closed more industrial capacity than was destroyed by enemy action in a world war. It is permanent loss of capacity. If any Conservative Members doubt that, let them look at the trade figures. In every year until the recession in the early 1980s, Britain ran a surplus in manufacturing trade. In no year since that recession has Britain had a big enough industrial base to avoid running a deficit in manufactured trade.
    Last June, the Prime Minister addressed the National Conservative Women's conference. He urged that audience to
    "look around Europe. Look at France, at Germany, at Italy. Wherever you look things are worse than they are in Britain."
    Let us look at France, Germany and Italy—those industrial sick men of Europe. The last six months of trade figures that we have for those countries cover the period conveniently up to June 1993, which was the month of that speech. In the six months before that speech, every one of those countries ran a surplus with Britain—a surplus of £17 million in manufactured goods in every working day. Since 1985, they have all increased their exports faster than Britain; they have all had a smaller loss of manufacturing jobs than Britain and they have all increased manufacturing output faster than Britain. Those are the countries with which the Government invite us to compare their record.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how British manufacturing exports to Malaysia are assisted by the antics of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)?
    Mr. Cook: There is one reason why British exporters to Malaysia now face the possibility of disruption of their trade and that is the corrupt way in which the Government put together the Malaysian dam deal. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) received an answer to his question. It would be nice if, just once in 15 years, Conservative Members were prepared to accept responsibility for an error they made and which is now hitting manufacturing industry.
    We know on whom the Government will try to dump the blame for the poor figures of the past 15 years. We know who stands in for the Attorney-General as a scapegoat for the decline in manufacturing—it is the workers. They are not flexible enough or cheap enough or they are too wedded to what I suppose is now seen as another damaging excess of socialism—an ambition to hold a secure, full-time, well-paid job.
    I give the Government this: if their strategy was to destroy secure, full-time, well-paid jobs as the obstacle to growth, their policies have been a runaway success. There have never been so many people working in this nation without a permanent contract of employment, without protection against unfair dismissal or without security at work.
    Mr. Sykes rose—
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Member for Scarborough is not secure in his place of work, but I will give way to him.
    Mr. Sykes: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many manufacturers he has met during his career who agree with the Opposition's policy on the social chapter?
    Mr. Cook: I must say that I addressed 120 industrialists before I came to the House, and not one raised the issue of the social chapter. The concerns that we constantly hear from the Government—that the social chapter in Britain would deter inward investment—sits oddly with the recorded fact that employees of companies working for foreign firms in Britain receive an income 25 per cent. higher than those working for British firms.
    The Government have chosen to create a casual, part-time and low-wage labour market. They not only chose to create it—they boast about their success in creating it. They advertise for foreign companies to come here because British workers are worse paid. The central office brief on the sale of Rover congratulates Conservative policies in creating a work force which is paid one quarter less than the work force in Germany.
    We must be the only democracy in which the elected Government hope to run for re-election on the slogan that one is worse off under them. There is a problem. A casual, short-term and low-paid work force will also be a poorly motivated, badly trained and low-skilled work force. One does not get a competitive and keen work force if the workers know that they are treated as disposable assets. One does not get a commitment to invest in the training of a work force from a company that has no commitment to that work force.
    Last autumn, the Chancellor of the Exchequer attended the World Economic Forum, which published its 1993 report. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not a great reader, but he might take the report along with him the next time he slips into the back row of Ronnie Scott's. He might then consult the table that ranks the 22 member states by the availability of skilled labour. He will find that that table puts Britain plumb bottom. That is a measure of the damage that the Government have done by building a deregulated and casual work force.
    We will not compete with the low-wage work forces in the far east economies on the basis of wage costs. Not even this Government could advertise for investment on the basis that we can pay workers one quarter less than China. The only way to survive and to preserve a quality of life in Britain is not to trade down in wage levels but to trade up in the value that is added to the things we make, and that takes investment.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: What a revelation.
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Member for Gravesham finds that to be a revelation. That brings me to the central crashing failure of his Government's industrial record. They have presided over the collapse in manufacturing investment, which is now at its lowest level as a percentage of GDP since the Central Statistical Office started taking records.
    In 1979, investment in manufacturing as a percentage of GDP was 3.5 per cent. I invite the hon. Gentleman to pay attention to the next line, because he will find it to be a revelation. It is currently at just over 2 per cent. For the hon. Gentleman's edification, that is a drop of one third in real terms. Never once in any of those 15 years have the

    955
    Government matched the level of investment in manufacturing as a percentage of GDP of any year under Labour. Even the Government's best year is worse than the worst year under Labour.
    I will be even more insulting to the hon. Gentleman, who may find this more difficult to swallow. Even in the Government's best year, the figure was lower than in any year under the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) which it was once fashionable to denounce even more virulently than the Opposition.
    The Government cannot come up with another alibi —they were present at the scene of the crime. They have been in power throughout the period in which investment in manufacturing industry has declined. They share some of the responsibility for that historic low rate of investment because, during the same period in which they weakened trade union power at the workplace, they strengthened the financial power over industry.
    The results are there for all to see. Under the Government, the proportion of profits paid out as dividends has gone up from about 50 per cent. to almost 70 per cent. We are now distributing in dividends almost double the proportion of profits of Germany or Japan, which is why our investment performance is weaker. They retain two thirds of the profits to be reinvested in the company; British companies retain only one third of their profits for reinvestment. That is why every German worker and every Japanese worker is backed by more capital, more plant, more machinery and more investment than every British worker. I concede to the hon. Member for Gravesham that industrialists know that.
    Industrialists are aware of the need to invest more and to pay out less in dividends. They keep their dividend up because if they do not the price of their shares will fall and they will become vulnerable to a takeover. They know that if they become vulnerable to a takeover, they will receive no help from the Government, who have presided over a record number of takeovers with a minimum number of interventions. They have not once referred a hostile takeover to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the grounds of its threat to a technological base, its threat to employment or its threat to the regional balance of our economy. Even in the recession, dividends went up one sixth while investment went down one fifth. How can it be right to increase dividends when we cannot afford to invest?
    The real problem in British industry that the Government should attempt to resolve is not the high cost of wages, but the high cost of capital. The question that the Government should ask is why the rate of return expected on a research and development project in Britain is 50 per cent. higher than in Germany and 200 per cent. higher than in Japan. They should ask why Britain is the only one of those three countries that invests less in research and development than it pays in dividends.
    Mr. Roy Thomason: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason might be that we have had high inflation, which is why returns have had to be higher?
    Mr. Cook: I am confused. I do not know how often the hon. Gentleman has dropped into Treasury questions, but I understood that we were now in a permanent
    956
    non-inflationary economy. I understood that the Government's prime claim to achievement was to have knocked inflation on the head. But last year investment in manufacturing industry did not rise in response to that decline in inflation; last year, investment in manufacturing industry fell by 2 per cent. Therefore, while I welcome the hon. Gentleman's doubts about the Government's inflation record, he cannot use that as an explanation for the figures that I have given.
    We live in an age of rapid technological change. The future belongs to those nations that develop new technology and manufacture the products that other nations want to buy. The method of entry for joining those nations is to be found not through low wages and skills, but by putting Britain on the road to high investment and advanced research.
    Central office briefs for such debates always contain another traditional feature. Somewhere in the brief—no doubt it will appear again today—is the accusation that Labour has no policies. If Conservative Members cannot put their finger on the passage in today's brief, I can tell them that it is usually found at the end of a three-page attack on Labour for making too many commitments. In case a Conservative Member, such as the President of the Board of Trade, is tempted to try that one on, I shall spell out how Labour will put Britain back on the road to higher investment of the sort that was achieved under the last Labour Government.
    The proposals are contained in the document published last year. It proposes reforming the tax system to encourage investment and reviewing the changes to corporation tax that were introduced by a previous Conservative Government who placed bigger taxes on profits invested and lower taxes on profits paid in dividends. The document contains a proposal to provide industry with the security to retain profits for investment by protecting them against hostile takeovers that threaten our technological base. It proposes examining what new institutions are needed to step into the investment gap, such as a development bank on the lines of the German KFW, which specialises in providing support to help small businesses grow into medium-sized enterprises.
    We will set up a network of regional development agencies to decentralise to local people the initiative to promote their own local economic development and to encourage them to match local savings to local investment. We will set up a defence conversion unit so that we can make the best use of the skills that are now being taken out of the defence economy. That would end the waste of those skilled resources that have been going through the door of redundancy into the waste of the dole queue.
    Two months ago, I produced a document showing how we would encourage the development of small businesses by providing them with a statutory right to interest on late payments from big businesses and by providing a moratorium on insolvency proceedings to give them the possibility of being rescued as going concerns instead of simply joining the swelling ranks of bankruptcies.
    Only last week, I and my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) published a document showing how we would take the Treasury straitjacket off public sector enterprise to give it the freedom to mobilise financial investment.
    If anyone outside the House wants to see one sharp difference between our commitment to manufacturing

    957
    industry and the Government's absence of commitment, they can find it best in the months that the Government have spent dithering over the proposal by London Underground to lease new stock for the Northern line from the Derby works. That proposal is urgent because the present rolling stock is near the end of its life and the Derby works is near the end of its contracts. It would save the Treasury cash by keeping 1,200 people off the dole queue.
    If the President wants to persuade us that the Government are serious about boosting British manufacturing, let us hear from him that he will throw his weight behind a project that will both improve the quality of public service and hold together a skilled production team for the future of the British manufacturing base.
    When we published the documents that I have placed on the Table, setting out an industrial strategy that realises a vision of Britain in which we are once again a manufacturing nation, leading and not lagging behind our competitors, we were accused by Conservative Members of socialism, interventionism and other things that they pronounce with distaste. Conservative Members are the only people I know who can make a four-syllable word such as interventionism sound like a four-letter word. The irony is that it is they who are out of step; all the rest are practising interventionists. Every other country in Europe provides a higher level of support to its manufacturing industry. Even Ireland and Portugal provide a higher level of support per capita for manufacturing industry.
    In the far east, the state plays a leading role in industrial strategy. In Taiwan, the state identified 10 new sectors for high-technology production and where the companies did not exist, the state brought: in the private sector to set them up.
    In north America, home of capitalism, the Clinton Administration have brought the automobile industry together in a national project to design the car of the future: a car low on gas and pollution and high on safety and export orders. What a contrast that is with the British Government, who look the other way while Rover is taken over. They are the real oddballs; they are the odd ones out, the only ones who believe the future of a sophisticated industry can be left to the market. They are the only ones who believe their own rhetoric about the market always producing the best result. The real result is the worst performance among our competitors. In 15 years, it has produced the slowest growth in output and biggest drop in manufacturing investment as a percentage of GDP.
    It is a measure of the extent to which the Government have spiralled out of touch with ground control that Ministers still make speeches in which they claim that the worst industrial performance is actually the best. They have had 15 years to try out their ideology and the result is that, of all the British Governments of the post-war period, they have clocked up the lowest growth in GDP.
    Fifteen years is long enough for a social experiment; it is time that they accepted one of the principles they keep pushing on everybody else—that the great advantage of a flexible work force is that we can dismiss it when the enterprise fails. The Government have failed Britain. The time is coming when Britain will dismiss them.
    4.24 pm
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'regrets that the Opposition persistently denigrates the achievements of United Kingdom companies; recognises the importance of manufacturing to this country's economy; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its success in achieving the conditions for sustained non-inflationary growth-low interest rates, low inflation and good industrial relations; and welcomes the fact that both the OECD and European Commission are forecasting that the United Kingdom will be the fastest growing major economy in the EC in 1994 and 1995.'.
    The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) spent the morning with the CBI. It has been helpful to the CBI that he spelled out this afternoon the policies of the Government of which he would like to be a member. My colleagues and I listened with interest as he went through the strategy—the proposals—with, if I may say to him frankly, refreshing detail.
    I had not known until today that we would have dividend control under a putative Labour Government. I had not known, although I confess that I had suspected, that the one condition that would not matter in the conduct of the future business of a company was that it should make profits. It could make cars, toothbrushes, refrigerators or notepaper, but the one thing that would not matter is profit, because that was the one thing that the hon. Gentleman did not know about all the companies that he lauded so much on the continent of Europe.
    The difficulty with making no profits is that one cannot get investors—with one exception. The state will invest in non-profit-making businesses. But there is a difficulty, because the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the Leader of the Opposition, who has wisely left the Chamber, has promised us that there will be no ownership of companies by the state.
    Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) kindly asked—he seems to have gone as well, which is a shame but his question was nevertheless a good one—whether, within the purpose of the Labour party, there would be any further ownership as laid out by clause 4. That is a good question. I, too, have asked that question. I took the trouble to write to the Leader of the Opposition and ask for an answer. He wisely did not give one.
    What has been revealed in the House this afternoon beyond peradventure is that, if companies do not make profits, only the state can intervene; but the state is apparently not going to intervene. The logic of that is that we shall not have any companies. That seems to me to be a fundamental lacuna in the argument of the hon. Member for Livingston.
    I have to say to my hon. Friend with due apology, if he will bear with me—he will see this if he reads Hansard tomorrow—that I have tried to address the pertinent question which he put to the House, and which in his absence I have answered.
    The hon. Gentleman went on to deal with competitiveness. It is a remarkable achievement to address the House on one of the single greatest challenges that faces this country—the competitiveness of our industrial base, on which the hon. Gentleman is about to produce a report —without going through any of the significant factors that add up to competitiveness. I will take a little time of the House to address the real issues.

    959
    The next step forward of the hon. Gentleman's brave new policy initiative was regional development agencies. They are mini national enterprise boards. There will not be one granddaddy National Enterprise Board, with great and worthy figures chosen from national life. Instead, they will be chosen from local and regional areas, will do the work locally and will therefore be much less exposed to national scrutiny than was the original National Enterprise Board.
    I single out one issue on which apparently there are real difficulties. We are to have a defence conversion unit. For most of the past decade, when it fell to me to comment on these subjects, the Labour party tried to close down the defence industries. Now that, mercifully, we do not face quite such an international threat as previously, the Labour party wants to spend time converting the defence industries, which, if it had had the power, would have already been closed down.
    I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to ponder the spectre of those defence conversion units. Where will the civil servants who will give advice to the leading British industrialists come from? We would have some trade unionists, presumably to give them a representative view from the shop floor. We shall need some academics to bring that searching analysis that we have heard from the Labour party, which is based on one conviction; its Members have never spent a day in their lives making anything in any company. Then we shall need some bishops to draw up a code of morality to ensure that no British product goes to any company in the world whose practices can be found in any way to be undermining those of the party in power. All those people will then sit down in a great huddle to design the car of the future.
    Mr. George Stevenson: The right hon. Gentleman said that Opposition Members had not worked in industry. Would he care to tell us how many coal mines he had worked in before he closed them, and how many industries of any kind he has worked in, as part of a Government who have presided over the destruction of manufacturing in this country?
    Mr. Heseltine: I have never worked in any industry as part of a Government. I have spent my life trying to take industries out of the hands of Government—and, as a result, we have returned the commanding heights of the economy to the private sector, where they are winning for Britain in the markets of the world.
    Perhaps I may digress by taking the House back to the essence of the motion, which concerns the competitiveness of the British economy. The hon. Member for Livingston may not wish to deal with that in general and wide terms; it seems to me, however, that anyone making a serious analysis of the state of the British economy would want to consider the exchange rate, which is competitive. I think that such a person would want to ask questions about the state of British exports, which are now at an all-time high —63 per cent. higher in volume terms than when Labour was last in government.
    We have low interest rates: the United Kingdom base rate now stands at 5.25 per cent., the lowest rate since 1977 and among the lowest in the European Union. Interest rate cuts since 1990 are worth more than £13 billion per year off companies' interest charges. Inflation has fallen dramatically: the retail prices index, excluding mortgage
    960
    interest payments, is 2.8 per cent. Over the past four months, underlying inflation has been the lowest since 1968. UK inflation is below the European Community average on all measures.
    Manufacturing productivity is at an all-time high: it is more than 3 per cent. higher than a year ago. Between 1979 and 1992, total plant and machinery investment increased by nearly 50 per cent. The only way in which the hon. Member for Livingston can make any kind of case is to select one sector of the economy. I shall deal with his reasons for doing that in a moment.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman said that we should be posing questions about the exchange rate. He will recall that, at our last Trade and Industry Question Time, I asked him a direct question on the subject, and was given the usual brush-off of an answer that we expect on such occasions.
    The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the exchange rate is crucial to our competitiveness. Will he now state categorically that we want no further appreciation of the rate against the dollar or the deutschmark, in the interests of maintaining that competitiveness?
    Mr. Heseltine: How can the hon. Gentleman sit on the Benches of a party whose Front Benchers hardly ever make a speech without demanding larger and larger items of public expenditure, which would stoke inflation and cause the depreciation of the exchange rate? That is why the Government's counter-inflationary policies are fundamental to competitiveness.
    We now have the best industrial relations for over 100 years. Moreover, nearly 1 million new small businesses have been formed since 1979. If the hon. Member for Livingston had analysed our competitiveness against that broad horizon, and explained how his party would address and improve the position, I would have respected him.
    Mr. Peter Hain: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Heseltine: No.
    Our industrial production has increased by 3.5 per cent. in a recent quarter; it fell in France, Germany and Japan. Both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Commission are forecasting that the United Kingdom will be the fastest-growing major EC economy in 1994 and 1995. To make a speech in the House against that background is simply to indulge in the traditional practices of the Labour party—mischief-making and running the country down.
    So, because he dare not face up to the realities of addressing competitiveness, the hon. Member for Livingston has to single out three specific issues, three industries—and I want to deal with them.
    Let me start with cars. I doubt whether a sector of the British economy has been so transformed over the 1980s as our car industry. The motion calls for high investment. Let the hon. Member tell us how much higher the investment by Ford, at £3.4 billion, he thinks should have been. Let him send a message to Vauxhall, complaining about the £650 million that it has invested here. Let him tell Nissan to take its £930 million back to Japan. Let him explain to Toyota that its £840 million was not welcome or Honda that its £370 million was insufficient.

    961
    If he were prepared to tell all those companies that, I would at least understand what he was saying, but to pretend that it has not happened and that it does not matter is a travesty of the truth.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member for Livingston did one thing for which I am grateful, one thing that I praise and admire: he quoted from my book. I was going to tell all right hon. and hon. Members that it is available from the Library but, much better than that, it is available at all good booksellers. I did write the words that the hon. Member quoted and that many other commentators have quoted, and I do not in any way draw back from them.
    As Ministers responsible, when faced with the issues surrounding the recent sale of Rover, we did not stand back from them. It so happens that I was in the far east on a trade mission, but my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry (Mr. Sainsbury) saw the leading figures in BMW., as a result of which assurances were given. Are Opposition Members going to sneer and laugh at those assurances? No, they go very silent.
    The fact is that Rover now has a major interest in working with BMW, and Labour Members are longing to find a way to undermine the credibility of that position. They are at it again, as they always are; when faced with straight questions, they go quiet—and they should go quiet.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Heseltine: My right. hon. Friend the Minister for Industry received assurances from the BMW chairman that Rover would be maintained as a separate enterprise, based in Britain, with independent manufacturing, design and development facilities and with purchasing and distribution functions. I am proud that it was one of my Ministers who asked for and received those assurances.
    It means that Rover now has the opportunity to take advantage of the international dealer base and the expertise of BMW in increasing the scale and strength of the British motor industry, so that it will be a part of what we now perceive to be the opportunity to close the deficit in our balance of trade.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Heseltine: So I have no apologies to make. Indeed, I would go further. As many right hon. and hon. Members will recall, we had a debate in the House not that long ago about Leyland DAF, when the hon. Member for Livingston was at it again. He wanted us to do what the Europeans do, but we refused. We gave every possible help to the receiver to find people who would take over those businesses.
    Today, the three businesses are back in the private sector in their own names and are increasing production, and the Government have contributed, at the very most, £5 million-worth of regional aid. What the Europeans did was to become deeply involved. It cost their taxpayers over £100 million, and the European Commission is investigating the aid programme that they put forward.
    I can imagine that that would have squared the hon. Member's circle. What a joy. He would have pushed us further into Europe, he would have put social costs on the backs of those companies, the whole thing would have
    962
    been referred to the European Commission, and the Labour party could have paraded it as a triumph for the internationalisation of the European process.
    Let me now move on to the second of the hit targets that the hon. Member for Livingston singled out—our steel industry. The motion is very interesting, because it refers to industries that should not be allowed to fail. I do not think that anyone thinks that those industries should be allowed to fail, but what did the hon. Gentleman have in mind when drafting the motion and referring to the industries that must not be allowed to fail, including steel?
    The hon. Member for Livingston said that the British steel companies were among the best in Europe. Why? Because we privatised them. Because they have improved their output and their cost structure and their profitability, we no longer have to subsidise them as taxpayers, and the hon. Gentleman said that they are among the best in Europe.
    In that case, why are they in this Labour party motion? Why should anyone think that they are in danger of failing if they are the best in Europe? The answer is that it is only the Labour party that wants to create the impression that they will fail in order that Labour Members can pander to the worst anxieties of their constituents in order that they can do what has to be done in their party interest, regardless of the interests of Britain's companies, which are undermined in the process. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
    The third issue singled out by the hon. Member for Livingston was, interestingly enough, airframes. I have been Secretary of State for Defence and Minister for Aerospace and Shipping. I have been deeply involved in the aerospace industry. [Interruption.] There is not much point in talking to Opposition Members. They do not listen —and, much worse, if they did listen they would not understand.
    I have spent many political years involved with that industry and I have never yet heard anyone in that industry say, "We want a policy for the airframe industry." We do not build gliders in this country. We have an aero-engine industry; we have an avionics industry. Why, therefore, did the hon. Member for Livingston single out airframes? I will tell you why, Mr. Deputy Speaker—because if he had mentioned aero-engines he would have had to face the fact that the triumph of Rolls-Royce plc is a triumph for privatisation, and he cannot bear success.
    Mr. Robin Cook: I am sorry to disabuse the President of his hypothesis. The reason why those three words are there in the second line of our motion is that they are a direct quotation from page 111 of his book.
    Mr. Heseltine: Absolutely— [Interruption.] I will do a deal with the hon. Gentleman. If, from now on, he will follow my policies and my quotations, I will cease to attack him across the Dispatch Box.
    The aero-engine business is a critical one. Rolls-Royce is an example of just how successful British manufacturing industry can be, with an order book of £6.4 billion and 25 per cent. of the world market.
    The hon. Member for Livingston asks again for a strategy. Perhaps I can tell him the strategy. For example, in the case of the airbus, we have provided £700 million of financial support to British Aerospace. The EH101 helicopter, a joint Ministry of Defence/Department of Trade and Industry project, costing £57 million; the

    963
    Tornado, with £7.5 billion of Government money; the European fighter aircraft, with £1.4 billion of support; and the Hawk, one of the most successful aircraft of its type that has been launched in this country, were all built with the help of British taxpayers. Those are the facts; those are the results.
    The hon. Member for Livingston wants to substitute, for that real support for real projects and real success, a vague range of platitudes, which will add not one whit to national wealth.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The President, as he chooses to call himself, tells us that he spent all that taxpayers' money. Can he explain to us why he spent that taxpayers' money in that way? Why?
    Mr. Heseltine: I did it to help Britain's defence industries and to help Britain's defence capability. I have always been prepared to acknowledge that, if we do not understand that, we shall not be able to face the fact that other countries—America, France and a range of other countries—support their defence industries, and it is a world competitive process. I have always argued that case, and I have never heard it seriously questioned by Conservative Members.
    Let me discuss one other aspect.
    Mr. Richard Caborn rose—
    Mr. Heseltine: Forgive me: I want to make some progress.
    Let me mention one other major fallacy of the motion. It points out that employment has been decreasing in some of those industries—the major manufacturing industries —and the solution, apparently, is more investment and the use of more highly skilled people.
    What the Labour party cannot understand—has not begun to embrace in its analysis of the world that confronts us—is that more investment and the use of more skilled people might lead to fewer people being employed. That is the dilemma that confronts the advanced technological world in which we move. Any suggestion—that is what the Labour party did with the steel industry—that one can stop or slow that process leads to the loss of markets, to increased subsidisation and, in the end, the rationalisation which too often takes one out of that business altogether.
    The very things that the Labour party is speaking about, therefore—increased investment to secure the increased productivity and competitiveness—are likely, in many cases, to result in a reduction in employment. There is no point in the House and the country not understanding that, and explaining it to a work force who will have to have better and more widely based training precisely to enable people to move from job to job more frequently, several times during their working life.
    That brings me to the question that I asked at the beginning—why did the hon. Member for Livingston choose manufacturing? There is an answer to that. Why did he choose those three industries? He did so because it so happens that, in this regard, they produce a case which does not extend across the range of the British economy. The answer to that is very important.
    Manufacturing accounts for only 27 per cent. of the wealth-producing sector and 20 per cent. of the whole economy. Of course it matters, but every sector matters,
    964
    and the only reason why the hon. Member keeps using those statistics is that he cannot find any way of applying the general case to the general state of the economy.
    The only intellectually honest way to deal with comparisons of that type is to compare peak with peak and trough with trough; the high point of one economic cycle, compared with the high point of another. However, the hon. Member for Livingston cannot do that because, if we compare the high point of 1979 with the high point of 1989, his case falls apart. Manufacturing investment was greater under the Tories, up from £13.5 billion to nearly £15 billion between 1979 and 1989.
    Let us therefore take the hon. Gentleman's own phoney way of dealing with those issues, which is to consider the whole economy. Investment for the whole economy in 1979 was £75.8 billion. The comparable figure for 1992, comparing a peak with a trough, was £94.7 billion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Comparing a Labour peak with a Tory trough, what do we find? A growth of 25 per cent. in investment.
    The news gets rapidly worse for the hon. Member for Livingston. The ground is already being cut from under his feet. The figures in the latest Confederation of British Industry surveys show—I would be the first to recognise that not many hon. Members have seen the latest CBI surveys; they were so good that they hardly received a mention anywhere in the national press—that the gross domestic product in the last quarter of 1993 was 2.5 per cent. up on the previous year. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecast is that manufacturing output in the United Kingdom will grow by 3 per cent. next year—one of the fastest rates in the European Union. Certainly manufacturing matters, but it is myopic to pretend that the energy, tourism, construction, communications, entertainment and invisibles industries do not matter at all. They all contribute to the national economy, and they include some of the most successful and largest companies in this country.
    As the hon. Member for Livingston is prone to publicise good news, I am sure that he will want to congratulate the Stakis Hotel Group, which recently announced a £6 million project to build a hotel in his constituency. I hope that there will not be a row of placarded pickets outside demanding that it be closed because it is not manufacturing, because such an action would not come across very well.
    I refer now to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), who will be winding up the debate for the Labour party. I hope that he too will celebrate the good news of the £1 billion order from the Ministry of Defence for Challenger tanks and a £140 million order from Oman for tanks and vehicles—unless Labour can find a way of upsetting our relationship with that country which would lead to the cancellation of the order.
    Why did we not hear anything from the hon. Member for Livingston about the small and medium-sized economy of this country? Why did he not tell us about the 1 million extra companies that have been formed despite the world recession? The fact is that, every time the hon. Gentleman talks about competitiveness, he has to resort to generalisations and vagueness. He is not capable of producing solid policies relating to the wealth-creating process.
    Mr. William Cash: My right hon. Friend mentioned intellectual honesty and the macro-economic situation. He may recall that our 1992 manifesto

    965
    committed us to the exchange rate mechanism as the centrepiece of our counter-inflationary policy. Does he accept that it was a failure, and that we should under no circumstances re-enter it? In view of the good news to which he has referred, and in the light of his views on the role of the Treasury in these matters, does he agree that we must ensure that we do not go back into the ERM, and that we will not take a single step further towards economic and monetary union?
    Mr. Heseltine: I can say only that I helped to write that manifesto, and there is not much point in my hon. Friend trying to re-write it now.
    It is very important that we deal with competitiveness. Nobody can seriously doubt the nature of the challenge we face in the world of wealth creation. The Opposition parties —the Liberals play the game as ruthlessly as the Labour party—talk of the national preoccupation that great care must be taken before we take risks with the national reputation and self-interest of our companies overseas. The fact is that Opposition politicians have become expert at undermining by innuendo and smear the interests of our exporting companies.
    Let me explain to the Opposition parties that Britain does not rule the world. We do not dispense justice to the world; we do not police the world; and we do not establish the customs and practices of other countries. But we do have to sell to the world, and everything that is said here is used to harm our interests and is exploited by our competitors.
    On the shop floor and in the boardrooms of this country, every sanctimonious posture is seen for what it is—the desperate parading of Opposition parties trying to get cheap publicity, regardless of the damage they do to British firms and investment. For that reason, I believe that the House will want to support the Government tonight.
    4.53 pm
    Mr. Doug Hoyle: Listening to the President, as he likes to be called, giving his prospectus for the future of manufacturing, one would believe that we were living in a paradise. He could also perhaps have explained why the Government are so electorally unpopular, for unpopular they are. Many people would not begin to recognise what the President of the Board of Trade tried to explain to us.
    Conservative Members, especially those sitting on the Government Front Bench, are like false rain doctors who keep saying that the rain will come tomorrow and the famine will soon be over. The truth is that the rain is not likely to come—we are as far from prosperity as ever.
    Mr. John Evans: My hon. Friend shares a constituency boundary with me. Is he aware that SmithKline Beecham today announced the closure of the Beecham's factory in St. Helens with the loss of 480 jobs, thus ending a 150-year association with the town? Is he aware that, seven days ago, the company reported an increase in profits to £1.2 billion but did not have the courtesy to inform the work force or the trade unions of its intention to close the factory? Is that not typical of the way in which British employers treat their work forces?
    Mr. Hoyle: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I see that the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr.
    966
    Brandreth) is smiling. If redundancies in the north-west amuse him, it is perhaps something about which he should search his conscience.
    Mr. Gyles Brandreth rose—
    Mr. Hoyle: No, I shall not give way.
    Mr. Brandreth: Will the hon. Gentleman please give way, as he mentioned me?
    Mr. Hoyle: Oh, very well.
    Mr. Brandreth: One is, of course, always concerned about any new unemployment. I am grateful that unemployment in my constituency is about 27 per cent. lower than five years ago because of all the inward investment. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us something about the social chapter, which the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) failed to explain? The Department of Employment reckons that the cost of the social chapter would be about £5 billion. What do manufacturers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency believe that the cost would be?
    Mr. Hoyle: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there will be no manufacturers in my or any other constituency if the Government continue as they are. It was significant that when my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) gave the House the grave news of the factory closure, the President chose to ignore it and left the Chamber. He left and the hon. Member for City of Chester smiled—I do not believe that that is the way to treat such news.
    It is all very well for the President of the Board of Trade to tell us about his wide experience in industry, but he has never worked in industry in his life. The same is true of all Government Front Benchers and, indeed, of many Conservative Back Benchers. I should have preferred the President to consider the underlying problems which could occur and which have occurred in the north-west.
    In Lancashire alone, 40,000 people work in the defence industry. All their jobs could be affected by the imminent defence cuts, but we heard the right hon. Gentleman try to decry my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and our attempt to think of other industries and products to create new jobs. We would establish a defence diversification agency to examine what we could be doing. That idea was received with laughter, despite the fact that jobs are disappearing. The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) is as worried as I am. He nods his head and shows sympathy and concern because 823 jobs might go at the royal ordnance factory in Chorley. In fact, notice has already been served. The 800-acre site in Chorley should be developed, yet the President of the Board of Trade said nothing about it.
    The matter is of grave concern in the north-west. In Cheshire, Cammell Laird recently closed down. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North expressed concern about the rundown of the work force base. There has been a rundown of industry at Pilkington. In the past two weeks, 109 jobs have been lost at BICC in my constituency because of the state of economy. My hon. Friend said that the Parkside pit, the last in the north-west and one of the most modern, has also shut.
    Mr. Den Dover: Does not the hon. Member welcome the Government's new policy for the north-east, the east midlands and Yorkshire to designate enterprise

    967
    zones in old coal-mining regions which have experienced an enormous loss of coal-mining jobs? That policy proposes 100 per cent. capital allowances, 10 years without business rating and free planning criteria. Will he therefore welcome the changes in the defence industry in the north-west and the introduction of an enterprise zone at the royal ordnance factory in Chorley, which, as he correctly said, has 800 acres of land available? We should be flexible and quick on our feet and should come up with new industries and job opportunities.
    Mr. Hoyle: I should welcome an enterprise zone in Parkside, where the colliery has closed. The other day, I heard the hon. Gentleman question the Prime Minister without obtaining a positive answer on enterprise zones. I should welcome any measures that would create new jobs in not only Chorley but Newton-le-Willows, St. Helens and Warrington. We need those jobs.
    Redundancies have been announced at AEA, which is one of the more successful companies in Warrington. The hon. Member for Chorley did heed a few words of sombre warning. He joined me in condemning the sale of the highly successful truck division of Leyland to DAF. We were right, because Leyland was sold off to a village company that was not large enough to provide the opportunities that the then Secretary for Trade and Industry said would develop. We were told that the sale provided a great opportunity, but we know what happened. The bus company was acquired by a management buy-out, and in turn it was sold to Volvo. We have witnessed the destruction of the bus and coach industry in this country. The modern bus manufacturing plant in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has closed.
    Leyland, what is left of it, has experienced difficulties; but thanks to its management, it is holding its head above water. It is no longer the powerful firm that was recognised worldwide for its trucks, coaches and buses. We should take that lesson on board.
    Rover, the last British car company, has been sold to a foreign company. We do not need to look into the crystal ball to learn any lessons: we recall what happened to the British truck industry. Rover has been sold to BMW, one of its competitors, with all the possible dangers of that. I am sure that the four-wheel drive vehicle, which was the jewel in Rover's crown, has a future, but the future of the other models is less certain, especially since Honda's announced withdrawal. Honda helped to create Rover's success. It invested money in new models and in research and development.
    Will such investment continue? What will replace the co-operation and collaboration between Rover and Honda? Will BMW fill that vacuum? What will happen when there is competition between BMW and Rover models? The Opposition know and have tried to make the point that such decisions will be taken not in this country but in Germany. There is a danger that Rover's future models, especially its larger ones, will merely be badge-engineered products.
    I should have thought that that would be of some concern to the President of the Board of Trade, who again outlined the prospectus and told us how successful we are. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said that that success was due to our leaving the fixed exchange rate system. That enabled us to compete. We were taken into
    968
    that system by the previous Prime Minister, who became one of its foremost opponents, but hon. Members should not forget that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time was the present Prime Minister. Entry might have been desirable, but the Government took us in at the wrong rate and at the wrong time. It is only because we left the system that we have had success with exports.
    We must get rid of the structural difficulties that still exist in many of our industries. I noticed that the President of the Board of Trade again steered away from addressing the economic indicators. All hon. Members welcomed the falls in unemployment, but there was a rise in January. The retail sector and the previous Chancellor expressed fear about what might happen as a result of this year's Budget. They warned that tax rises would cut consumer spending and reduce the chances of a boom. The underlying rate of inflation, which has been the jewel in the crown of the Conservative party, is beginning to increase again. I should have thought that the President would spend some time examining those indicators.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North knows, the aluminium industry is important to Warrington. People in the industry told me recently of the consequences of free-market conditions. We are always told that everything must be left to the market. Free-market conditions in the world mean that the aluminium industry in this country and in Europe is being undercut by supplies from previously uneconomic plants in Russia, which use outdated smelters and pollute the environment. That puts the aluminium industry in this country, Europe and worldwide under great strain.
    One understands that, given their position, the Russians are seeking to find what markets they can, but environmentally advanced smelters in this country are closing because of imports from countries whose plants pollute the atmosphere. Again, the President of the Board of Trade made no comment on that. What help and advice has he given to that important world industry?
    The Minister might note and pass on to the Department of the Environment the importance of recycling in the aluminium industry. There is an aluminium plant in the Warrington, South constituency, the neighbouring constituency to mine. When considering how we can achieve greater success in recycling, I hope the Minister will tell the Department of Environment that the aluminium industry should be involved in its survey. There should be co-operation. Such matters cannot and should not be left to the market.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) will speak later on the steel industry, but I may say in passing that, once again, we appear to have got the rough end from the Commission. We have already heard that we have the most modern steel industry in Europe, which was created under public enterprise and then sold. We have seen many redundancies and many closures of what were economic and viable plants, yet, despite all that, fines are being imposed on British industry while subsidies are given to the industries of other countries. We heard nothing about that from the President of the Board of Trade at the Dispatch Box, except that it was a matter for the Commission.
    Mr. Peter Hardy: My hon. Friend will be aware that the achievement of the British steel industry today is to be able to produce steel at a cost of £413 a

    969
    tonne, compared with Germany's £558 a tonne and Japan's £572 a tonne. Does he think that the Japanese or German Government would be as daft as the British Government?
    Mr. Hoyle: No Government anywhere could be as daft as our Government. One despairs of them and of what they are doing to British industry.
    Rover has been sold. Yet Gareth Rhys, a motor industry expert who offered his expertise to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry when I was there, reported that there could have been a management buy-out of Rover instead of its being sold to a competitor such as BMW—[Interruption.] I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) is saying, but Gareth Rhys said that that could have happened. But to prop up the British aerospace industry, Rover was sold for £800 million.
    Mr. John Butcher rose—
    Mr. Hoyle: Let me finish what I am saying, and then of course I shall give way.
    What did Mr. Cahill, the tax exile who was appointed, get for the master stroke that put the British motor industry in jeopardy? He got a £10 million pay-off. And what did the Prime Minister say? Like the President of the Board of Trade, he said that that was not a matter for him. I expect that the workers at British Aerospace, the royal ordnance factory and Beecham would have liked redundancy terms such as those, yet the pay-off was for delivering a blow at the economy of this country.
    Mr. Butcher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as I am hoping to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    I am afraid that the dream of a management buy-out, which many of us would have found attractive, must remain just that. It is common knowledge that even if £700 million or £800 million could have been found to buy out the equity, another £600 million or £700 million would have been needed to develop the model range, and that sort of money would not have been available to such an operation.
    Mr. Hoyle: It was the undue haste with which British Aerospace sold out Rover, with the full backing of the Government, that alarmed many of us. The hon. Gentleman says that the management buy-out must remain a dream. Yes, it must now, for ever more, because control of the last British motor manufacturer has passed from this country and in future decisions will be taken in Germany.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: My hon. Friend is right about the impact of the sale of Rover, but I remind him that we have one other British-owned car manufacturer left—Beans Engineering of Tamworth, which produces about 1,300 Robin Reliants and Rialtos a year, and about 150 Scimitars. That makes it slightly larger than Rolls-Royce.
    Mr. Hoyle: I praise Beans Engineering for what it turns out, and I hope that it will continue to turn out those products and will expand its production. That firm makes an important contribution because, as my hon. Friend says, it is slightly larger than Rolls-Royce. But now we are down to talking about the odd one or two companies. Let us hope that what remains of the indigenous motor manufacturing industry has a future.
    970
    I despair, however, because we have heard nothing positive at all from the Government. The President of the Board of Trade gave his usual knockabout performance, the kind of performance that we have grown to expect from him. He may talk about honesty, but it might have been more honest of him to have come to the House a while ago when we had a debate on Matrix Churchill and told hon. Members what had happened, instead of waiting until he was called before the Scott inquiry and then saying that he was almost forced to send innocent people to prison.
    We need no lessons from the Conservative party about credibility or honesty. I was disappointed that the Secretary of State did not take his office seriously and say what he intended to do about the vital parts of the economy, instead of engaging in a knockabout performance. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston was right when he spoke of the civil and the defence sides of the aerospace industry, and about the continuing demise of companies such as Beecham and BICC. Even successful companies such as AEA Technology are continuing to slim their work forces.
    If Ministers would get out of their black cars into the real world, they would find despair, disillusion and disgruntlement among many people wherever they went. Despite the figures that the Government publish every month, they would see factories closing—
    Mr. Dennis Turner: My hon. Friend has made an important point about companies continuing to close, especially in view of what the President of the Board of Trade said about the steel industry. Steel companies throughout the country are continuing to close, and one of the reasons why—apart from the fact that companies in Europe are operating in a manner that is totally devastating to our competitiveness —is the 70 per cent. increase in scrap prices over the past 12 months. A company in my constituency is struggling with electricity prices. It is paying 54 per cent. more per kilowatt of electricity than its parent company is paying in France. That is supposed to be the competitive—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The interventions have been very long.
    Mr. Hoyle: That may have been a long intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend was expressing the concern of his constituents and mine, and that of the constituents of my other hon. Friends and of many Conservative Members, too.
    As I was saying, if Ministers would get out of their cars when they made their rare visits to plants and would talk not only to the directors in the boardroom but to the office staff and the people who produced the goods, the people on the shop floor, they would get a different message.
    I have no faith in the future of our industry if it rests with the Government—with jaded John, careless Kenneth, miserable Michael and the rest of the motley crew. It is time that they got out and we had a general election to elect a Government who believe in industry and in bringing about investment and employment and who will restore our manufacturing industry to what it once was—profitable and expanding. That will never happen so long as the present Government remain in power.
    5.18 pm
    Mr. John Butcher: The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) said that he doubted whether many hon. Members had industrial

    971
    experience in their own right. I preface my remarks by saying, as co-chairman of the all-party manufacturing group, that that weakness of the House does indeed sometimes manifest itself. I recall debates in the past on the engineering industry where we could muster only about 18 or 20 colleagues who had direct experience of the engineering industry at that time. I hope that the hon. Member for Warrington, North will accept in a non-partisan manner that the way in which Members of Parliament are recruited, selected and elected is something that the major political parties should consider if, with integrity, we are to defend the interests of a key sector of our economy which produces tradeable goods to the tune of about 80 per cent. of its output. Sometimes we must recognise our weaknesses and recognise that, although we may be brilliantly equipped to comment on the fortunes of manufacturing industry, due to the way in which Members of Parliament are recruited we have not brought sufficient numbers into the House who have truly understood an industry in which they have worked and earned their livelihoods. I add immediately that I include myself in that minority of people.
    I shall make two suggestions. One is about an issue which both parties deem important—training and education and how those factors affect the performance of manufacturing industry. The other is about the cost and availability of capital to a sector which distinguishes itself from the service sector by virtue of the fact that it is more capital intensive than a service sector activity. I shall return to those points in a few moments and I hope that I can lay before the House a couple of proposals which may at least be worthy of further debate, even if they may not find complete consensus.
    Before that, I shall refer to our current position as a trading nation. In our debates we tend to work in time frames in which industry and commerce do not work. When I listen to speeches, I sometimes think that we forget about leads and lags and trade cycles. I was refreshed and encouraged by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when he brought that point to the centre of his argument. In considering trends about which we ought to worry, I shall lay one set of statistics before the House. In 1964, Britain enjoyed around 14 per cent. of the world's traded exports. By 1979, that figure had fallen to 8 per cent. If my memory serves me correctly, we did stop the rot in the 1980s and have kicked up just above that 8 per cent. in recent years.
    There are a number of reasons why that remorseless decline occurred during a period in which both Labour and Conservative parties had time running our economy. First, an intensification of competition occurred. There was not too much competition in certain key sectors in the Pacific Basin in 1964. Now there is intensive competition in the sectors in which we are currently fighting in our domestic and international markets. We threw away a large number of the advantages that we held in the 1960s, but we now have an opportunity, in the first investment cycle out of the past five since the war, to be real winners in the international markets.
    Something is going on out there which is exciting and tangible. If one considers the growth in productivity in this country over the past half a decade, one sees a rate of growth which cannot be explained away merely by the
    972
    occurrence of surplus capacity as we emerge from a recession. It is a normal and natural phenomenon to see an increase in productivity when we come out of recession, but the current rates of increase in productivity are virtually unprecedented in our post-war history. That means that for the first time we are out-performing our competitors in Europe in the application of certain investment programmes and especially in some of the high-tech investment programmes as they apply to manufacturing systems engineering, to design work, to computer-integrated manufacture and to computer-aided design. Those special technologies have been applied faster and in a more sophisticated manner in Britain than by most of our competitors. To a certain extent, that explains the sea change in our performance over recent years. Let us bank that as an asset that we can continue to use.
    We have had a bonus in the exchange rate position, which may be short or medium term. There is no doubt that the Germans especially are deeply worried about the rate at which we can capture some of their markets in north America, for example, and at which we can begin to penetrate their domestic market. The exchange rate competitiveness has been of great help, but one cannot run a country, an economy or a manufacturing sector for ever counting on an advantage given through exchange rate competitiveness. As hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have said, we must get into higher added value, higher productivity, and apply new technologies to our basic industries.
    However, we must beware of taking German economic history and applying it to Britain. No one in the House will deny that Germany has had 40 brilliant years as a manufacturing economy. It has built its Wirtschaftswunder and has been immensely successful. Germany developed a social market economy which in its terms worked and which gave it an economic dominance in Europe which many of us envied. However, it developed a social market economy which has become more social than market. German industrialists are now worried that their wonderful years are coming to an end. They can see only an erosion of market share, higher on-costs and their competitors giving them a hard time.
    One can take two views of the German problem—one can either assume that it will bulldoze its way through that problem in three or four years, or one can take the slightly more apocalyptic view that some of its current structural defects may continue for some time and be the devil's own job to put right. I veer towards the latter view. We must not adopt the Germans' policies, which are beginning to fail them, with social chapterism and loading on-costs on to employers. If we do that, our German competitors will start to smile again.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. Will he comment on whether he has experience, as I have, of recently visiting a German manufacturing factory and realising that they not only do not have the technology that we have but they do not have our industrial relations either? [Interruption.] It is similar to visiting a British engineering plant in the 1970s in terms of management fear of the unions.
    Mr. Butcher: I notice the response of Opposition Members and I repeat what I said earlier. We must be aware of leads and lags and investment cycles. Opposition Members may smile, but it is indisputable that in the five

    973
    investment cycles since the war Germany has outperformed us in three and one was a shaded bet. However, in the recent investment cycle, we have done better in the application of new ideas—
    Mr. Corbett: What about Germany's industrial base?
    Mr. Butcher: I am not disputing that Germany's base has been built up faster than ours, but when one puts things right in 1985 one sometimes does not see the benefits until 1995. The Germans know that and we know that. Why can the hon. Gentleman not accept that and celebrate the fact that we have a chance to be winners again?
    In some areas there is a consensus in the House on objectives, but unfortunately there is dissent about how to achieve them. I refer to training and to the shortage of capital in key sectors such as small and medium-sized business and manufacturing. When I was an education Minister, I enjoyed a trip to Germany. I did not take an entourage—just one inspector—and we did not see any Ministers, but spent our time intensively in German schools talking to German children, German students and German parents.
    The German tripartite education system has Hauptschulen, Realschulen and Gymnasiums—high schools, technical schools and grammar schools. We abandoned such a system, but the Germans retained their free-place, state technical schools for 11 to 18-year-olds. Interestingly, the middle-class parents of children in Germany were fighting to get their youngsters not into the equivalent of grammar schools but into the technical schools because they saw the vocational opportunities to be gained from such an education.
    In the past two and a half decades we have abandoned that system. May I tell my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, who used to be responsible for education, that we may be giving technical schools a push now, but why cannot we give children of statutory school age of all backgrounds, in every city, an opportunity of a technical education, paid for by the state? More than anything else, that would help us to overcome what many hon. Members are worried about—an anti-industrial culture in education and the media.
    Mr. Ken Purchase: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to speak of the culture in which we live, particularly for manufacturing, although I suspect that it has more of a class nature than an educational one. Does he agree that the tripartite system that he mentioned operated in this country post-Hadow from 1935 until the 1970s, yet failed to deliver as the German system has delivered? If he thinks it through carefully, he may accept that this country has a class bias towards engineers and their status which is different from Germany's. The truth lies more in that than in the tripartite system.
    Mr. Butcher: I am being tempted into making a longer speech than I had intended. I have thought carefully about this matter and it is a chicken-and-egg situation. The Germans have kept their strong industrial culture because they have kept a strand of their schooling through which they put a third of their children. They continue to value that culture whereas I am afraid that we tend not to give children the opportunity to be exposed to simple questions
    974
    like "What is a balance sheet?" and "What is a production control system?" No one under the age of 18 knows what those are.
    Given the two hats that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy has worn in the Government, my plea to him is that we should stop mucking about with the introduction of technical schools for statutory-aged school children. Let the state fund them, let us have at least one in every city of any size, and let us restore the opportunities that have been denied to many of our young people in the past quarter of a century. Let us start putting ladders up against the wall again. When I hear the manager of a big manufacturing company say that he failed his 11-plus and went to a technical school, I wonder whether future generations who could have had the opportunity to say the same will be thinned out because they will not have had that alternative opportunity.
    There is still a shortage of risk capital in the small and medium-sized manufacturing sector. We can produce schemes to give incentives to people to invest by exempting them from certain taxes. At first sight my proposal may be dismissed as indulging in the worst aspects of class warfare, but I propose that we abolish capital gains tax for investments where there is a real risk of loss and where a long-term gain is sought. We already have some history on that. We know that we need not necessarily abolish capital gains tax where the gains are short term and virtually guaranteed, but the manufacturing sector and the small and medium-sized firms sector would benefit most from the abolition of capital gains tax under the criteria that I have placed before the House.
    If there is agreement that we have a problem with capital, let us try that route—and if we do so, for Pete's sake let us not argue about whether capitalists or workers will benefit because everyone will benefit.
    5.34 pm
    Mr. Nigel Jones: From time to time in the House someone makes a gem of a speech and we have just heard such a speech from the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher). It is a great delight to follow him.
    First, may I declare an interest in ICL Computers? It seems particularly appropriate, when Britain appears to be experiencing a gradual economic recovery, to examine the current state of UK manufacturing. How has it fared during the recession and as a consequence of 1980s economic policies, and what does the future hold? Many hon. Members—we have already heard one or two in this debate —are bound to condemn the Government over their policy void towards manufacturing in Britain, but this debate is a chance to put forward positive ideas for creating jobs and wealth, both now and in the future.
    Britain has traditionally earned its way in the world by inventing and making quality products. In recent years, as technology has forced change, the number of people employed in manufacturing has diminished. Other countries have adapted to that change better than Britain. No one in the House will sit back and say that all is well today with British manufacturing industry. Since 1979, large-scale industrial manufacturing has declined almost to the point of extinction in some areas. Our position in product manufacturing is certainly insecure. The

    975
    perception outside is that everything seems to be made in Japan, Germany or Taiwan and that Britain has, essentially, a service-based economy.
    I spent more than 20 years in the computer industry before being elected to Parliament and I share the worry of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West about the make-up of Parliament today. In my 20 years in industry, I learnt that British people are not the problem. We have the best inventors and designers in the world, although we may not have enough of them. Britain has long been associated with inventions, but rarely with their practical application in recent years.
    Television advertisements are widely acknowledged to be best made in Britain, but the televisions themselves are made abroad. The best cars in the world are widely acknowledged to be designed in Britain, but they are made either abroad or in Britain by foreign companies.
    Britain lacks a vision for the future. The Government have a key role to play in defining that vision. We must acknowledge that the best of British manufacturing is first class. We cannot and should not criticise it. But that is not enough. Given our £12 billion trade deficit in a recession, we must be worried for our manufacturing industry as a whole. I am concerned about the state of small and medium-sized British manufacturing companies as they are the base of our wealth. Where are they? Why are there so few of them? How well are they doing? And what can the Government do to help manufacturing companies so that they thrive and Britain can pay its way in the world?
    To put it bluntly, we must be able to apply enough national wealth to keep us in the manner to which we have become accustomed. How are we to ensure a manufacturing base that is strong enough to earn the money to keep up our standards of living? How are we to ensure that that is not done to our country's environmental detriment?
    The future of British wealth is in high technology. Hon. Members may think, "He would say that, coming from a computer background". In the mid to late-1980s, the increase in manufacturing output, much of which later proved to be unsustainable, was strongest not in high-technology, high-growth product manufacturing sectors but in more dated, low-growth areas such as spirits, tobacco, asbestos goods, munitions and small arms. Each of those markets is now facing a decline.
    We cannot return to manufacturing of the past, but we can have a strategy for the future and a proper integrated plan. It should include support for research into new technologies, targets for sustainable developments, and ensuring high educational standards for future generations and for those currently trying to get back into the work force. That must be led by the Government. It is not the Government's job to run industry but they must support it. As the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West said, the Government must provide the opportunity for industry to take long-term decisions, and they must encourage industry to take an environmental view and an investment-led view.
    In 1987, before I entered the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) introduced the House to the concept of a fibre-optic communications highway reaching into every home in the land. That was his
    976
    vision and we should aspire to it because fibre-optics are with us. I have a piece of fibre-optic cable with me which was made by BICC.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is it not the case that fibre-optics were being developed by British Telecom years before the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made his speech?
    Mr. Jones: Fibre-optic communications are a miracle which was invented in Britain. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of this, but it is not acceptable to bring what could be considered a missile into the Chamber.
    Mr. Jones: I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is nothing subversive in a one-foot length of fibre-optic cable.
    My right hon. Friend's vision in 1987 was a fibre-optic communications network—a broad band highway reaching into every home in the land. Every time the utilities —gas, electricity, telecommunications or water—dig up the road, it pains me that they do not put fibre-optic cables everywhere. There is a map in the office of my Chief Whip showing the areas of the country that are currently being set up for cable television. Eighty per cent. of the country is completely untouched.
    For the future well-being of our people and our businesses, we should ensure that Britain plays its full part in that exciting new information revolution and gains a decent slice of the market. What are the benefits of a communications highway? It would create jobs—jobs in manufacturing the fibre-optics, installing the network and making the terminals that people would need in their homes and offices to make use of the highway. I am not simply talking about cable television. I want to see a two-way multimedia information flow, for example, to allow distance learning.
    In yesterday's debate, hon. Members discussed the need for investment in education to equip our people with skills so that our work force can compete in an ever more competitive world. Distance learning is one way in which we can open the opportunity to study and learn from home cheaply, for example, for young mothers wishing to keep up to date with their skills and for those who have lost their jobs to retrain for a new career. There will also be a chance for companies to make use of teleworking so that their experienced staff, who, for one reason or another, wish to change their pattern of work, can still contribute their experience from home.
    If traditional markets are lost or declining, we must look to new and growing markets. There is a substantial market for environmental products and processes, to which the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) referred. The market is currently estimated to be worth £200 billion a year and is expected to treble in size in the next six years.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Jones: I shall give way once I have developed this point. The United Kingdom is not matching its competitors in seizing these opportunities. Germany's share of the world market for environmental technology is 21 per cent; the United States, 16 per cent; and Japan, 13 per cent. Britain's share of this huge market is estimated at only 1 per cent.
    Mr. Arnold: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how we will maintain our traditional markets for our manufactured exports if the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) continues to attack Malaysia, which is one of those principal markets?
    Mr. Jones: We had that debate yesterday—I am not entirely sure that I saw the hon. Gentleman in the House then.
    Many people think that to be environmentally friendly means closing things down, but it is not like that. The future demands that we pollute our rivers and air less. If we give scientists a problem to solve, more often than not they will produce a solution. Environmental technology is big business and Britain should be in it. It pains me when I hear that Johnson Matthey, which is developing fuel cell technology—making energy from water—is doing its research in Reading, but will manufacture its products in Belgium because it is getting help from the Belgian Government.
    Another area in which we are about to lose our world lead is clean coal technology which is carried out at the Coal Research Establishment in Stoke Orchard just outside my constituency. We are investing peanuts in that industry, compared with Japan. There are huge opportunities for British business to reap rewards from measures to promote environmental sustainability, but the Government have yet to show the necessary commitment. Indeed, included in an overall strategy to build a new manufacturing base for Britain should be three distinct areas that have already been mentioned: research and development, in which we must invest more; education, which we talked about yesterday; and infrastructure, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is always banging on about in the House.
    A recent report, "The 1993 UK Research and Development Scoreboard", revealed that only 11 of the top 200 world companies are British. The companies were ranked according to research and development expenditure as a percentage of sales, profits and dividends. That is a sorry score. There is a strong case for providing incentives to encourage research and development in small to medium-sized firms.
    In my part of the country, there is a serious structural problem caused by the rundown in orders for defence equipment. Good local firms such as Smiths Industries and the Dowty Group have been hard hit with thousands of job losses and, in the case of Dowty, takeover by TI.
    There has been much talk in the House and outside about defence diversification and the so-called peace dividend. This country must not spend less on research and development because defence spending has gone down. The money should be transferred to civil research and development. Engineers and design teams are there. There are not enough of them, but there are many good people out there. They are as skilled as anyone in the world and they are ready to make world-beating products for civil markets, just as they produced world-beating military products in the past. The aerospace industry is vital to Britain as an export earner.
    I was confused by the word "airframe" in the motion. I thought that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) scored a direct hit on the President of the Board of Trade when he said that the word "airframe" was included in the President of the Board of Trade's book. I am sure that if the
    978
    President of the Board of Trade had drafted his own motion, he would have used the word "aerospace" because aerospace is the net contributor to the balance of trade of some £2.5 billion. It is one of those high value-added industries where Britain has enjoyed, and still enjoys in certain areas, a world lead.
    In a debate on aerospace in the House last December, I said that the programme on launch aid should be extended to aerospace equipment manufacturers, rather than being limited to airframe manufacturers. The Leader of the Opposition is right to say in the motion that we cannot allow our great industries such as aerospace to fail. However, there is a danger that they might fail because the Japanese Government have—
    Mr. Purchase: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in my constituency of Wolverhampton, Dowty, which he mentioned, has lost more than 400 jobs recently, demonstrating the clear way in which the aerospace component industry has shrunk almost irrevocably? Is not that indicative of the way in which our aerospace industry has shrunk recently?
    Mr. Jones: It is indicative. As I said, we have a world lead in certain parts of the aerospace industry including, for example, landing gear, which Dowty makes, and propellers. That sounds like old-fashioned technology, but the propellers produced in Staverton just outside my constituency involve sophisticated modern technology.
    There is a danger that the older industries in which we have enjoyed a world lead could fall. For instance, Japan has announced its aim of producing a complete aircraft by the year 2015. Only a fool would bet against their achieving that.
    High research and development priorities are of limited use in isolation unless we have properly trained people. The Government's record on training and education is woefully short of what is needed in an industrialised nation such as Britain if we are to succeed in the world.
    I should have liked Rover to remain independent under British ownership. It is not a happy situation that the only British car manufacturers remaining under British ownership are Rolls-Royce and Reliant and specialist car makers such as Marcos, TVR and Morgan. They are excellent companies, developing new products. I went to the launch of the Marcos Le Mans GT, which, sad to say, few people will drive, as the company makes only one a week.
    Mr. Purchase: How much are they?
    Mr. Jones: They cost about £30,000.
    Rover needed access to investment funding which British Aerospace could not provide and which did not appear to be available in Britain. Honda was offered a 100 per cent. buy-out, but turned it down. Rover's success in recent years has been because of positive practices within the company by management and workers. It had a positive attitude to partnership and its success was nothing to do with Government legislation. The management made a deal with the work force that they would guarantee employment in return for flexible working conditions. BMW has a lot to learn from Rover on management techniques. It would be illogical if BMW were to do anything but build on Rover's success, but there seems to be no guarantee of that.

    979
    At the Conservative party conference last year, the Prime Minister made some encouraging comments about manufacturing industry. He said that he wanted British industry to be the best and to
    "compete on a level basis with the rest of the world … make pounds for the UK; don't make dollars for other people."
    He said that industry should
    "sell abroad and buy at home".
    I was encouraged by those statements. I thought that the Government had at last learned of the importance of manufacturing industry.
    To survive in world industry, we must invest. As the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West said, that investment must be long term and large. Our competitors understand that. Japan, Germany and the United States all have strategic plans to help their industries. I was disappointed when not much happened in the Budget. There was no vision for the future, no statement of direction and no tangible support for industry.
    I urge the Government and the Opposition to fire people's imagination with a vision for the future. The United States document, "The National Information Infrastructure—Agenda for Action" is as good a start as any. Investment in infrastructure is vital. Deregulation is also critical to explosive growth, particularly in communications highways, not just in Britain but throughout Europe.
    I look forward to the report of the Bangemann high-level group, which is looking at issues surrounding the creation of a European information infrastructure. The group consists of some exceptional people, including Peter Bonfield, chairman and chief executive of ICL, and Pehr Gyllenhammar, former executive chairman of Volvo. They are people with vision. Their report to the European summit at Corfu should be studied and acted upon.
    There is nothing wrong with British people. Given a vision of a better future, they will work for it and make it happen. I hope that today's debate will start to create that vision.
    5.53 pm
    Mr. John Horam: My hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) and for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) made some interesting points about the comparison between Britain and Germany. They will have heard—the Opposition do not seem to have heard this—of the recent remarks by Gunther Rexrodt, the German Economics Minister. He said, almost in despair, "If only we had done what Britain did in the 1980s. If only we had privatised, deregulated and reduced the tax burdens on industry in the way that the Brits did in the 1980s, we would be in a wholly better position than we are in today."
    Such a comment would not come easily to the Germans. After all, Germany is a great and proud industrial nation. It is the home of Vorsprung durch Technik and has a great commitment to technical industrial innovation. Despite that, Germany is prepared to say that what was done in Britain in the 1980s was a real revolution in our approach to industry and manufacturing.
    I am pleased to say that that revolution has continued, despite the problems of recession in the 1990s. I welcome what has been done by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and his Ministers in connection with competitiveness, which, as he said, is the heart of the
    980
    matter. It is what manufacturing and commerce are all about. I am glad that he has set up the competitiveness unit because it has provided a focus for comparison with the best practice in other countries, which we badly need and from which we can learn.
    I am glad that the Government have introduced the deregulation Bill. That continues the wide and virtuous approach to industrial practice which we started in the 1980s and which we are now carrying on so successfully. One consequence of that approach is that, apart from anything else, it has provided a raft of new companies in the private sector—British Gas, the electricity companies, British Steel, British Airways and British Telecommunications. They are in the mainstream of big international industries and are major players in a way that they never were in the nationalised sector. Those companies can be added to the existing private sector companies. It is not surprising that we have 22 of the 50 largest companies in Europe. That is the strength that we now have in major industries and we can claim legitimately that it is a product of the supply-side policies of the past 10 or 15 years.
    The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) spoke with great interest about information super-highways. I am sorry to say that that industry was not fathered by the Liberal Democrats or that party's leader. The hon. Gentleman will know that what is happening in that business worldwide is extremely interesting. It is a major new industry which is divided into four or five different sectors, each of which is worth billions of pounds. He will know that Japan has just cancelled £4 billion worth of investment which it got wholly wrong, while British Telecommunications is beautifully placed to take advantage of the wise decisions that have been taken in the past 10 or 15 years.
    The hon. Member for Cheltenham said that there is no cable under the streets in his part of the world. In Orpington, the cables are being put in, in the right place —not here—so that my constituents can have free local telephone calls and obtain every television service that they want. That sort of development is happening throughout the country. It shows that Britain is at the forefront of advanced technology, as well as having sizeable companies that can make a major contribution.
    We are not talking just about large companies. We are developing medium-sized and smaller companies which we need in order to develop a proper industrial base for the future. Orpington may be seen by most people as a constituency in which the majority earn their living by travelling to the City of London. Indeed, about 15,000 of my constituents travel to the City each day from the various stations in Orpington. Therefore, it is important to us that the City is restored to something like its former health. However, I have found that a new set of high-tech companies is arising before my eyes. For example, A.C.Egerton is in the cable-activated television industry to which the hon. Member for Cheltenham referred. It exports 85 per cent. of its product, employs 400 people and is expanding all the time. That is the sort of modern company which is springing up in Britain.
    In Orpington, we also have major companies involved in the earth resources industry. For the cognoscenti, that involves the technology used in drilling for oil in the North sea, in which we are a world leader. That is happening at the forefront of technology and is a result of the policies that we have developed over the past 10 or 15 years.

    981
    Whether we are talking about small or large industries, the whingeing and snivelling Opposition motion is backward-looking and wholly irrelevant. We need not talk in terms of constant redundancies, high unemployment or low technology. We are involved in high technology in a major way. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West that we are winners once again, and that we have major opportunities if we will only grab them successfully.
    The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) mentioned that he had spent the morning at the CBI, and that is a valuable thing for a shadow spokesman to do. The hon. Gentleman should have picked up the fact that the CBI is not altogether happy with the industrial policies of the Opposition. What clearly worries the CBI above all—apart from the interventionism and the raft of old-fashioned ideas, reminiscent of the 1960s and 1970s, which the Opposition will bring back if they come to power—is the Opposition's tax policy.
    Opposition Members have made a lot of the Government's taxation policy in the past few weeks, but their tax policy for companies and for industry would be extremely damaging. The shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), produced a pamphlet before the Budget about tackling tax abuse. He proposed that a number of tax loopholes be closed, and he alleged that those loopholes were exploited mainly by companies in this country. If he were to close those loopholes, he would, by his own calculations, increase taxation on industry. It is estimated that that would put an extra £3.6 billion on the tax and costs of industry during two years, which is roughly equivalent to an increase of about 25 per cent. in the rate of corporation tax.
    The hon. Gentleman also proposed, almost in the same breath, a windfall tax on the profits of utilities. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy will be aware of exactly what that would do to investment and jobs in those industries, and to costs in the rest of industry. That is typical of the Opposition's attempt to square the circle, which they still have not done, between their spending plans and their tax plans. To try to pretend that individuals can be somehow let off and that all the burden can be put on industry is totally misconceived, and will not work.
    While I would say that the Government are going in the right direction, there are two threats which I should like to point out. One is the threat that I perceive from the European Union, and the other is the threat that I perceive from the Treasury. I do not put those in any particular order of importance or incompetence, but I will deal with the European Union first.
    Many of us have been struck by the fact that the European Union has spent so much time contemplating its own navel. It has built a carapace of new institutions—some of them have merit, while others have not. In the meantime, however, the world outside has moved at an almost frightening pace.
    For example, the countries of the Pacific rim, such as Indonesia, with 185 million people, have grown. We always think of China with more than 1 billion people, but there are other countries with huge populations and of huge economic significance which are now growing extraordinarily fast. Those include Taiwan, the Philippines and Malaysia. The far east is a huge market, and will soon account for 40 per cent. of the world's GNP.
    In addition, there is India—a giant which is awakening at last. India has ditched its socialist policies, after 40 years
    982
    of attempting to make them work, in favour of a more capitalist approach, and is now growing at 6 per cent. a year. Countries in Latin America have ditched even crazier ideas, and are growing steadily. All those countries are advancing and, looking from a purely European perspective, that is extremely dangerous.
    In its latest policies, the European Union has begun to show that it is aware of the dangers of some of its practices, but the Brussels bureaucrats are still too embroiled in their ideas of good regulation, good subsidy and protection. That is looking the wrong way, and the world is moving towards a lower taxation, deregulated and privatised regime which the Union still does not understand fully.
    My hon. Friends should be aware that, while we must take advantage of the single market, we must play our cards extremely carefully when it comes to subsidies for the steel industry, the GATT round and the common agricultural policy, which is the biggest single piece of damaging protectionism in the world.
    I will say something about the link between industrial policy and economic policy. I have long believed that the Treasury, while it has many virtues—I cannot think of them at the moment—has never really understood industry as well as it might. I was glad that the Permanent Secretary, Sir Terence Burns, tried recently, in effect, to acknowledge that, with a fairly major reorganisation of the Department and the introduction of greater industrial expertise.
    There has been a conflict over the years, and under both parties—I am not making a political point—between the macro-economic policies pursued by the Treasury and what makes the best sense for industry. We have suffered since the war from that conflict. Now that we have a better understanding of industry in the Treasury, I hope that we can proceed more sensibly.
    The Treasury has not held down public spending in the way it ought to if industry is to prosper in this country. One of the great lessons from looking at world industry is that it is clear that countries with a low proportion of GNP in the public sector expand fastest, while countries with a high proportion of spending and high taxation expand slowest. The correlation is almost exact. The Conservative party, as we have always wanted to do, must get public spending and taxation down to a level which industry can afford and which would allow it to prosper. We have a lot further to go, and we have not done very well so far. I hope that my hon. Friends will continue to make that point to the Treasury.
    The Chancellor faces difficult decisions about how to sustain the present recovery. There is the critical question whether we will go too slowly, which may make the recovery slightly shaky, and also how far my right hon. and learned Friend must help it by further interest rate cuts. We know the important role that international confidence plays in deciding whether a particular interest rate cut works, and whether it has a favourable effect. I hope that the Chancellor will remember all that when he makes his decisions.
    Traditionally, the Treasury—and, even worse, the Bank of England—has always done too little, too late. A besetting sin of the Treasury is that its approach is too cautious, and it has often talked up a recovery to a level far beyond what is justified by the facts. I do not say that my right hon. and learned Friend must lower interest rates now, but he must keep the prospect firmly in mind over the

    983
    next two or three months. The short-term prospects of British industry depend most of all on my right hon. and learned Friend getting those decisions right.
    6.8 pm
    Mr. Ken Livingstone: I must say that the President of the Board of Trade's speech was absolutely disgraceful. Listening to it, I was reminded of how worried most Labour Members were when the succession stakes were running. There was not the slightest doubt that an overwhelming number of Labour hon. Members dreaded the prospect of the right hon. Gentleman succeeding Baroness Thatcher. We saw him as our most dangerous opponent, and that was not because we thought he had nice hair.
    There was much in his critique of the lack of an industrial policy of Baroness Thatcher's Government with which the Opposition would have agreed. He offered a real alternative, and a break with the dreadful waste of the 1980s. Many felt that a Government led by the right hon. Gentleman and talking about rebuilding Britain's industrial base would strike a chord, and would be seen as a break with the past.
    I suspect that many of us thought that, once the right hon. Gentleman finally got the job as President of the Board of Trade that he was after for so long, we would start to see some real changes and an attempt to rebuild our industrial base.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend realise that the closer the President of the Board of Trade gets to the leadership, the less sense there is in his speeches? Does not the fact that there was no sense at all in his speech today suggest that he is back as a contender?
    Mr. Livingstone rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind hon. Members that there is a 10-minute restriction on speeches now.
    Mr. Livingstone: I will not take too many more interventions.
    I was struck by the fact that, in analysing the disaster of the past 15 years, one law which emerges from the way in which capitalism has operated during the past 200 or 300 years is that, year by year, the advantage shifts from those nations which export raw materials to those which export finished products. The Government came to power in 1979, and seemed to ignore that entire sweep of economic history. They threw all their weight and effort behind the oil industry, to the neglect of our manufacturing base.
    Now, as the price of oil has collapsed, we find ourselves in a weak position. The Government fail to understand the evidence of the way in which capitalism operates. They have left us in a structurally weak position, which the President of the Board of Trade has done nothing to rectify since he has been in that post. All the talk of how he would intervene before breakfast and after dinner has come to nothing but empty rhetoric. At the same time, he has been winding down what remains of vital industries such as our coal industry.
    The Government ignore the fact that no one objects to a strong service sector. No one would sneer at the profits that the financial sector could produce. But such factors
    984
    must rest on a solid manufacturing base in an advanced modern industrial society. The Government cannot continue to sustain the rest of the British economy if the manufacturing base withers away. How long can London remain the financial centre if its industrial base continues to wither as it has over the past 15 years?
    Financial power will inevitably follow industrial power. We will see the shift of power from the City of London to Frankfurt. I do not mind when Conservative Members do not understand our policies or socialism—that is true even of those Conservative Back Benchers who used to be Labour Members—but I object when they do not even understand their own capitalism, which they are so happy to defend.
    The position is getting worse. I was struck by some of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr.Cook) about taking dividends out of profits. We have heard the talk about British workers and their wicked trade unions who screw too much from the profits for wages. We have heard talk about how the last Labour Government forced tax rates so high that industry and commerce were unable to be dynamic. But let us consider the past 15 years and where the burdens on companies have been increased. Wages and central Government taxes constitute less than 25 per cent. of the extra sum being drawn out of companies through dividends.
    There is a striking illustration of that on the border of Brent, East and Brent, South—which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng)—where the last factory in Britain to make electric wall sockets is located. All other electric wall sockets are imported. I opened an extension to the factory a year or two ago. I was shown around the factory—an example of all that is best of what remains of British manufacturing.
    The equipment that the workers were using was as good as anything in Germany or Japan—it was state-of-the-art equipment. Workers were given the necessary time to develop their skills. I then considered how the company was run. It was a family firm of two brothers. The first call on each year's profits was investment. The company did not have shareholders looking over its shoulder. It did not have to wonder whether Hanson might bear down on it if it did not make enough profits. The firm had the same aim as German industrialists—to stay ahead of the game. The first call on profits is investment.
    We must break the psychology of the Conservative mob, who sit in the Chamber like the City of London at prayer. There are no industrialists among them—they are all fringe bankers, property speculators, lawyers, advertising executives and other sundry parasites. Like many other parasites, they have a valuable role, but they need a substantial and healthy animal on which to live. They are not a substitute for the healthy animal itself. There is no industrial lobby to take up the ideas advocated by El Presidente when he was Mrs. Thatcher's main critic in the Tory party. Until we have an industrial lobby in Britain, we shall continue to decline.
    El Presidente harangued us about Labour's threat to the defence sector. That sector faces a threat because the balance of the world economy is shifting against it. The fact that we do not have a proper diversification agency and policy means that jobs will be lost because the Government will not intervene to save them.
    We should sit down with those who own and work in manufacturing plants and, with a proper academic back-up,

    985
    plan which of our present defence industries we should convert to produce many of the products that we now import because we do not produce them. We should do that plant by plant. Many of those defence industries will remain defence industries, but many will disappear whichever Government are in power in Britain.
    Whoever is in power should plan to ensure that those jobs, skills and sites are not lost. Often, those industries have the most skilled work force, working with the most modern plant. They are exactly the workers and plants that should be retooled and retrained to produce in Britain the high-quality finished products that we now have to import from Germany, Japan and America because we do not produce their equivalents. If we were to adopt that approach, it would have the tremendous benefit of reducing the balance of trade deficit.
    We heard the President of the Board of Trade talk about the tremendous opportunities in the British economy That was not the message of the Oxford economic analysis that was reported in the newspapers at the weekend. It showed a continuing and horrendous balance of trade deficit that will soon choke off any incipient recovery in the British economy that is not already choked off by Government tax increases. The analyses and estimates of the British economy that are beginning to pile up are gloomier than I first feared, yet we are living in the boom time between the two recessions.
    The position will not improve in three or four years' time; we will be tipping into the next recession by then. We are now at the high point, on an upswing in the economic cycle—we are now at the same point as we were in January and February of 1983, when we were enjoying a boom. That shows how shallow and weak the present recovery is. Back in 1983, the Tories were poised for a triumphal re-election victory on the strength of the recovery, but no one seriously thinks that that can happen now.
    It is no good the Conservative party dismissing what we say and do. If it does, it will be defeated. The tragedy is that we could have three more lost years, with factories closing and the continuing erosion and decline of our manufacturing base. I wonder how much longer we can continue before the position becomes irrevocable.
    We in the Labour party must consider why investment in nationalised industries did not work in the post-war period. It was largely because of Treasury rules. The Treasury strangled our nationalised industries by not allowing them to set a price policy to allow them to pay for investment through the prices that they charged. It forced them to remain dependent on the Treasury. That is why I welcome the Labour party's statement on that subject.
    6.16 pm
    Mr. Iain Mills: I spent 20 years in the car and car component industry, much of it with Dunlop, and I continue my association with the industry through Committees in the House. I am a member of the Select Committee on Employment. I pay tribute to the late Ron Leighton, who was Chairman of the Committee for eight years and, sadly, left us last year. As the lead Conservative member on the Committee, I had a mixed relationship with Ron in terms of politics, but he was an extremely nice man. I regret his leaving us, and I know that members of the Committee will share my sentiments. I know that his absence from the House will be regretted on both sides.
    986
    In the 10 minutes that I have to speak, I hope to advance a number of arguments, some of which will be reasonable, and some very good. My comments on the lack of an interest rate cut will constitute the less good part of my speech. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to communicate to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade the fact that many successful industries, such as the car industry—and others that have been less successful, such as the machine tool industry, where sales have declined, but recently recovered—would be greatly aided by a change in interest rates.
    I know that there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who believe that interest rates should stay high, but the undoubted recovery in some sectors of the economy would be stimulated by further interest rate cuts. I am not sure quite how the City manages to become so nervous —but only those within it know the reason.
    As a member of the Select Committee on Employment, I should like to refer to a most important report that we have produced on the future of manufacturing. I do not say that in a self-congratulatory fashion; I know there are a number of members of the Committee in the House. However, it made a number of significant points.
    We took the trouble to find out why Britain is the most successful base of inward investment from Japan and Taiwan. It is quite simple: we speak English, we have a similar culture and we have the best unit labour costs in Europe. They want a base in Europe.
    As someone who left the motor industry in 1979 after the winter of discontent, when the Labour party had been in charge for an awfully long time and our labour practices were undoubtedly the worst in Europe, I find it extraordinary that the Japanese and Taiwanese come here because they judge us to be the best. The final reason in our report is that they come here because they consider our work practices to be the best in Europe; they actually admire the way our people work.
    Mention has been made of the increase in productivity having nothing to do with Government legislation, but of course it is due to the legislative changes brought about by my right hon. Friend, now Lord Tebbit—to whom I was PPS—in the early 1980s, among others.
    I enjoyed being on the Employment Bill Committees. I have probably been on just about every Employment Bill Committee since 1979. Against the wishes of the Labour party and the trade unions, we introduced democratic practices which to some extent are now accepted by some sectors of the trade unions. They led to productivity improvements which could not have been conceived in 1979.
    The Japanese and Taiwanese say that our productivity and working practices are the best in Europe. That enormous achievement could have occurred only under a Conservative Government. It is interesting that Japan and Taiwan invest in Britain because their own unit labour costs are higher than ours. They do not invest in Germany because unit labour costs in the German car industry are about £16.9 per man hour. The costs in our industries are about half that.
    Amongst those who are highly competitive in that regard is our own domestic company, Rover. That is one of the reasons why Rover became attractive to BMW. The all-party motor industry group—my co-chairman, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), is in his place —has had a number of meetings on the matter. In reply to a question, a representative of BMW said that of course

    987
    unit labour costs were a factor in the choice of Rover as a partner. BMW may have bought Rover, but it was looking for partnership and sees real advantages in Rover's high productivity and low unit labour costs.
    It is my view that, although obviously no company would give solid and guaranteed commitments, Britain would be considered an extremely attractive country to manufacture a new small BMW. However, I deprecate some aspects of the sale of Rover to BMW and it is clear from a number of meetings of the all-party group that that feeling is shared on both sides of the House.
    The unhappiness expressed by Honda has been caused largely because of the frankly insensitive behaviour of British Aerospace. The Japanese view companies and their involvement in companies almost as a family. It is as if a son were to marry without telling the family. So in selling Rover to BMW, British Aerospace took the huge risk of offending the Japanese company Honda. I deprecate that; I have said it before and I have now said it for Hansard. However, there is some hope.
    Today, in a meeting with Honda, I expressed strong concern and my strong hope that the company would reconsider its apparent decision—according to the media —to leave Rover.
    As an engineer and somebody who has worked closely with all three companies, I admire the engineering skills of them all. If one could coin a dream package to compete in Europe in future, the combination of BMW, Rover and Honda would be that dream package. It would have size, access to resources and complementary technology and engineering that would make Fiat shudder—and it is already shuddering—and Ford, the biggest car company, look again at what it is doing.
    I urge Honda to reconsider. I am glad to say that the chairman of the British company told me that discussions with BMW have not been concluded. I urge Honda to reconsider as it would be a very powerful partnership.
    In the short time that remains, let me move on to other aspects of employment in manufacturing industry. In its report, the Select Committee on Employment urged a number of important factors. We could not reach total agreement in detail on the lack of commitment to the social protocol and the social compact.
    The evidence we were given by a number of people both here and in Japan was conflicting to some extent, so I shall put my own personal view with no reference to the Committee. It is my personal view that many of the people we spoke to felt that the cost of committing Britain to the social protocol and the social compact would be crippling. It would definitely disadvantage our manufacturing companies because of the high costs involved.
    I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment that the direct costs to manufacturing companies in the United Kingdom for introducing those measures could be as high as £25 million.
    I found no real conviction in discussions with people such as Padraig O'Flynn, the Commissioner for Social Affairs in Europe. I was given no real reassurance that the olive pressing in Greece and the Spanish wine industry and the collection of grapes would fulfil their obligations under the social compact.
    The Committee agreed unanimously that deregulation, particularly that of European regulations, would be an
    988
    extremely important encouragement to manufacturing industry. We have far too many regulations; perhaps some of them are carried out far too zealously by our own people in Britain, but many of them are imposed on us by Europe.
    I finish by saying it is quite good news from the car world that we had new car registrations in 1993 of 1.778 million—12 per cent. above the figure for the previous year and we are looking forward to a slow and steady growth next year. Those figures include manufactures by domestic companies, but in the teeth of the recession Nissan, Toyota, Honda and Peugeot have had a very healthy export sale.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    6.27 pm
    Mr. David Clelland: The northern region has a proud history of manufacturing excellence. We remain the top region in the country for manufacturing as a percentage of regional GDP. We are top for exporting —45 per cent. of GDP—top for implementation of BS 5750 certificates, top for Queen's awards for exports and technology and top for having the common sense to realise that our manufacturing base has helped us just tread water during the recession.
    Despite all that, the region is nevertheless a pale shadow of its former self. We have a manufacturing culture in the north which has not been helped by the change in culture nationally.
    The past 15 years have seen a declining interest in the fortunes of United Kingdom manufacturing by central Government and our world share of manufacturing trade has fallen still further.
    It is now clear that, far from being characterised by a productivity miracle, the 1980s was a period of intensified industrial decline. While, according to current forecasts, it might just be that the bottom of the latest recession has been reached and there may be a slight upturn ahead, the forecasts for employment in engineering are still downwards.
    Reductions in demand and improvements in technology might explain some reduction in employment, but they do not explain entirely our failure as a nation to maintain our position and our reputation as a world leader in manufactured goods.
    The world still needs ships and power stations, buses and cars and trains and planes, and they are still being manufactured and sold, but less and less by British firms. As our share of world manufacturing trade plummeted, Germany, France, Italy and Japan were increasing theirs, the latter by a massive 400 per cent..
    The northern region has seen many changes over the period. We were often told that changes were inevitable as old outdated smokestack industries declined. But the decline hit companies such as Plessey and Marconi, which are at the forefront of technology. Some of the most advanced shipbuilding facilities in the world could be found on Wearside, and Tyneside where Swan Hunter is still struggling to survive despite its skills and technological excellence.
    It is not a question of outdated industry, but a combination of a lack of foresight, the absence of an industrial strategy, and a Government who do not understand, appreciate or support the manufacturing sector. Before I am accused of running down the northern region, let me say that there have been positive

    989
    developments there. The northern region has been way ahead of the Government and, I must say, of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, in realising the importance of partnership in the quest for improvement. The creation of the Northern development company by the region's trade unions and business and local government sectors is an example of how we are able to pull together.
    The public sector, through local authorities, provided the light rail rapid transit system on Tyneside, which has proved such a success socially and economically. Again, a consortium of local authorities built and developed Newcastle airport to reach the international status which it now enjoys, and which benefits the regional industry and the regional economy.
    As I have already mentioned, there have been some successes in manufacturing, too. Some local firms are enjoying huge success and are producing high-quality, high-tech goods. Again, it was the close co-operation between local authorities and businesses, particularly the work of Tyne and Wear county council—abolished for its pains—that brought Nissan to the north, followed closely by Komatsu and others. But we do not have to kid ourselves that the arrival of overseas branch plants represents a fundamental transformation of the regional economy. The most damaging aspect of the 1980s has been the neglect and decline of the region's indigenous manufacturing base. The branch plant character of the regional economy has become more and more prevalent. Increasingly, the region's future is determined by decisions taken in remote boardrooms, by unelected quangos or in Whitehall.
    There is general agreement in the region that something must be done and that we will probably have to do it ourselves. Many in the north are impatient for regional devolution—allowing the region more freedom to set its own agenda and pursue its own priorities. High on the list is the regeneration of our manufacturing sector and improvement of the regional infrastructure.
    In the private sector, the manufacturing challenge is the initiative of former north-east business man of the year Karl Watkin of Crabtree Vickers in my constituency. It sets the goal of doubling regional output and trebling exports over a decade. It has the widespread and active support of the region's manufacturers. But there is a common understanding that market forces alone cannot create self-sustaining economic growth any more than will an over-reliance on overseas firms and the service sector.
    The ability of the region's manufacturing base to consolidate and grow, and attract and retain firms that have the capacity to prosper, will be critical to its prospects. Again, from within the region, that realisation has given birth to new ideas. I have mentioned the manufacturing challenge and the contribution of the public sector, but the region's academic and research groups are also lending their support. If the finance is forthcoming—I sincerely hope that it is, and that manufacturers, trade unions and local authorities will take note—the local trade union studies information unit and the centre for urban and regional development studies at Newcastle university plan to embark on a research project to contribute to the formation of a policy for the development of the north's engineering and manufacturing base as a means of overcoming the present industrial crisis and rebuilding the region's indigenous strengths.
    990
    Despite all of that regional activity, we will not make sufficient progress at the required rate without the backing of central Government and sympathetic Government policies. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said last week:
    "It is important that the Government takes the lead responsibility. It cannot shuffle off these responsibilities to the private sector."
    But are the Government up to the job? To date there have been few signs that they are. We will have to wait for a Labour Government to give us the kind of regional devolution that will have any meaning in that context.
    The recently published paper about which my right hon. and learned Friend was speaking outlines the Labour party's policies on regional development agencies and commercial investment banks. It is dedicated to mobilising investment in firms within the regions—the risk capital perhaps to which the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) referred earlier.
    Other aspects of devolution policy will also help the regions. A northern regional assembly, for instance, with power to decide regional transport policy, would give a high priority to improving the communications networks in the region, not least of which would be the upgrading of the A69 and A66 to provide much improved coast-to-coast links, to the benefit of the regional economy. But if such policies are anathema to the present Government, they should at least be doing more to encourage investment in our manufacturing industry.
    The current rules for tax relief on new plant and machinery should be changed to allow full relief in the first year on new equipment. That would provide a real incentive to invest, which is badly needed. I am no economist, but why cannot we have different interest rates, with borrowing to invest in new plant and machinery at a low rate and borrowing to buy imported consumer goods at a higher rate?
    The Government could also provide industry with long-term planning. Manufacturing industry cannot operate on short-term decision making. That is what northern engineering employers told northern Labour Members at our meeting yesterday. They need a national view about what technology sectors we want to be in. They spoke of the need for a balanced energy strategy and a proper plan for the refurbishment and replacement of power stations, and the future of the nuclear industry. They seemed a little unsure, however, about how that can be achieved now that the industry has been privatised.
    Another area of Government influence that is of major importance in manufacturing is training. A number of good apprenticeships are still running, particularly in the engineering industry. Firms are still keen to support and provide high-quality training. But the old concept of apprenticeships only at 16 must surely be out of date. I was the beneficiary of an excellent engineering apprenticeship —starting at 16 and finishing at 21. While that might have been appropriate at a time of high unemployment, the problem now is that thousands of young people—having left school at 16 or 18—are still out of work when they reach 19, 20 or older. That means that if apprenticeships are restricted to 16 and 17-year-olds—as intended by the Government's modern apprenticeship scheme—many will not qualify because of age. Surely that must be looked at again.
    Training in a skill—particularly in engineering—is a rewarding and beneficial experience. Even if there is no

    991
    immediate job at the end of it, it is worth while. The experience of work, of feeling that one is part of something, of making a contribution, cannot be replaced by Mickey Mouse training schemes that provide no real skills and do not develop personalities. The huge increase in juvenile crime is directly proportional to the level of youth unemployment, and the perception of large numbers of young people that there is no meaningful place in society for them.
    The importance of proper employment is evident every time we meet someone new and invariably ask, "What do you do?" Too many young people have no answer to that question. Many more of them could have. One of the engineering manufacturers with whom we spoke yesterday —he runs a quality apprenticeship scheme—said that he would be quite prepared to take on more apprentices than he needed, and provide them with good training, if financial support was available to compensate. We should consider that seriously. We should be using some of the millions now wasted on schemes that young people have no confidence in—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.
    6.37 pm
    Sir Michael Grylls: It seems strange to me that the Opposition motion should be on the manufacturing industry, as there are many other parts of national life that they could have picked and made a critical attack on the Government. It is astonishing that the Labour party should stick their necks out on that subject. Labour Members should not be surprised that they got two black eyes. They were given half a dozen black eyes by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in an effective and hard-hitting speech.
    I notice that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who spoke earlier, is about to leave the Chamber. Perhaps he will come back. His only positive suggestion was to create all sorts of extraordinary units to advise defence manufacturers on how they should get into civil business. That is the most weird and peculiar suggestion that I have ever heard—we have heard some pretty strange suggestions over the years from the Labour party. It is a strange idea that politicians, civil servants and bureaucrats should visit Lord Weinstock in his office and say, "Lord Weinstock, this is how you should get your business into civil business." If they did that, I do not think that they would stay in that office very long. They would be out of the door pretty quickly—or indeed of any other company.
    One has only to put the case to see the total absurdity for there to be a Government role in this. The truth is that the old Adam in the Labour party still lives on. Rather like the Bourbons, the Labour party forgets nothing and learns nothing.
    If one strips away some of the more modern rhetoric of today's Labour party, one will see that it is back to its old policy of a national enterprise board, as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade reminded us. But instead of having one board, it will be divided into many national enterprise boards all over the country, spreading like measles throughout the regions and employing all sorts of bureaucrats to make dud
    992
    investments. God knows, we went through enough of that with the National Enterprise Board in 1975. When the Conservatives came to power, we had to wind up the NEB pretty quickly, drawing a line under the huge amount of bad debt that it had incurred. Labour, however, still seems to want to go down that route.
    The idea of organising a debate on manufacturing industry in an attempt to hit the Government over the head is pretty stupid for a second reason. According to the Business Monitor report in last week's Financial Times, Britain is the most outstanding country in the European Community in terms of investment in manufacturing. That was said not by the Government or the Conservative party, but in an independent survey of the entire Community. The country is in a unique position to take advantage of its manufacturing industry, and to expand it.
    As I think the Opposition would agree, we live in an era of huge change. The real challenge is this: how do we manage that change, and build on our manufacturing base? The crucial point is that Government's role should be to allow change to happen, to encourage it and to help it along by making supply-side alterations. We did that in the 1980s; we are doing it in the 1990s, and I trust that we shall continue to do it. I hope that we shall continue with deregulation and keeping tax rates low, especially corporate tax rates: our low corporate tax levels are very attractive. We should not stand in the way of change.
    That strikes me as the greatest indictment of the Labour party: it is still standing in the way of change. It wants to stop change; as the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) just said, it wants the north-east to be exactly as it was in the 1920s and 1930s, producing the same goods. We now live in a different world, however.
    The shipbuilding industry, for instance, has undergone a huge change. Should we go on producing ships that no one wants to buy, piling them up, although the world's shipping lines are not buying many ships now? Of course not. The challenge is to try to ensure that the great skills, techniques and experience of shipbuilding workers can be applied to different industries. Firms should be encouraged to change. I know that that is easier said than done, but we must urge the management of change so that people can join new industries.
    If we take a global, bird's eye view of British manufacturing, we perceive that, as a medium-sized country, Britain is capable of excelling in a number of areas, but not in every area. For a brief time in British history, we did excel in almost every part of the manufacturing spectrum; but it was a very brief time. We had a captive market then. We did not need to sell goods; we simply shipped them out. That was just trade: we were not an industrial country in the true sense of the word.
    As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade pointed out, we now have to battle for every market. As a medium-sized country, Britain can excel only in certain areas. We are forced to concentrate on pharmaceuticals and chemicals, and motor manufacturing —we are very good at that; we have some marvellous motor manufacturing companies. Whether they are owned by British shareholders is relatively irrelevant. Most cars contain parts from many different countries: if we stripped one and tried to make the parts into a sort of United Nations, we would end up with something more like a pudding—a spotted dick, perhaps, composed of parts from different areas of Europe and the world in general.

    993
    I suppose that we all have a little bit of nationalism locked up in our heart of hearts, but we should try to suppress that. It is not relevant to the modern era.
    As I have said, we must encourage change. We must run the economy so that the good industries in which we excel can do well, grow and attract investment. Inward investment has been a huge success story over the past 12 years. Investment has come from Japan and the United States; 3,500 American companies have invested in this country, and many hundreds of German companies are now investing in it, because they consider it a good place in which to invest.
    Over the past 14 years, we have had stability of government—and, above all, stability of policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Yes: we have had a Government who believe in low taxation—including corporate taxation—in deregulation, and in letting industry get on with its work. We have had a Government who have improved all the employment laws beyond recognition, encouraging companies to operate in much freer market conditions. As the report that I cited earlier makes clear, we are now the envy of Europe: Britain is seen as a good place in which to set up, manufacture goods and invest in manufacturing industry.
    I hope that the Opposition will agree with my final comment. Undoubtedly, the growth area will be in the small and medium-sized companies. Our large corporations will not take on a huge number of people; one or two may start up businesses on greenfield sites and employ 500 or so employees, but that is very rare. The Government, in conjunction with the City and the banks, must meet the challenge to ensure that our medium-sized firms have adequate long-term finance. There is undoubtedly a gap there: we have not as many medium-sized firms as we should have. [Interruption.] I hope that Opposition Members will listen; I am trying to be constructive in the few minutes that remain.
    There was a huge rate of growth in very small businesses in the 1980s, as a result of good policy. That growth continues, despite the downturn that the economy has experienced in recent years. We must concentrate next on encouraging medium-sized firms with turnovers of between £3 million and £50 million—non-quoted companies. That, I believe, can be done successfully only if we introduce better terms for lending. More long-term structured loans for such businesses would enable them to survive during a downturn in the economy—which, as sure as eggs is eggs, will have its ups and downs in the next few years, like every other economy in the world.
    We have not achieved that yet, and I hope that Ministers will consider the matter. Through the Small Business Bureau, we have suggested a number of ways of helping and encouraging the private sector to provide the right sort of finance, as some of our major competitors have done. That is where the growth in business and employment will take place—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
    6.47 pm
    Mr. Ken Eastham: The great tragedy is that the Opposition had to organise this debate. One would think that the Government would consider an important industry like manufacturing worthy of regular discussion in the arena. The Opposition, however, had to opt to discuss it in their time, and had to listen to the
    994
    President of the Board of Trade telling us how successful the Government have been. One Conservative Member after another said what a great success manufacturing industry was. That speaks volumes about their ignorance of industry and the state of the nation in terms of manufacturing.
    It cannot be denied that we have a chronic balance of payments problem, and 3 million people are unemployed. Manufacturing represents only 22 per cent. of gross domestic product, and only 18 per cent. of the labour force are involved in it. We must get away from some of the silly claims that are made from time to time. It was suggested again today that cheap labour, the exploitation of workers and anti-trade unionism attracted people to Britain, but that is not so. Low pay, long hours and bashing workers will not be the answer for Britain's future. Britain will never be able to compete on the basis of cheap labour because there will always be another nation round the corner that will make things even more cheaply. When that nation has been exploited, there will be yet another one. Companies will go to Brazil, to Chile, to India. It would be a great mistake to suppose that Britain's success will be built on cheap labour. Opposition Members believe that if we trade in excellence—and we can—there is no need to bribe customers for work. Firms will win contracts because their brilliant inventiveness is recognised and sought after.
    It was interesting that the President of the Board of Trade referred to people in industry. He has never been in industry. Very few Conservative Members have been in industry, whereas some of us on the Opposition Benches have. That is why we sometimes speak a little emotionally on the subject, watching the nation going down the tubes, as we have for the past 15 years.
    I put my cards on the table: I come from industry. I worked in machine tools and in turbines, so my credentials are as good as anyone else's here. I compliment the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) on saying that it is a tragedy that not many hon. Members come from industry. Instead, we have the City slickers who are so prevalent, particularly on the Government Benches, the wheeler dealers, the asset strippers, the City boys. If they produced more, this nation would be far healthier.
    Let us examine some of the most successful economies in the world. Japan has succeeded because it is an all-manufacturing nation. Manufacturing companies such as Mitsubishi, Sony, Toyota and Nissan make ships, cars, computers, videos and television sets. Japan has not been successful through indulging in speculation, buying and selling properties and gazumping, exchanging bits of paper in the City, and all these other things. It is industries that have made Japan successful. Take Germany, one of the most successful countries in Europe. It, too, has built its success on manufacturing: Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Bosch, world-class machine tools—all manufacturing. That is how Germany has come to lead Europe. We fail to recognise those simple facts.
    Let us look at the situation in Britain. We have the slowest growth of five of the Group of Seven nations and we are only 18th in the 21 states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. That is the great success that we are now enjoying, yet Conservative Members, living in the clouds, keep on telling us that everything is rosy and successful. United Kingdom manufacturing jobs have fallen from 7 million in 1979 to only 4 million today. From the industrial revolution until 1982, we always had a credit in manufacturing; since 1982,

    995
    we have never had a credit. Our trade deficit in the five years up to 1992 exceeded £89 billion. So it is no good Conservative Members trying to kid the rest of the nation about how successful we are in Britain.
    The tragedy for Britain is that the channels that do not make anything themselves—banks and other speculators —prevent the rest of the producers getting on with the job and making things. We are tied to the system of banks, interest rates and goodness knows what, including the whims of various companies, and as a result the people who are capable of producing are never even given the opportunity to do so.
    The proof of that is that the Japanese firms that come here say that our talent is second to none and have no problem with using our labour which, they say, is as good as that anywhere; yet we in this country do not recognise it or value it. Other countries must think that we are big fools not to put all that talent to good use. That talent is even encouraged to go abroad. Very often, companies abroad recognise the talent of people from this country and encourage them to take it to them.
    Nowadays, we have heritage parks where we used to manufacture things. At one time, they were places of real production; now it is like two men and a dog, with a bit of a caretaker going around and showing what Britain's greatness used to be and what we used to do. The Opposition believe that we should be making things, not kidding ourselves. The President of the Board of Trade implied that manufacturing was not important, but we recognise that it is the only solution for Britain. We need a proper strategy and plan for energy, transport, aviation, construction and communications.
    These days, we never go in for any kind of plan or strategy. That is not the case in other countries. What we find in British industry is feast and famine. Today we have jobs and next week we have no jobs. Three months later we have jobs and three months later still there are no jobs. There is no continuity. People try to tell us that this is good business practice. Some of our competitors must laugh their sides sore when they consider what Britain could be doing and what it has been unable to do.
    At the moment, we are seeing a boom in cruise holidays and orders are starting to be placed for cruise ships. It makes me sick when I think that we are in no position now to place an order or even to find a dockyard where we can make one of those liners. That is an example of the progress that we have made—we cannot build ships any more. We have all the talent. We have people on the dole, being paid £9,000 a year to do nothing, people in the north-east and north-west who were doing those jobs—and we pride ourselves that we are doing well in manufacturing.
    Only this week, the Secretary of State for Transport announced that he would spend £1 billion on the road programme. If only the Government had the sense to spend £1 billion on medium and small manufacturing firms, we could imagine the number of jobs that that would create. We have hundreds of jobs under notice in the rail workshops and we have clapped-out rolling stock which should be on the scrap heap; yet instead of acquiring new and up-to-date equipment, we have decided to refurbish
    996
    existing stock. When I was in industry we called it "soling and heeling". It was not making the modern stuff of which we were capable.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
    6.57 pm
    Mr. David Porter: In a world that changes as rapidly as ours does nowadays, there can be few absolutes and only a handful of timeless truths. Here are some that remain. The Government have no money of their own, only what they take from taxpayers, who are individuals or businesses. If we want to spend more on schools, hospitals, pensions and other services that we demand, we have to earn it. The world does not owe the United Kingdom a living; we have to carve one out. There will always be some people locked in a time-warp, unable to see that clocks cannot be put back in industry or in technology. The predecessors of Opposition Members stood blinking at the dawn of the industrial revolution in England; by the time they had taken hold of it, it had become the technological revolution.
    The Opposition's motion and some of their speeches tonight seem to ignore the fact that industry develops and that business cannot remain static. Their motion takes no account of how rich and diverse a picture of industry we have in Britain. They are not on top of the fact that manufacturing takes many different forms. There was a whiff of nostalgia in the air, with Opposition Members lauding the old command economy. I felt that it was only a matter of time before somebody called for the return of Red Robbo.
    The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) gave the figures. Seven million people made less in 1979 than 4 million make today. Why? Because of technology. That is the bald and simple reason, and it is a fact that must be faced. Many of my hon. Friends have said, "It is not such a problem if we become a leisure theme park. We shall still have to make the rides, the music, the games, the food, the booze, the crockery, the furniture and the sports equipment that they need." "Do not worry," other people have said to me, "people will still need new and revamped houses, other buildings, cars, fridges, televisions and holidays, so there will always be a demand for manufacturing." That is true up to a point, but the trick of success for the Government is to create that economic climate to allow British manufacturing to make it easy for people to buy British goods within the European Community constraints for which we have signed.
    I mentioned diversity and I shall now focus on my constituency, which is not, at first glance, a rich and varied economic place. Even there, however, one finds food-related processing companies—Bird's Eye Foods, the Co-operative Wholesale Society factory, the Bernard Matthews plant, Buxted Chickens and Adnams the brewery at Southwold.
    Fishing is a harvesting industry, but its back-up in servicing and engineering are manufacturing organisations. Coupled with offshore industries serving the southern North sea and elsewhere, and with shipbuilders such as Richards and engineers such as AKD and George Prior, they are all important and skilled creators.
    In SLP we have the largest manufacturing capability for offshore accommodation modules in England south of Teesside. There is printing by Clowes of Beccles and Clays of Bungay. Plastics are made by Fiberoyle and M and H

    997
    Plastics and sports equipment is made by Harrods of Lowestoft. High-tech manufacturer Sanyo is to be found in Lowestoft and timber doors and frames are made at Boulton and Paul in Lowestoft.
    Those companies are diverse and different, but they share some problems. The transport infrastructure in the coastal area east of Norwich is poor compared to that in many other parts of the country. That is part of the region's charm, but it increases the costs to industry of bringing supplies in and pushing goods out. We are 80 miles from the motorway network of England. The area has greater than average regional unemployment and is a low-wage, poor area compared to most other areas in the United Kingdom and certainly compared to the public perception of a prosperous East Anglia.
    The handicap that confronts so many British businesses enforcing rules fairly, with no confidence of reciprocal regulatory respect elsewhere in the alleged European Union, is often keenly felt in a part of Britain that is only 56 miles from the European mainland—far closer than it is to London. All that does not help.
    The Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill will help, and I hope that Parliament will pass that legislation. It is a pity that it cannot apply to the European Commission. The new modern apprenticeship scheme will help to improve the quality of the work force in years to come and increase its competitiveness. The economic good news will help, together with the gathering confidence of businesses throughout the region.
    Getting the tax regime right must be good news, too. The lowest corporation and business taxes mean more money for investment, which means more profitability. I wonder whether we can build on those and go a little further. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy that we have heard a lot about downsizing the Department of Trade and Industry and the money that could be saved. I wonder whether almost doing away with the Department would be a real sign of our commitment to enterprise. It would be beneficial if we could put only some of the DTI's £3.7 million a year budget towards cutting business taxes a little further. As to the European business angle, the best help to industry is stability for a period. Let us concentrate on making the single market work before speaking about anything else in Europe.
    Science and technology must be made more appealing to youngsters—boys and girls. Putting those subjects in the national curriculum has helped, but a young child's natural thirst for knowledge about how his or her world works must be translated into a real desire to invent, explore and make things in a career for young people that is challenging and rewarding.
    Where are the new technologies coming from—the new jobs of the future—as machines make and repair machines? Twenty years ago, few people could have predicted that the tourist industry would be the biggest job creator in this country. Few of us here will be able to predict the ways in which technology and lifestyles will develop in the next 20 years, but obviously the making of things will still be at the heart of our future. If the real and' exciting prospects for that crucial British industry are to be realised, we must put the red tape, the bureaucracy and the regulation in balance and get our attitudes right, from Government onwards.
    Manufacturing is the goose that lays the golden tax eggs of this country. We neglect it at our peril.
    7.4 pm
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I heartily endorse the clarion call of the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) for the dismissal of the present incumbents at the Department of Trade and Industry. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister for Energy will read with great interest his view of their effectiveness in their present roles. I hope that it will do great things for the hon. Gentleman's ministerial career in due course.
    The President of the Board of Trade, sad to say, has more or less given up on the job anyway, so he might even go along with the suggestion. He has no money. He has what he spends, but it is largely arms procurement, as he said today, and we must have that—as he also said—for national defence purposes. For the rest of it, the ideas that he once had have gone by the board and the DTI is a largely ineffectual Department in any event. That was evident because the President of the Board of Trade had nothing to say other than to turn the speech into the usual knockabout with the Labour party—the type of thing that we have at every Question Time. It is the sadder because he was a Minister of whom, for a while, many of us had expected something far better, and certainly something far better in a major debate such as this.
    A debate in which we are considering, for example, the future of Rover must be of major significance. I shall make one or two remarks about that and reflect on it. We must face reality and realise that the independent British volume car business disappeared 10 years or more ago. In the past five to seven years, Rover never was an independent British company in a meaningful sense. It was tied into Honda in the way in which now, inevitably, it will be tied into BMW. I would not want to choose between those two solutions.
    I noticed that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) was suggesting that all three companies got together. In business it is difficult enough to get two companies together. I speak from the experience of having tried to create a joint venture between the Japanese and my own company—in which, of course, for the purpose of the debate, I declare my interest. That utopian idea is therefore not much good.
    The best future for Rover might well have been with the Ford Motor Company. That may be a lesson for all hon. Members, and I mention it for that reason. I willingly admit that I did not support that solution at the time, and neither did any other Member of Parliament, to my knowledge. That choice was horrifically and horrendously opposed on both sides of House. When one recalls it now, the conditions on investment and the new model programme that Ford proposed were far better than anything that we could have obtained from Honda or anything that we are obtaining from BMW. One must remember that Ford already had a massive commitment in the United Kingdom, which it had to defend. BMW does not have that yet, but I trust that BMW will be as good as its word.
    I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will recall that in the late 1970s the Chrysler Corporation gave the Government the most solemn of undertakings. A Mr. Iacocca, I believe, then came to this country and tore the undertakings up in front of the then Labour Secretary of State, saying, "It is your company—you have it or we close

    999
    it down." Of what value were those undertakings from what was then a highly respected multinational American corporation?
    For that reason, we must take exception to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls), who is not here at present, but who spoke earlier. The hon. Gentleman said that he had some little bit of nationalism in him somewhere, but we should never let that come out: it is bad and we should have nothing to do with it. I must tell him that nationalism is the driving force in most of the companies and managements in Europe and Japan. Perhaps some words will be said about that later. When one sells in those countries, they are nationalists to the extreme, and proud to be so. Why do we seem ashamed to admit as much to ourselves in the House and outside it when we go into business?
    We have to cut the best deal for Rover that we can, and let us hope that BMW is as good as its word. In that respect, the experience of Linde, another major Germany company that heavily invested into our then privately-owned fork-lift truck industry in Basingstoke, has been extremely good. Investment has taken place, the models have been extended and the United Kingdom fork-lift truck industry has benefited tremendously.
    We have a uniquely advantageous position as regards competitiveness. The hon. Member for Meriden said that our labour costs in the motor industry are about half those of Germany and even less than those of other countries in Europe. But is that such a great achievement? Is it something of which we should be terribly proud? It is merely a function of the fact that our wages and social costs are much less than those of other countries and that our currency has depreciated periodically to compensate for a higher inflation rate. There is nothing else to it.
    I can quote chapter and verse on the levels of productivity and capital investment in Germany. Because of my privileged position as a trader in the motor industry I know some of the comparisons that major American and European manufacturers make of the wage and labour costs in various industries. The level of our costs is not something of which we as a country should be particularly proud, and it is certainly nothing of which the Government, after 13 years in office, can be at all proud.
    Having said that, let us face the facts. We should accept that we have a unique competitive advantage. Let us capitalise on it and start to regain world markets and regress the massive deficit in the balance of trade. That is the only lesson to be learnt and I will join any hon. Member in endorsing that point of view.
    For us to regain markets, we must maintain the present exchange rate with particular reference to the dollar and the deutschmark. In my experience, the present parity with the dollar is very satisfactory for us, and that probably reflects the experience of most companies involved in internationally traded goods. However, the tendency for the pound to appreciate against the deutschmark is most worrying. The Germans are in such trouble that they will cut prices in. export markets more than ever before to maintain their market share and to keep their factories running and their employees employed. It is as simple as that.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Unemployment in Germany has just gone through the 4 million mark.
    Mr. Robinson: I do not want to respond to sedentary interventions because there is a 10-minute limit on speeches. However, I shall do so on this occasion. What the hon. Gentleman said is true, but the Germans are nevertheless doing everything possible to secure as many jobs as they can. It is in that highly competitive, cut-throat situation that we must ensure that we maintain the advantage that we currently have because of our exchange rate.
    I do not expect immediate responses from Ministers because I appreciate that that can cause difficulties. However, I draw attention to another issue to which we have to pay great attention—interest rates. The Governor of the Bank of England is known for his obsessive concern about inflation. I understand that he feels like a father whose daughter says, "But Daddy, I'm only a little bit pregnant." It will get worse, which is how the Governor feels about inflation.
    Tonight's evening press states that the Governor and the Chancellor are having urgent consultations about the level of interest rates that they envisage in the next few months. My clear, unequivocal view is that interest rates must come down further because they go with the exchange rate. If interest rates do not come down further, there will be a depreciation in the exchange rate, which could threaten the recovery.
    We do not want a recovery based on yet another consumer boom which could in turn lead to yet another recession. We need a sustained investment and export-led recovery that will create the circumstances in which there will be a general domestic recovery. To achieve that, we need our policy on interest rates to be linked to policy on exchange rates. Both are within the power of the Government—of any Government—to deliver. However, we have an inexperienced, sometimes disinterested Chancellor up against an extremely powerful Governor. I hope that that balance will resolve itself in favour of British manufacturing industry.
    7.14 pm
    Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I must declare my interests: I am a director of Parliamentary and Public Affairs International; I am a consultant to EDS, which is an electronic data systems company, to Rothmans, Laing International, which is a building company, and KHD, which is a gas turbine manufacturer. I must also declare that I am one of the few engineers on the Conservative Benches and I am proud to be in that position.
    My constituency of Brentford and Isleworth contains many multi-national companies that manufacture and export worldwide. Anyone who has travelled on the A4 or the M4 to Heathrow airport or elsewhere in the west will have seen those buildings flash by.
    When we speak of manufacturing, we are speaking of a commercial sector which employs 5 million people. It is now a leaner, more competitive, more productive and more capital intensive industry base than it was 14 years ago. At the end of the second world war, British manufacturing was at its lowest. The war had been difficult for us, whereas our competitors in Germany and Japan rose afresh like the phoenix with new technology, new investment and new productivity capabilities through the Marshall plan and reconstruction aid. For 20 years from the period 1945–48,

    1001
    Britain had to struggle with Victorian factories and manufacturing techniques. We had old technology, overmanning and under-production.
    Also at that time, Britain started the process of decolonisation and automatically began to lose the captive international markets of more than 1 billion people who had supported British manufacturing hitherto. The newly emerging countries started forming relationships with closer neighbours and importing goods from their factories. Some countries started putting into effect socialist or self-reliance policies and managed plans. Some understood socialism at the feet of Harold Laski, others from the London School of Economics, and they set about trying to develop in that way. They failed. After their socialist experiments, they began a process of liberalisation to the extent that they are now back in the international marketplace, competing in various sectors.
    With its old industrial base, and while losing its international markets, Britain had to struggle on, The Labour Government established the National Enterprise Board and the National Economic Development Council and little Neddies to try to revive our industrial base. We all know what happened: they failed abysmally.
    One has only to consider the loss-making British Steel in the 1970s, the loss-making British Leyland in the 1960s and the loss-making British Airways, British Telecom and National Freight. Those nationalised companies cost the British taxpayer about £1.5 billion in 1979. Today, they are all profitable companies and instead of costing the British taxpayer money they pay taxes to the Exchequer and are helping to reduce taxes in general.
    Those companies are now competing in the international marketplace, winning contracts and export orders and setting up joint ventures. How did that happen? Did British workers, managers and investors suddenly find a vitality and vibrancy that outshone, outproduced, outpriced and outdesigned their European counterparts? What happened on the road to Damascus which created that revival in British manufacturing industry? Quite simply, the Conservatives won the 1979 general election and turned the country around.
    Adopting a reflective attitude, I will read out something that was said by the director general of the NEDC in 1988:
    "In the present expansionary period which began in 1981, productivity has actually been increasing twice as fast as output, implying that further very favourable factors have been at work."
    Apart from the shake-out of inefficient equipment and labour practices, he stressed the importance of supply side measures such as the trend towards deregulation, reductions in income and corporation tax and in nominal interest rates, and improvements in industrial relations.
    Virtuous circle growth may now set in where rapid productivity increases mean higher profits and more demand for new equipment, which on account of its superior efficiency fuels further growth. In 1981, output of crude steel per man year in the United Kingdom was 167 tonnes. In Germany, it was 227 tonnes per man year. In 1987, the UK figure had increased to 320 tonnes per man year, while the Germans were at 282 tonnes per man year. Productivity increased because of efficient production methods and more investment. The main principles were a reduction in the number of management levels, flexibility between crafts and processes and manual and staff grades, increased mechanisation, the contracting out of peak local work and support services, raising yields, reducing production costs and enhancing energy uses.
    1002
    Those principles have created one of the most efficient steel industries in the world. Yet despite that, the Labour party has learnt nothing. It still believes that it can pick winners and that civil servants and Ministers can run industry. We must learn that they cannot do so. Even the Japanese have tried to do it and failed. A study conducted recently by the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry showed that its attempt to spot winners had failed. The most recent copy of The Economist had a very good article on why MITI has failed to spot winners.
    In 1979, manufacturing industry contributed £49 billion to the gross domestic product. Today, it contributes £114 billion and the figure is rising. Output per person is twice as high as in 1979. Between 1979 and 1993, output per hour rose by 75 per cent. Between 1979 and 1993, the volume of UK manufactured exports rose by about 56 per cent. Between 1979 and 1991, the value of direct inward investment in the UK manufacturing base reached £28 billion net. Even today, having weathered a worldwide recession, production is up in the UK whereas it is down in Japan, Germany, France and Italy.
    Recently The Economist polled a group of independent forecasters who said that the UK would have the fastest growth rate of EC economies this year and next year. The recent recession is not a reflection on the performance of British manufacturing industry. It was caused by a lack of worldwide demand, not by an incapacity to supply. When that demand returns, we are fit, lean and ready to go out and sell.
    Britain's export success is extraordinary. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on what he has achieved. Britain exports a higher percentage of its gross domestic product than Japan and it exports more per head than the United States. We have invested about £360 billion overseas through portfolio and direct foreign investment—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
    7.24 pm
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: I shall not attempt to pursue the economic illiteracy of Conservative Members. The Opposition's theme should be that a great opportunity to expand and rebuild our manufacturing base, which is crucial to the economy, is being thrown away by a President of the Board of Trade who seems to have forgotten every word that he wrote while in opposition about intervention and managing the economy, and by a Chancellor of the Exchequer who has changed from being a bull-at-a-gate politician into a bear in a trap with the dead-hand keepers of the Treasury, who have been consistently wrong, and a Bank of England Governor who seems to think that he is a reincarnation of Sir Montagu Norman.
    Manufacturing matters. Most world trade is in manufacturing; most of our deficit is in manufacturing. It is basic to the economy. The manufacturing base, on which we depend, has shrunk so far in the past two decades that we cannot pay our way in the world and support the superstructures.
    Contrary to the success story told by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva), since 1970 manufactured imports have risen four times faster than manufactured exports. Manufacturing imports make up 42 per cent. of the domestic market for manufactures in this country. We have lost 3 million jobs in manufacturing

    1003
    since 1979. Manufacturing output has remained much the same—it is only 2 per cent. higher than it was in 1973. Such a story of failure cannot be found in any other country.
    That failure has resulted in the double deficit. The trade deficit, which amounts to about £1 billion every month, shows that we cannot pay our way in the world. We have a fiscal deficit because the tax base has shrunk as a result of people being put out of work. We are wallowing in the trap of the double deficit.
    The great prospect of white Wednesday, when we left the exchange rate mechanism, was that we would have a chance to escape from both traps. We could reduce interest rates and exchange rates at the same time. The Government saw the opportunity and promptly shifted gear. From prophesying economic success if we persevered in the exchange rate mechanism, they claimed that the economic success had already arrived because we had come out of the ERM. They did not feel that it was necessary to do anything but sit and gloat.
    The Prime Minister discovered manufacturing, which should have served as a warning, because as soon as he attaches his support to anything, from the Manchester bid for the Olympics to Mr. Yeltsin, it is finished. As soon as he discovered manufacturing, I began to worry. The recovery has not happened. Burdens have been alleviated that the economy should never have faced in the first place. The recovery is similar to the relief that a lunatic experiences if he slows the rate at which he is banging his head against a wall. If he stops banging, he is much happier. That is our position. Manufacturing output has not yet risen to the level of 1990. Will it rise to that level by the year 2000? Not at this rate.
    According to labour force surveys, unemployment has not fallen. We need 4 per cent. growth to achieve a substantial reduction in unemployment. Job losses in, and the winding down of, manufacturing industry continues. It has lost 7,300 jobs in the first six weeks of this year. The Guardian, amazingly, joined the Bank of England in saying that manufacturing industry had increased prices too much. Prices have certainly increased, but that industry must increase its prices if it is to generate a profit. Indeed, its prices need to increase still further. That is why we should allow it to increase its prices through the exchange rate, which will generate the profits necessary for its survival.
    It is economic illiteracy to say that manufacturing industry, which has exported without making a profit for years just to keep going, should not take the opportunity of the alleviation of pressure to increase its prices. It must do that. The Governor of the Bank of England shows that he knows nothing about manufacturing industry when he criticises it for increasing its prices.
    Manufacturing in this country is not profitable enough, and the economically illiterate way in which the Government have run the economy has kept it from being profitable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, manufacturing industry is not investing but rather distributing the profits in dividends—making hay while the sun shines—because it has no faith in the future. It sees that, with the Government's record of keeping exchange rates and interest rates far too high, there
    1004
    is no point in investing. The Bank of England will take the opportunity to push exchange rates back up, so any investment will be crippled.
    That is why the recovery is as evanescent and feeble as the Prime Minister's nervous smile. After white Wednesday, we had the opportunity to follow through with the devaluation, but we did not take it; indeed, the Government and the Bank of England have set out to reverse the devaluation. The Bank of England is deliberately undermining the competitiveness that we have. In a market economy, price is crucial, and the exchange rate is the key to price. We have been priced out of markets because the exchange rate is consistently kept too high for too long. The Government and the Bank are now resuming that policy. Since February 1993, the exchange rate has increased by about 14 per cent. against the deutschmark.
    The Bank of England is obsessed with inflation, which is now a dead issue. Because of its fear of inflation, which it largely caused in the 1980s—[Laughter.] Hon. Members should read Lord Lawson's memoirs, about how the Governor of the Bank of England refused to stop the Bank lending on mortgages and the credit expansion that caused the inflation in the 1980s. The Bank was largely responsible for that and now it is obsessed with making amends. It is strangling the manufacturing revival because of its fear of inflation.
    If we contrast this country's trade inside and outside the European Union, we see that in real terms the exchange rate in the European Union is now almost back to what it was before white Wednesday. That is why manufacturing exports to Europe have hardly increased at all. But outside the European Union—this is no credit to the Government—the exchange rate has depreciated and we are more competitive, because the dollar and the yen have risen. Manufacturing exports outside the European Union have increased by between 15 and 17 per cent.
    It is true that now both kinds of exports are flagging, because the exchange rate is rising again—and both will peter out if that continues. However, the contrast is stark, as is the contrast between our failure and what has happened in Italy. Italy devalued much more substantially than we did, and kept the devaluation, partly through the useful device of undermining confidence by carting most of its politicians off to gaol. Italy's export success has, therefore, been far greater than ours; it has turned a balance of payments deficit into a substantial surplus since leaving the exchange rate mechanism.
    That is the example which we should follow, because it shows that devaluation works. It would work by making it profitable to produce in this country, profitable to invest here and to begin to make again for the markets in which we have lost out. Most important, we could begin to fight back against the rising tide of imports to win back our own market. We can do that through the price mechanism, by making it profitable and competitive to invest, to grow and to expand in this country.
    If we continue at the present rate, the profitability that has returned will be curtailed. Indeed, that is happening now. We are involved in a debtor's progress. Because the Government want to keep the money flowing in, so that people will invest in our public debt and close the fiscal deficit—between 40 and 50 per cent. of that debt is now covered by foreign money coming into the country—they keep interest rates higher than they should be to attract the

    1005
    investment in public debt. That further increases the value of the pound and weakens manufacturing industry. There can be no greater folly than such a process.
    We must return to a competitive exchange rate, which is properly defined as one at which we can balance our trade with the rest of the world in conditions of growth and full employment. That means getting interest rates down and acting to make the exchange rate competitive. In 1945, Sir Ralph Hawtrey said:
    "Mass unemployment cannot occur unless central banks of set purpose bring it about".
    Our central bank is now doing that.
    7.34 pm
    Mr. Gyles Brandreth: The debate has reminded me that since becoming a Member of Parliament I have met only two types of people—people with problems and people who are right. I welcome the people with problems, because one can always learn from them, and occasionally one can help them. People who are right present more of a challenge—and there is no shortage of people who are right about manufacturing.
    Quite a few such people have been on parade this afternoon. They have their own vivid picture of what constitutes manufacturing, and—at least among Opposition Members—it tends to be a somewhat nostalgic picture, more in the tradition of L. S. Lowry than anything else. Alongside that picture goes a conviction, an unshakeable belief, that everything in the world of manufacturing is bad news.
    Those people say that manufacturing in the United Kingdom is in terminal decline, and they repeat the mantra so frequently that clearly they have convinced themselves. One's concern is that they may have convinced some other people as well. 'They seem unaware of the fact that, since 1981, as the President of the Board of Trade said, British manufacturing exports have increased by 66 per cent.—faster than those of any of the other G7 economies.
    We are told that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was with the Confederation of British Industry this morning. I wonder whether he was shown a CBI publication called "Competing with the World's Best," which says:
    "recent years have seen a transformation in Britain's manufacturing base. The recent strength of exports confirms the widespread anecdotal evidence: companies based in Britain are able to compete successfully in some of the toughest, technology-intensive markets in the world."
    I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman was told that the CBI regretted that,
    "unfortunately, the extent of the transformation is not widely understood. Moreover, the experience of the recession has reinforced the widely held—though incorrect—belief that Britain's manufacturing base has been run down over the last decade and is unable to compete in international markets."
    I imagine that the hon. Member for Livingston has learnt a lot today—a great deal this morning and, to his cost, a great deal this afternoon.
    The fact that manufacturing output per head in the last quarter of last year was 3·2 per cent. up on the year before is good news—and the fact that manufacturing is not what it used to be is not bad news: it is inevitable. Everything changes; it always has, and it always will.
    A century and a half ago, my namesake, Jeremiah Brandreth, bewailed the state of manufacturing in the midlands and the job losses that the new technologies of the time brought about. That Brandreth was the last of the Luddites. He was also the last man to be beheaded for
    1006
    treason in this country—but that is another story. They called him the hopeless radical. I see myself as the hopeful radical, and I believe that we have radically to alter our perception of manufacturing.
    For a start, we must stop compartmentalising manufacturing and segregating it as though it were a sacred zone of business unrelated to the rest. We must abandon the false barrier that has been erected between manufacturing and services. It is outdated, irrelevant and absurd to imply that there is some intrinsic merit or special worth in something simply because it has been manufactured in the old-fashioned way.
    We shall never succeed by harking back, but only by developing further the areas in which we have distinctive capabilities and competitive advantage, be those the elite sciences, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, retailing or financial services. In my constituency, we manufacture aluminium cans, but we are also a great centre for financial services. We can export the cans, and the financial services.
    Where yesterday we might have exported widgets, tomorrow we might be exporting the design and management of airports or hospitals, or the teaching of English as a foreign language. Our success depends on recognising the areas in which we have distinctive capabilities and on retaining our competitiveness.
    Over the past year, we have been able to strengthen our competitive position as a result of firm control of costs following the depreciation of sterling. It is not for Government to tell businesses how to run themselves, although the hon. Member for Livingston would not agree. That is no doubt why today he announced his plan for Government dividend controls, which were so warmly welcomed by his namesake, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
    I talk to manufacturers and service providers in my constituency—I do not make a distinction, I see them all as business people—and they are all clear about what they want from Government. First and above all else, they want a stable economic climate. They want to know where they are so that they can plan with confidence. They want sustained low inflation, sustained low interest rates, sustained low corporate taxes and a flexible labour market.
    Well, inflation has been brought down to its lowest level for 30 years, interest rates are down to 5·25 per cent. from 15 per cent., which represents £13 billion off the costs of industry, and we have the lowest rates of corporation tax in the European Union or among the G7 countries.
    Also, we have created a flexible labour market, encouraging decentralised wage bargaining and strengthening democracy in the trade unions to make them more accountable to their members. Industrial strife, once the hallmark of manufacturing industry in the country, is now a thing of the past, thanks to the Government.
    That is why we must continue to resist the blandishments of the Opposition and the dangerous nonsense of the social chapter. It is incredible that a major party is going into the European elections committed to the social chapter, to a minimum wage, and that some of the party's members are even committed to a 35-hour working week.
    By talking to people in my constituency in manufacturing, I know that they are concerned with six key elements—banking attitudes and finance, capital allowances, export facilities, deregulation, research and development, and, in the longer term, education. In each of those areas, the Government are and have been taking

    1007
    action, and we must salute that. The manufacturers in my part of the world were concerned with those matters, but none—not one—was asking for a national business plan from Government.
    Running businesses is not the business of Government. The Opposition will never understand that, and that is why they have opposed every privatisation since 1979. In 1979, the Government-owned industries, before we privatised them, cost the taxpayer some £2·6 billion in subsidies. In the past year, those same businesses paid some £2 billion in corporation tax.
    Not surprisingly, when the Leader of the Opposition unveiled his business plan for Britain in Glasgow, the director general of the CBI, who was on parade this morning with the hon. Member for Livingston, found that Labour's policy contained "uncomfortable echoes of the past". We have been here before. Remember the Department of Economic Affairs, the national plan and the National Enterprise Board? As I recall, of 100 investments, two thirds went awry—half were sold at a loss, the other half went bust. It is incredible that the Opposition's policy vacuum should be filled with talk of another national business plan.
    Today, the hon. Member for Livingston paraded himself as a latter-day Lord George Brown without the hiccoughs, and it will not wash. At least the late Member for Belper believed in what he was doing. He was a conviction politician. I do not believe that the Opposition Front Bench Members can believe in what they are doing, because it does not add up to a row of beans, and it certainly does not add up to a credible manufacturing strategy.
    7.43 pm
    Mr. Roy Hughes: I have never purchased anything but a British car, from a Standard Ten onwards, so it was a sad day for me when British Aerospace decided to sell the Rover Motor Company to BMW. Why did the Government allow that to happen? In recent years, Rover has been building a quality product. Its success could have been built on and expanded, but, instead, it was flogged cheaply to a foreign competitor.
    Now that the decision has been taken to sell out, I only wish the new enterprise well, because so many jobs are at stake. There is a tripartite entanglement among Rover, BMW and Honda, and I hope that good sense prevails, because Honda has certainly been slighted. Despite the setback, Honda needs to be encouraged to continue its mutually beneficial association with Rover. Meanwhile, BMW must recognise the delicate nature of the relationship between Rover and Honda, which may benefit all concerned.
    Newport, in my constituency, has a major interest in the steel industry, especially through the great Llanwern works. Llanwern supplies large quantities of quality steel to the motor industry, and I trust that that arrangement continues. However, there has been some suggestion that, because BMW uses galvanised steel, there may be problems.
    Perhaps the Minister would look into that situation, because it may cause trouble in future. British Steel is an efficient producer and its product is reckoned to be the best in Europe. Of the total United Kingdom steel production in
    1008
    1990, 87 per cent. was produced by the continuous casting method, whereas the world average was only 70 per cent. There has been success in the export market, and the productivity of British Steel is reckoned to be 10 per cent. above the European average.
    However, such success has come about only through traumatic change. Since the mid-1970s, the United Kingdom steel industry has shed some 200,000 jobs. Many redundant steel workers, especially those in their mid-fifties, have not worked since. Alongside that job shedding, there was considerable investment in steelmaking technology. The success of British Steel bears out the theory that what British industry needed was new investment.
    Despite that success, a fresh crisis has arisen because of the recession and of over-capacity in continental Europe. That over-capacity is estimated at 30 million tonnes, which is equivalent to the steel industries of the United Kingdom and Spain. The position was made difficult because continental countries did not cut their capacity to anything like the extent to which it occurred in the United Kingdom. Germany, Italy and Spain are openly flouting previous commitments by keeping inefficient capacity running. The rules are being broken as those countries heavily subsidise their steel plants.
    In the process, our industry has been undercut, and the jobs of our steel workers are being put in jeopardy. Unfortunately, the Government have not kept abreast of the situation. Resolute action was required from the Minister for Industry. He should have insisted that the Italians, the Spaniards and the Germans made capacity cuts to match ours. That has not been done, and the Minister has been left with half-baked promises which do not amount to much at all.
    Meanwhile, the Government have aggravated the situation by announcing the ending of the iron and steel employees readaptation and benefit scheme. A statutory instrument to formally wind up the scheme was laid in Parliament on Thursday 27 January by the Minister for Industry, and it came into force the following day.
    Incidentally, that same Minister has been weak-kneed in his dealings with countries which have failed to cut their steel-making capacity. Early-day motion 485, standing in my name and that of 120 other hon. Members, calls for a reconsideration of that decision, and I reiterate that call this evening.
    The scheme is unique, as it is funded by the European Coal and Steel Community, using a levy on steel production by all companies. Since 1974, it has had no fewer than 118,000 redundant steel workers. If the Government terminate that agreement, the United Kingdom will be the only member state of the Coal and Steel Community without such a scheme. What a travesty that is, yet it is so typical of the Government. On and on they go down the path of deregulation. There have even been cuts in health and safety standards.
    The Government now talk of an economic recovery, but that recovery is patchy, to say the least. It relies on increased consumer spending and the purchase of goods from overseas, rather than products manufactured in our own factories.
    I sincerely hope that one day in the not too distant future the Government will be replaced by a Labour Government who truly believe in the importance of manufacturing industry. When that happens, Britain will truly be on the road to recovery.
    7.50 pm
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) in expressing surprise that the Labour party should choose a debate on manufacturing industry, for two reasons. First, our manufacturing industry is in a fundamentally stronger position than it has been in for many years. Secondly, I have yet to meet a business man who is impressed by the "business plan for Britain" which the Labour party recently proposed. One business man in my constituency said that the only business men he knew who would be impressed by it were his German competitors.
    On the fundamentals of the British economy, I entirely agree with my hon. Friends. In terms of efficiency; productivity, which is still increasing; exports; market awareness; and trying to improve productivity, which has increased by an unprecedented 70 per cent. since 1979, manufacturing is leaner, more efficient and more decisive than ever. Small wonder, therefore, that this year our economy will grow by 2·6 per cent. while those of other European countries will either not grow at all or will contract. Last year, the German economy contracted by 7 per cent. and the French economy by 5 per cent., while ours grew by 2 per cent.
    That view of manufacturing was emphasised by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), one of the few Labour Members with an active interest in manufacturing and business. He said that the recovery is happening and must be protected, a view shared by the London Business School which, only last month, said:
    "Our forecast suggests that the UK will settle down on a path of steady growth with historically low inflation."
    That is the key to sustained improvement in manufacturing capacity and output, as we saw in the 1980s, as a result of three Government policies. The first is low inflation, which is crucial to the ability to plan and, therefore, to invest. If we are to achieve more realistic pay-back periods for investment, we need low interest rates. As we have already seen on long-term Government bond rates, low inflation is crucial to low interest rates. If we want to get rid of short-termism, which has dogged British industry for too long, we need an assured, long-term inflationary climate, unlike the inflationary climate that we endured under the last Labour Government.
    The second policy is flexibility. The Government are right to prevent British industry from being taken over by the social chapter. Companies in Germany are already closing down and moving their plant to this country, particularly to my constituency, because the "on costs" —not the basic wage costs—which they must pay as a result of their social policies are far too high.
    When companies nowadays have to operate with stocks of only 2 per cent. of turnover—I visited one such company on Monday—they need flexibility in terms of their work force. They need not lines of demarcation but co-operation and better industrial relations. That is precisely what the Government's policy of flexibility has delivered.
    It is significant that Germany, which we all thought was the home of good industrial relations, should now see IG Metall and the public sector unions threatening all-out strikes because the German Government do not have control of their economic environment and are done down by high social costs.
    1010
    A sophisticated economy cannot specialise in everything, which is why this country, with only 1 per cent. of the world's population, 3 per cent. of its output and 8 per cent. of its exports, must attract inward investment if it is to survive. It is right that we should have such a fundamental climate that allows us to attract 40 per cent. of American and 40 per cent. of Japanese investment in Europe. That investment is not just one way. This country, possibly more than any but three other countries in the world, invests overseas, adding £7 billion a year to our balance of payments.
    By specialisation and encouraging inward investment, manufacturing industry has a rosy future, provided that it does not adopt the nonsensical policies proposed by the Labour party, to which it seems to be wedded in view of its ideological opposition to free enterprise and profit.
    The most eloquent statement on that subject was made last September by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who said of the Labour party:
    "Where we are absolutely deficient is in suggesting that, in any respect, we have a clue about how to manage the economy or whether we should even try".
    That was a senior member of the Labour party talking about the opportunity that his party has had, in 14 years in opposition, to get its industrial strategy together.
    The Labour party's competence on forecasting is not much better. After the Budget in March 1993, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said:
    "I make one Budget forecast—that, after the Budget, unemployment will rise this month, next month and for months afterwards."—[Official Report, 17 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 289.]
    Precisely the opposite happened. That month, the following month and for months afterwards, unemployment fell by an unprecedented amount—206,000 less than throughout 1993, and in my constituency, 10 per cent. less.
    Not content with that, the Labour party wants to foist on this country two policies that would be totally disastrous. First, in the European context, they seem to have swallowed hook, line and sinker, the social chapter and what some members of the shadow Cabinet have been discussing, the 35-hour week. I was with one of my carpet manufacturers only last Friday and he told me that his work force—shop floor as well as management—voted almost to a man for the Conservative party at the last general election because they were terrified of the 35-hour working week which the Labour party said that they would impose on all workers as part of its European strategy.
    The Labour party also talks about a minimum wage. The two European countries that have a minimum wage, France and Spain, have unemployment rates of 15 and 21 per cent. respectively. That is because the economy is fossilised and people do not want to invest there. One of the major manufacturing companies in Europe, perhaps even the world, Philips UK, if asked whether it is interested in investing in Spain in a manufacturing capacity, will say, "Sorry, no", precisely because of the high social and non-wage costs that must be incurred in that country.
    The other major policy that would discredit the Labour party in anyone's eyes, let alone a sensible business man, is its idea of closing loopholes, which the Confederation of Business Industry rightly said would amount to no less than a 25 per cent. increase in business taxation in this country. That translates to £3·6 billion a year—it is not just a one-off—which equates to somewhere in the region of one third of all existing manufacturing investment on an annual basis. If Labour Members honestly think that that

    1011
    would assist the country in gearing up to improve productivity still further and reduce the productivity gap between the United Kingdom and our European competitors, which has been reducing over the past 14 years under this Government, they are living in cloud cuckoo land and deserve the support of the electorate and the business community in this country even less than I thought.
    I think that the Labour party has a basic antipathy to profit and wealth creation. Labour Members are obsessed with the distribution of wealth, rather than the creation of it. Their current policies and, indeed, their argument about clause 4, which they do not want to give up even 50 years after the event, is evidence of precisely that.
    8 pm
    Mr. Peter Hardy: The Secretary of State did not stay in the Chamber long. He was out of here like the president of a banana republic who knew the reality and recognised that his friends were all right, but understood that the problems that he had shallowly skirted round remained very serious. I wanted to intervene in his speech because, during it, I received news of the statement of United Engineering Steel for the past year. That company lost £48 million. It is interesting that one of the losses was in restructuring costs.
    In 1961, at the Templeborough site near Rotherham, 9,500 people worked in the production of engineering steel. They produced 1 million tonnes of steel and made a profit of £16 million. Last year, 194 people at the same site produced 264,000 tonnes of steel—an increase in productivity of 1,200 per cent. However, the comapny made no profit and closed. So one of the most successful and effective steelworks in Europe closed not long after the Minister cancelled ISERBS and said that there would not be any more redundancies. There have been 500 more job losses in engineering steelworks in our area and the Minister knows why. It is a pity that the Minister for Industry is not here.
    I hope that the Minister will answer some of my points and those of my hon. Friends because our people demand answers. They demand answers because they know that the engineering steelworks in the Rotherham area are the best in Europe. They know that nothing in the Community steel industry can match us. They know that we hold the world records and Europe does not. They know that our workers and management have put everything into that industry and achieved the potential of enormous success. However, they have not met success, certainly not on the scale that they should have done, simply because the Government have been taken for a ride by more intelligent and competent nationally interested Ministers from the rest of the Community.
    During the statement about the fine on British Steel, I asked the Minister a supplementary question about unfair competition and subsidies being put into their engineering steel industry by our competitors. The Minister said that that had stopped. I asked him when it had stopped and he said now. Did it stop on that day? Has it stopped since? Will it stop? Under this Administration, I do not think that it will stop because the British Government are regarded as a soft touch by our European competitors. The steelworks in Spain which competes with the works in Rotherham is
    1012
    bankrupt so its Government picks up the labour costs and it continues to compete. The two German plants which compete with Rotherham cannot match us. However, the Bremen local authority proposes to buy the Klockner works in order to keep it operating at a loss.
    We are all right on a level playing field but we are not getting a fair deal. What is worse, Ministers are not capable of ensuring that a fair deal is obtained. If we are not getting a fair deal, let them give other people the chance to ensure that areas such as mine are not destined for the label which it has been given by the Community of being one of the 10 most deprived areas inside the Common Market. The Government have destroyed the mining industry and a large part of our engineering industry. Would they happily see the most successful engineering steel industry perhaps in the world but certainly in Europe destroyed because of the incapacity of Ministers and the inability of Commissioners properly to pursue policies?
    I shall give an illustration and then I shall have to finish because of the time limit. Since 1975, the steel labour force in Britain has fallen by 78 per cent. In Germany, it has fallen by 40 per cent., and in Italy it has fallen by 47 per cent. [Interruption.] Tory Members may not represent steelworkers, otherwise they would not be amused by these tragic figures. Germany had 220,000 steel workers and now has 132,000. The United Kingdom had 183,000 steel workers and now has 41,000—and it is going down further at a rate of knots. I have to live with those figures because I live in my constituency. Last year, at one of the schools in my constituency—it is a good school—only four young people got jobs. If we do not get the economy right and the industrial base of this country reinvigorated, fewer young people will get jobs and the consequences for this nation will be an unutterable tragedy. In the forthcoming by-election, I certainly hope that the people of Rotherham will cast the verdict on the Government's record that needs to be placed.
    8.6 pm
    Mr. Michael Bates: I shall begin my remarks by apologising for not being here for the opening speeches, which I would like to have been here for, but I was attending the Select Committee on Health. I trust that the House will accept my apologies for that.
    Manufacturing is close to my heart as I come from the north-east. Whenever I see the subject on the screen or the Order Paper, I want to take part in the debate because manufacturing is vital. I have a great love of the instinct of manufacturing, which is making things and selling things. That is a good instinct to have for an economy.
    I shall respond to some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) about the subject of British Steel. I share some of his views because I have British Steel at Skinningrove in my constituency. We also have the Teesside works which is one of the most productive works in Europe, if not the world. I also share the distinct anger at the fine imposed on British Steel which was completely disproportionate to the fines placed on other steel manufacturers by the European Commission.
    Let us be absolutely clear on that point—the fine was imposed by the European Commission. I totally deprecate the decision to apply that level of fine to British Steel, especially when it is compared with some companies which have been involved in the same cartel. The fines imposed on the other companies amounted to the princely

    1013
    sum of 8 ecu. According to a newspaper this morning, that should be about £4·50, compared with £25 million. That is more than the half-year profit of British Steel. It will have a catastrophic effect on British Steel in my constituency and across the country.
    I smelt something rather unsavoury in the announcement. I put two announcements side by side; the announcement in December related to steel capacity cuts and efforts to cut capacity within the European Community. We are at one in believing that everyone else should have the cuts. That is logical because we want to put Britain first. We believe that British Steel is the premier steel manufacturer in the world. However, it is a little rich for Labour Members to talk about British Steel because that was not the score in the 1970s. It brings a wry smile to our face because the Opposition fought privatisation tooth and nail and it is that which brought about the profitability of which we are proud and which we wish to protect.
    We always want someone else to take the capacity cuts. We want the Portuguese, the Spanish or the Italians to take the cuts—in fact, there should be great emphasis on the Italians who ought to be bearing the brunt of the capacity cuts. However, we are part of a community and there must be agreement. That involves some tough bargaining.
    We must remember that the Labour party signed up to the decision to give away our national veto at the Council of Ministers. Where would that leave us in our negotiations on issues such as this? I have absolute confidence that our Ministers at the Board of Trade are fighting our corner well and I wish them success.
    I am certain that British Steel will appeal against the fine. I dare suggest that when the ink is dry on the agreement on capacity cuts, we may find that the heavy fine on British Steel is rescinded somewhat by the European Commission.
    British Steel is very much a part of the manufacturing base of the north-east. That manufacturing base is important to us because we have such a history and we have done rather well. The first railway was built between Stockton and Darlington. The first electric lightbulb was in Gateshead at Thomas Swan's house off Kells Lane—I should know that because I used to live behind it. Steamships were built in the north-east and turbines were perfected by Armstrong. That great ingenuity has been the cornerstone of the north-east and provided its wealth. That manufacturing created the demand for raw materials such as coal and iron ore which then went to the steelworks. Therefore, there was interdependency between the industries.
    I could tell stories similar to those of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) about British Steel on Teesside. At the beginning of the 1980s it used to manufacture 1·5 million tonnes of steel a year with 25,000 employees. It now manufactures 3·5 million tonnes a year with 5,500 employees. That is industrial success. The separate issue involves the challenge of finding jobs and places for those who have lost their livelihoods and for the communities in which they live.
    If one takes away the need for steel, that has an effect on coal. It has been a sad year for the north-east. The last deep mine in the north-east has closed. That affected members of my family. My father-in-law was a miner at Easington until a few years ago. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who is sitting on the Front Bench has great affection for the British coal industry. We
    1014
    feel strongly about those old industries. However, when we can import coal for a fraction of the cost of mining it here, questions must be asked.
    We talk about demand and energy generation and the way in which industry should be directed to use coal. One of the great changes in the level of demand has come about as people switch from coal fires to gas in their homes. Individual consumers have made that choice because they think that it is cleaner and more cost effective, but they deny that choice to industry. Industry must have that choice.
    New industries bring in their wake new jobs and new prosperity. In the north-east, on Teesside, we have the Enron power station. It is a £850 million investment and generates power from gas. We have gas from the North sea, supplied through the central area transmission system pipeline. That is another £1 billion investment and much of the pipeline is manufactured in the north-east. That brings jobs and prosperity.
    Many people from the north-east work offshore. I had the privilege of visiting the Tiffany platform in the North sea. I saw many people from the north-east using their skills in the North sea in the construction of modules, in drilling and in the upstream and downstream aspects of oil and gas production. That was very encouraging. It is said that between 11,000 and 12,000 jobs in the north-east now depend on the offshore oil and gas industry.
    There is a link with the past. We can think of our great prowess as shipbuilding manufacturers. People in Sunderland built ships for the Japanese navy. We look with pride and nostalgia at our past and say that that is what we want to recreate. We are not building as many ships on the Tyne now, but companies such as AMEC are building offshore platforms. It is the same type of work but in a modern generation.
    Many people in the north-east feel that previous Labour Governments—Conservative Governments that preceded them must accept some responsibility—mollycoddled British industry. If tough decisions had been taken in the 1960s and 1970s, we would not have had the pain of the 1980s during the massive transition as Britain moved towards the 21st century. It renewed its ability to compete on all fronts and some painful changes had to be made. We must look to the future and see what can be achieved.
    The north-east has had great success in attracting inward investment. About 40 per cent. of all inward investment into the United Kingdom comes to the north-east. It comes because of the skills of the population —the great indigenous skills of making things, building things and selling things which made our forefathers great and which are making us great now.
    There is great pride at Nissan. That company wants to stick a Union jack on the cars exported back to Japan because the people there believe that that signifies a better-built Nissan car than those they build themselves. That is the modern equivalent of selling ships from the Tyne or the Wear to the Japanese navy. We should embrace it for what it is. It is a great transformation, demonstrating our skills. We must take pride in our nation and our region.
    Another reason why people come to the north-east was shown by the recent decision of Black and Decker—we are not part of the social chapter. We cannot divorce the two. I remember reading the name of Karl Kratzenburg—that is the type of name one does not forget. He was a machine shop supervisor in Limburg in Germany. He believed that

    1015
    capacity at Black and Decker had been shut down in Limburg and moved to Spennymoor in County Durham because, as he said, "It's simple. Industry must be flexible, the social chapter is not."
    He encapsulated it all in a short phrase. I do not know whether that was a translation or extremely good English, but he got the message across and we have accepted it.
    If the north-east is to demonstrate its industrial and manufacturing prowess on the world stage, we must remain competitive; competitiveness is what the Government is all about. We are not about mollycoddling, or protecting industry from the harsh whims of the market. That does nobody any good in the long term. We are now facing up to the future and to new challenges.
    I will give an example of those new challenges. Rather than calling in a statutory board to tell people where, when and how much businesses ought to invest, and rather than making the old mistakes, two men—Karl Watkin, a north-east business man, and Mike McCullagh of the Marske machine tool company—have set up an organisation called Manufacturing Challenge. The organisation has two objectives, which are to double output and triple exports in 10 years.
    The Opposition would tell us that a big bureaucracy, and perhaps a quango, was needed to organise and help the investment. They would sanction billions of pounds to direct that investment to various plants in the north-east. The two business men involved in Manufacturing Challenge said that they did not want a penny, and that they wanted to rebuild the manufacturing base of the north-east and develop it themselves. Business men and entrepreneurs looking after business men and entrepreneurs—that is the way it should be.
    Already, 1,000 manufacturing companies in the north-east have signed up to the Manufacturing Challenge. It is a great success, and the firms are helping each other, rather than providing subsidies. One company goes to another in the north-east before it buys goods from overseas and asks whether it can get the goods in the region. If not, Manufacturing Challenge will provide help to tell the company how to manufacture those goods to customer specifications, so that a firm is buying manufacturing goods and services within the north-east, rather than going overseas. That is the modern way—the Conservative way—in which to regenerate the manufacturing base of the north-east, and it is one which I support.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. In the time available before the winding up, there are no fewer than six hon. Members who are hoping to catch my eye. I hope that, with a bit of co-operation, I will perhaps be able to call them all.
    8.24 pm
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: I will be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    It is a pity that the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) swept into the Chamber, made his speech and swept out again, because I wanted to say something about his speech. The hon. Gentleman talked about business strategy and about industry standing on its own feet and not needing hand-outs. That is the man whose own business setting up royal exhibitions collapsed after receiving a grant of £200,000 from the English tourist board. That
    1016
    money was lost, and not repaid. When I hear that kind of stuff from Government Members, it sticks in my throat. The Government Members who have directorships and who are Lloyd's names and receive grants and loans are always the first people to criticise the minimum wage and the social chapter.
    The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) talked about inward investment. If one looks at their performance, foreign inward investors pay higher than the going rate for indigenous United Kingdom-owned companies. That is a fact. Wages paid by foreign inward investors per head are 24 per cent. higher than those paid by United Kingdom-owned firms. Their productivity is 45 per cent. higher and their investment per head is 92 per cent. higher.
    I will touch briefly on the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, which was typically vacuous. He said nothing at all, like so many of his Government colleagues. Conservative Members exist on a different planet and they operate in another dimension where they see things that other people do not see. They see growth, productivity and a booming economy where the rest of us just see dust.
    The President of the Board of Trade has a nerve. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) referred to the right hon. Gentleman's book "Where There's a Will", which was published in 1987. In it, the President said:
    "It is simply not an option for the British Government to tell the country's motor industry to make its own way in the world … An ominous development has been an increase in foreign ownership and control. Foreign investment and interest is, of course, to be welcomed, but control has its dangers. For the major parts of the British motor industry to fall entirely into foreign hands would leave it a hostage to decisions in Detroit, Paris, Turin and perhaps Tokyo."
    The amazing thing was that, when challenged by my hon. Friend, the President said that he stood by every word. When Rover was sold to BMW, the right hon. Gentleman was somewhere in the far east on a trade mission and one of his Front-Bench colleagues had to deal with the matter. The President of the Board of Trade exists in a hall of mirrors where reality is not quite reality.
    The Under-Secretary for Technology put his name to a document entitled "Manufacturing into the late 1990s". That document contained all the buzz words, but was selective with the statistics. The hon. Gentleman said in the foreword that from 1981 to 1992—it is always 1981, and never 1979—
    "UK manufacturing output rose by over a fifth".
    I have had the Library recalculate those figures going back to 1979. They show that output rose not by one fifth but by 6 per cent.
    The Under-Secretary added that investment had risen by one third, but the Library tells me that, when the figures are recalculated going back to 1979, there has been a 12·8 per cent. decrease in fixed investment in manufacturing. In the glowing foreword, the hon. Gentleman talked of exports rising by three quarters. Of course there has been an increase in the volume of United Kingdom manufacturing exports, but it has risen by 56 per cent. and not 75 per cent.
    The Under-Secretary's own Department gave evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the competitiveness of manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom, and it was recognised that things were spinning badly out of control. After 15 years of Conservative party stewardship, the United Kingdom has slipped to 18th of the 24 OECD countries. That is a pitiful record, yet the

    1017
    Government tell us that everything in the garden is lovely. That does not correspond remotely to the perception of people outside.
    In my area in the north-west, we lost 88,000 jobs in manufacturing industry between January 1992 and March 1993. There has been an acceleration since then, but I do not have the figures to hand. My constituency has the highest percentage of the work force employed in manufacturing industry of any constituency in Britain. We have had a cascade of job losses in recent years. In the past year, there were job losses at Smith and Nephew at the denim plant. The United Kingdom no longer makes denim for jeans and for clothing.
    Mr. Oppenheim indicated dissent.
    Mr. Prentice: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it is an incontestable fact that the United Kingdom no longer makes denim. There have been job losses at Rolls-Royce in my constituency, where aeroplane engines are made.
    My constituency makes not just boots and shoes but high-tech components. Baxter Healthcare is a United States multinational company that makes intravenous drips and high-tech equipment for the national health service. It has pulled up sticks and decamped to Malta where, apparently, they pay lower wages than in north-east Lancashire—which beggars belief. We have seen the closure of Project Engineering and Wadkins of the Colne, which made woodworking machinery. There has been a collapse of manufacturing in my region.
    The rhetoric of the Department of Trade and Industry and reality diverge greatly. When the Department of Trade and Industry gave evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, it said:
    "Manufacturing is the key tradeable sector of the economy contributing roughly three times as much to exports as services."
    The hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) said that there was no difference between manufacturing and services. He thinks that Britain can run itself by staging royal exhibitions—
    Mr. Hardy: Not if the hon. Gentleman is in charge.
    Mr. Prentice: Yes, not if the hon. Member for City of Chester is in charge. He thinks that Britain can run itself by staging royal exhibitions and developing tourism.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said that manufacturing trade moved into deficit in 1983 for the first time since the industrial revolution. It did so under a Conservative Government and it stayed in deficit, reaching a massive £17·3 billion deficit in 1989.
    The President of the Board of Trade said that our aerospace industry was a triumph. Rover was taken over by BMW in Germany because British Aerospace said that it needed the capital to develop the core aspect of its business—aerospace. British Aerospace told the Select Committee on Employment—the report was published in January this year—that its problem was the availability of capital.
    In its evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry last year, the Department of Trade and Industry quoted the Confederation of British Industry approvingly. It said:
    "Uncertainty about the future demand and inadequate returns on investment are consistently seen as more important influences than the cost, or availability, of finance."
    That is clearly not the case for British Aerospace, one of our biggest exporters.
    1018
    I have a document from Rolls-Royce, which manufactures aeroplane engines in my constituency. It mentions the uneven playing field on which the aerospace industry in Britain has to compete with other countries. It states that it is a major concern that companies in the United States and other countries receive support from their Governments for research and technology that British companies do not. Since 1972, launch aid has provided £500 million, but it will have to be paid back. It is not a grant but a loan—
    Mr. Jim Cousins: And the Government make a profit.
    Mr. Prentice: Yes, the Government make a profit.
    Rolls-Royce finds it difficult to operate in a competitive environment without proper support from the Government.
    I should like to say much more, but I am conscious of the fact that many of my hon. Friends want to speak, so I shall close my remarks.
    8.35 pm
    Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: It was a little unfortunate that the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) launched such a vitriolic attack on my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). Had he not done so, I should not have been tempted to remind the House that the hon. Gentleman was the leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council which, under a Labour regime, indulged in the disastrous rate-swapping scheme that lost ratepayers millions of pounds. He should be careful before attacking Conservative Members.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: The hon. Gentleman referred to my alleged responsibility for rate swaps in Hammersmith and Fulham council, presumably when I was leader. An independent report completely exonerated me and all elected members.
    Mr. Oppenheim: If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would also try to disown that disastrous policy.
    On a more consensual and emollient note, I think that probably all hon. Members would agree that manufacturing is important; it is an important component of any advanced industrialised country. But the wording of the Opposition motion is particularly ill-chosen. I think that we would all agree that in an ideal world we would prefer to have a genuinely British indigenous player on the global car market. We did not lose that chance through the takeover of Rover by BMW; we lost it in the 1970s when British Leyland was the butt of international jokes and was churning out products such as the Allegro and the Marina—international jokes in themselves that were not seriously marketable on the home market, let alone on export markets.
    We must ask ourselves why British Leyland got into that position. The answer, to a significant degree, is that Governments of all parties—the Conservatives were almost as much to blame as Labour—meddled and fiddled with the car industry. They told it what to do. They told the companies that they had to merge and told the British car industry where it could build its plants. They insisted—probably for well-intentioned reasons—that it should build plants in places like Liverpool and Scotland, well away from the core manufacturing areas. As a result, bodies and engines were shipped all over the country at great expense. We all know why that was done—it was a well-intentioned

    1019
    regional policy—but the net result was that the British car industry was severely handicapped. I have not mentioned the industrial problems that we all remember in the 1960s and 1970s. British Leyland suffered from meddling. Its successful parts—the truck and the four-wheel drive sections—were made to cross-subsidise the unsuccessful volume car sector. By the end of the 1970s, most people would not have given the British-owned part of the car industry much chance of surviving.
    It is a tribute to the Government's policies and, more important, to the enormous efforts of the management and work force of Rover that it managed to grope its way back to a position where a company of the prestige and performance of BMW wants to take it over. To suggest that Rover is a jewel of British manufacturing that had a chance to be a global player is nonsense. The Rover Group, for all its successes in the past 10 years, was third in the home market and had a derisory share of the European market. It hardly sold anything in the United States or Asia and just about managed to crank up its four-wheel drive production by a few per cent. over a period when the Japanese managed to increase production by 1,000 per cent. We must get the Rover-BMW case in perspective.
    It was unwise of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and Opposition Members to talk about the steel industry. During the debate, they have concentrated on criticising foreign subsidies for foreign steel makers. They have told us that the United Kingdom industry is the most efficient in Europe—about which I agree. In the 1970s, Britain had a £1 billion a year deficit in steel products; we now have a £1 billion a year surplus. By the end of the 1970s, British Steel was the world's largest loss-maker and cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds each year that could have been better spent on hospitals and schools. British Steel is now the most efficient steel maker in Europe and pays money to the Exchequer in taxes that help to fund the health service and schools.
    British Steel has been transformed. Why? There has been an end to the national champion-style meddling that characterised Government policy towards steel in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Again, it was not just the Labour party. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the private steel mills wanted to build a huge integrated steel plant in north Wales, but the Government said, "No. For regional policy reasons, you have to split the plant in two—half in north Wales and half in Ravenscraig."
    Ravenscraig is inland, so all the coke had to be expensively shipped inland to the plant and most of the finished product had to be shipped expensively to the markets, which were not in Scotland. We all know why Governments did that; it was well-intentioned, but such meddling with the steel industry saddled it with the burden of inefficient, uncommercial capacity.
    In the 1970s, when the British steel industry was nationalised, Government policy became worse. It was no longer the market or the management who decided what capacity of production the industry should have—it was a combination of Ministers, bureaucrats and trade unions.
    At one point, the management proposed one figure and the politicians suggested another. That was not enough for the unions and they ended up compromising with another figure that was way above what the market would bear. As a result, British Steel was meddled almost to death and by
    1020
    the late 1970s it was the world's largest loss maker. That was a result of the industrial strategy which the hon. Member for Livingston proposed for British industry today.
    What brought British Steel back to health was a combination of privatisation and market discipline and the end of the meddling from which the company suffered in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The hon. Member for Livingston has an absolute cheek to tell us that British Steel is now the most efficient steel company in Europe, when he and his party opposed tooth and nail the policies—I admit that they were difficult policies—that had to be implemented to bring the company back from the brink of disaster. It is extraordinary that he attacks subsidies elsewhere in Europe, when his whole industrial policy is predicated on subsidies for British industry.
    I should like to think that, in their maturity, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have reached a sophisticated realisation that markets work better than interventionist industrial policies, but I suspect that their conversion has more to do with opportunism and hypocrisy than with a fundamental realisation of where we went wrong in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and where we should be going now.
    Dr. Liam Fox: Does my hon. Friend accept that the argument goes further and what he calls well-intentioned meddling is fundamental flawed? When Governments have industries in the state sector, they will always make decisions for political and employment reasons and not for economic and profit reasons. Therefore, industries in the state sector are bound to feel that they will never be subject to market discipline.
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was coming to the fundamental reasons why state control of industries or state intervention is almost invariably doomed to failure. There are a number of reasons, and my hon. Friend perceptively put his finger on one.
    First, for all their undoubtedly excellent qualities, politicians and civil servants are not business men. They do not have access to the same information as the market. The market is the aggregate of thousands or millions of decisions by investors, customers and business men and, by definition, their aggregate decisions will be better informed than those of civil servants and politicians.
    Secondly, as with the steel and car industries, the decisions of politicians as to where to put investment are almost always distorted by regional and social considerations which, however well-intentioned, lead to uncommercial decisions.
    Thirdly, when Governments give subsidies, they do not tend to support those industries that most need the money or could make best use of it; they tend to subsidise those industries with the most lobbying power, and they tend to be the industries that will not use the money most effectively.
    Finally, all too often, Governments put money into projects that are unsuited to the underlying fundamentals of the economy. That occurs particularly in the third world. The Indians have poured money into a rocket programme and the Brazilians have poured money into a computer programme.
    I venture to suggest that the billions of pounds poured into the British nuclear industry in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s fall into that category. When one considers the huge

    1021
    resources in terms of the highly skilled manpower, the brain power and the financial resources that went into that industry, and the result that was achieved in terms of high-priced electricity, one thinks of what could have been produced had all those resources been efficiently directed to where they could be used most productively by the market. One can see the errors that occur when politicians and civil servants have grandiose dreams of the great industries that they would create which almost invariably end up as disasters distorting the economy, draining it of resources and costing taxpayers large sums of money.
    To return to steel, the European steel industry is a classic example of an industry which has been subject to politicians and state industrial policies for the past 30 or 40 years. Every European country, including Britain in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, has poured billions of pounds into its steel industry and the result is the mess of inefficient over-capacity from which we all now suffer.
    Industrial policy is almost invariably a beggar-my-neighbour policy. At the moment, British Steel is suffering from the ill-founded policies that are still, unfortunately, pursued in France, Italy and Spain.
    The American writer H. L. Mencken said:
    "For every complex and intractable problem there is a solution that is simple, plausible and wrong."
    Industrial policy is just that: simple, plausible and wrong. However, the world is more complex than that. Markets may not be perfect, but they are a great deal less imperfect than business decisions made by politicians and bureaucrats.
    One of the common theories from the Opposition is that we are trying to put Britain into a low-wage market to attract industry. The hon. Member for Livingston and his hon. Friends have completely missed the point.
    To be sustainable, wages have to be matched by productivity. If wages are higher than is justified by the underlying productivity of the economy, the result will be high unemployment, as has happened in Spain in recent years.
    How do a Government raise productivity in an economy? One of the key policies is improving education. The key industrial policy in Britain must be to improve standards of education, which over the past 30 or 40 years have slipped below those of our main competitors. That is why it is so important for the Government to press on with the reforms which they started in 1988 and which probably will be the most crucial component if we are to recover our manufacturing expertise and prowess.
    Making labour truly productive requires good availability of capital. Opposition Members have told us that we need a German or Japanese system whereby the banks closely co-operate with industry, and with two-tier boards and supervisory boards such as those in Germany.
    They should tell that to Metallgesellschaft or Philips in Holland. Daimler-Benz is another good example. Those companies had supervisory boards, and as a result they were not put under shareholder pressure. They became arrogant and took decisions that no company subject to the scrutiny of shareholders would have made. They have now made vast losses. That is why in countries such as Germany and Holland the system of supervisory boards and close links between banks and industries is being abandoned.
    Shareholders are the crucial link in the chain of accountability. Countries such as Germany and Japan have greater availability of investment capital which allows
    1022
    their companies to take a long-term view. The reason is that they save more because the pool of investment capital for industry is pre-eminently private savings.
    In Britain in the 1960s and 1970s, we clobbered savers with high taxes—98 per cent. investment income surtax on the savings of top rate taxpayers. That was no incentive to save. Under Labour, we had negative real interest rates, or interest rates below inflation. Who in their right mind would save when interest rates are below inflation and when what little profit is made is taxed at 98 per cent.? I am glad that the Government have reversed that policy, yet I do not think that Opposition Members have learnt their lesson, because they went into the previous election with a policy of reintroducing the investment and income surcharge. Until they realise that private savings are the real pool of capital, and that that is what industry must draw on to invest, they will carry on making the same old mistakes.
    The key lessons from the experience of Germany and Japan are that they have an awesome, rigorously educated work force, which is their key competitive advantage. Until recent years, they maintained high levels of monetary and fiscal stability and maintained low taxes and incentives for savers, which allowed industry the pool of capital for investment. We are now pursuing those policies in this country. They are achieving results. Despite what Opposition Members have said, our performance has improved dramatically in recent years. In the 1960s and 1970s, we were consistently bottom of the Group of Seven and European Community countries on overall output, manufacturing output and growth in productivity. In the 1980s, and again now, we have been at least as good as the average of the G7 and European Community countries. In many cases, we have been near the top of the league tables. We are now at least average, if not higher than that, in the league tables.
    Manufacturing output fell under the previous Labour Government, yet from the way in which Labour Members speak, one would think that everything was rosy in the garden. The truth, however, is that much of British industry was dead on its feet and multinationals, such as General Motors and Ford, were falling over themselves to shift production out of Britain and on to the continent. The opposite is now true. Under the Conservative Government, manufacturing output increased rapidly during the 1980s, and will again during the 1990s. Multinationals such as Ford and General Motors, and the Japanese manufacturers, are coming back to Britain. Britain is once again a good place to make things. We may not have made up all of the ground that we lost in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s relative to our competitors, but we have made up a great deal of it. If we maintain our policies of trying to improve education, maintaining monetary stability and giving incentives for savers, Britain will once again become a pre-eminent country for manufacturing.
    8.52 pm
    Mr. John Denham: The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) has just made a rather rambling presentation of the type of extreme free market views that I had thought—until earlier today—that the President of the Board of Trade was criticising within the Conservative party in his book.
    I heard the President of the Board of Trade speak this afternoon, and clearly he has also signed up to the view that

    1023
    the Government should do nothing, make no intervention and create no institutions to develop effective manufacturing industry. Yet the persistence of that view in the Conservative party, despite the self-evident damage that is being done to manufacturing in this country, is one of the remarkable political phenomena of the past few years.
    Any cursory examination of any part of British manufacturing industry today will show that, far from the Government being able to say, "You get on with the job. What you do is nothing to do with us," it is intimately related and affected by Government policy. That is as true today as it has ever been.
    In the south-east of England, outside London—the part of England where I come from—we have lost about one in six manufacturing jobs since 1990. Fewer than 700,000 people in the whole of the south-east region now work in manufacturing industry.
    Since the beginning of the 1980s, at least 13,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in the Southampton and Eastleigh travel-to-work area. Those job losses are truly massive. The hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) argued that the job losses mean nothing, that they simply reflect changing technology or changing working practices. Although that element is there, it is clear from a look at industries operating in south Hampshire that the effects of Government policy have led directly to many of those job losses.
    Let us take a tour of some of the major employers in the Southampton area. On Monday afternoon, I visited Aerostructures at Hamble—the visit was arranged well before this debate. It is a former subsidiary of British Aerospace and is now an independent company.
    That company has shed, or will have shed when the latest redundancies are completed, some 20 per cent. of its work force in the space of three years. I was told that that is partly to do with changed working practices and the use of new technologies and processes; but a significant part is due to the fall in orders from the aerospace industry.
    When we were talking about the work that that company does for the airbus project, the European fighter aircraft and the defence industry, it struck me that, although that company is working hard and successfully to move into civil aviation projects with no Government links, it is hard to argue the case because Governments —here, in the European Community, in the United States and in the third world—in terms of orders for the aerospace industry, directly affect the ability of that company to have orders to chase. The idea that a company such as Aerostructures can exist in some free-market paradise, unaffected by the decisions of Government, is quite wrong.
    If one looks at it the other way round, that company does not want to be run by the Government. It wants a Government who have a vision of the future of the aerospace industry, who can back key projects, who are willing to invest in the very expensive costs of developing new projects and aircraft. That is where Government responsibility comes in. It is the way in which the Government, in so many areas of industry, have washed their hands of any responsibility for taking a strategic view of British industry that has been so damaging.
    In my constituency, Philips used to have a fairly significant production of semiconductor products. That has almost entirely gone. Part of it went to the third world—
    1024
    that is perhaps labour cost competition—but part of it went to Holland, because the Dutch Government were prepared to work with Philips to provide the technology to develop the next generation of silicon wafers.
    Conservative Members do not agree with a Government working with private industry. That is fine, but it is no use our not agreeing with it when such collaboration is under way in other countries. The result is that Philips has a high standard of research and intellectual property work going on, but without the production side to add value to the work on that site.
    Pirelli, which had major job losses last year in Southampton and Eastleigh, is directly affected by the Government's failure to get major infrastructure projects off the ground, such as the channel tunnel link, with the requirements for signalling and communications cables. What Governments do, whether they have a view to the health of manufacturing industry, makes a difference.
    Ford has thankfully returned just this week to five-day working. But nobody can deny that the long periods of short-time working were directly affected by Government mismanagement of the economy and Government failure to boost the small and medium-sized businesses that provide orders for Transit vans. One fifth of all jobs at British Rail Manufacturing Ltd. in Eastleigh are to go: that development has occurred in the short time since the passage of the Bill to privatise the railways. Government policies can directly destroy jobs.
    It is true that there have been technological changes and moves towards more efficient working practices, but any examination of any part of manufacturing industry anywhere in the country will show that the actions of Government have considerable influence on the success of the manufacturing sector. The Government's real crime has been not to face up to the challenge—not to look at all the areas in which their actions influence the success of industry, and ensure that we make the best of that industry.
    The result of the shake-out of jobs in manufacturing industry has been a large and significant change in the nature of the labour market. Conservative Members may wonder why, despite some fall in the headline levels of unemployment, they seem to be getting so little political reward for what they considered a great achievement. In fact, the well-paid, full-time, permanent jobs that used to exist in manufacturing industry are now being replaced by possibly a slightly larger number of jobs, but jobs that are poorly paid, lower skilled, often part-time and often non-permanent; they tend to be in the service industry.
    One of the major reasons why the Government are given no credit for the small fall in unemployment is the current rise in job insecurity. Those in permanent manufacturing work know that the chances are that they will either lose their jobs altogether, or be shifted from pensionable permanent jobs to contract jobs with no pension rights and few secure employment prospects.
    Mr. Purchase: My constituency presents a mirror image in terms of manufacturing job losses. I have a list of more than 2,000 full-time manufacturing jobs that have been lost in Wolverhampton. That position—which no doubt also applies in my hon. Friend's constituency—demonstrates beyond doubt the collapse in manufacturing output and jobs in this country.
    Mr. Denham: I agree.

    1025
    I have listed some of the ways in which Government policies have affected job losses in the recent past. Let me now mention some of the Government's responsibilities for future planning.
    It is generally recognised that about a fifth of all jobs in the south Hampshire area depend on the defence industry, and the rundown in defence orders is obviously affecting that industry. A number of problems arise. One is that the Government's procurement policies show little concern for the health of defence-related industries. I know that Vosper Thornycroft in Southampton has had to wait far too long—more than two years too long—for the chance to tender for new minehunter orders; that has imposed a variety of costs on the company and its work force, because of the lack of orders for those world-beating ships.
    It often seems that the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence feel no concern for the health of the defence industry. Even now, with the rundown in defence spending, the Government should be planning their defence procurement to give long-term security and a sense of direction to industries that are supplying the country's armed forces.
    We know that the defence industry is contracting. The Government's second failure is that they have done nothing positive for, in particular, the smaller companies that rely on supplying the main defence contractors. I feel that it will be relatively difficult to second-guess the commercial decisions that major defence-related industries should make.
    The real challenge for defence conversion, however, relates to small firms employing 25, 50 or 100 people—firms that supply the main defence contractors, have only ever worked in the defence sector, are used only to the rhythms and routines of supply in that sector and often have highly skilled work forces and a well-developed use of technology.
    It is those companies that, all too often, are going under completely nowadays, as the number of major defence orders is reduced—and it is those companies that are likely to benefit most from advice and support enabling them to review their products and the development of new products, learn about new markets and shift into those markets, abandoning their dependence on defence.
    It is a scandal that the only support available to small to medium-sized businesses wishing to reduce their reliance on defence has been the European KONVER programme. A welcome but relatively small amount of that money is finding its way to Hampshire. It appears that the Government are quite prepared to see many small defence industries go to the wall, rather than assisting them to develop new products and new markets.
    The defence industry has a further significance. I did not understand why the President of the Board of Trade apparently defended public support for the defence sector, but for that sector alone. Much of south Hampshire's economy is based on successful defence industries, which are almost exclusively—or even exclusively—in the private sector.
    That success is not a purely private sector success, however. It is the result of a partnership between the public and private sectors, which is very apparent in the defence industry, from research and development with the defence research establishments, through the development of the product, to the final purchasing of the product.
    What I do not understand is why the Government cannot see that, if that type of partnership can be used to
    1026
    develop a successful industrial sector, based on private companies but with the backing of the public sector, it can be used in other sectors of the economy as well.
    I want to float one idea which is peculiarly relevant to south Hampshire and to the industries there at present, where a Government of vision would be backing a new industry, an industry of the 21st century, but where this Government, I fear, will not.
    Any review of the scientific or professional engineering press will show a widespread prediction that, as we move into the 21st century, there will be a whole new set of technologies and industries surrounding the development, exploration and exploitation of the oceans, whether it is for energy sources—taking advantage of differential temperatures in the oceans—whether it is to do with deep sea fish-farming, whatever the technical term for that is, whether it is to do with mining minerals on the sea bed, or whether it is to do with understanding the way in which the oceans operate because of our need for detailed climatic knowledge. Even the Government's own reports over the years have shown that there will be a major deep-sea industry.
    In the south Hampshire area, there is a concentration of different skills and expertise which could be brought together to put this country at the forefront of marine science and engineering in the next century. We build every type of ship, from small yachts to steel vessels. The department of oceanography at Southampton university is a world leader in oceanographic research. The Government's own deep-sea research ships are based in Southampton. We have the nautical skills, the communications skills, the underwater cabling skills, the electronic skills. All those different skills are available in the south Hampshire area.
    What is required at this stage is to turn that potential base of support for a new industry into a real new industry —something that requires insight and foresight on the part of the Government. It requires the development of the science park which is envisaged for Southampton to enable new industries to develop, based on academic research. It requires a long-term commitment by the Government to seeing this country as a centre for deep-sea research and exploration.
    It need not all be done by the Government themselves, but they need to show a lead. That would be to apply the model used in the defence sector, but with rather less money, to a new industry of the 21st century. The challenge for the Government will be to do that, to the benefit of the people of my area.
    9.7 pm
    Mr. Richard Page: I apologise for not being in the Chamber earlier, due to the fact that I was on the Public Accounts Committee.
    My brief contribution this evening is based on the position of one who has consistently argued the need for a strong manufacturing base. That is not to decry the advantages of the service industries, which are to be welcomed; but, if the calculation is correct that we can export 80 per cent. of our manufacturing but only 20 per cent. of our service, it is folly to ignore our manufacturing base. The 80–20 split has never been seriously challenged.
    I have never believed that service will save the day, so we must have a strong and powerful manufacturing base. When in the 1980s the noble Lord Ridley was looking

    1027
    forward to the abolition of his Department—he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the time—I nearly despaired. The situation today, however, is different, and I believe that, with this Government, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), we are seeing a commitment to manufacturing that has been lacking for several years. Some examples of a genuine improvement in our manufacturing base are coming through. I confess a personal involvement because I shall speak about the car industry, in which I did all my training and with which I have certain involvements.
    In 1991, there were 1·593 million new car registrations. The next year, the figure had increased slightly. In 1993, the figure had increased to 1·778 million, and it is calculated that in 1994 there could be as many as 1·9 million new car registrations. I regard that as a barometer of success, because the tentacles of the motor industry reach forth and down into our economy more than those of practically any other industry.
    I regard the machine tool industry as an even more important indicator. Machine tools are the fundamental starting point from which our economy can start to grow. It has been a disappointment to me for years that, as a percentage of our gross national product, the amount of money that we have invested in the machine tool industry has been remarkably small. We have fallen dramatically behind Japan and Germany. At long last, in June or July of last year, the number of orders for machine tools started to increase ahead of that for sales. That is where our country's growth will begin.
    Before Christmas, I told you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that one should always remember that a man with a JCB can dig a trench much more quickly than a man with a broad back and a big shovel. If we ignore that sector of our industry, we do so at our peril. Japan does not ignore it. Germany does not. In Japan, aid is targeted to specific sectors of industry. In one year, aid might be given for NCR machines; in another year, it might be given for small business machine companies. I sincerely hope that we shall make greater efforts to increase investment of that nature.
    That leads me to the second and last argument that I shall make tonight, and that is the question following on from inward investment. We have already heard that more than 40 per cent. of Japanese investment in Europe has come to this country, as has nearly 40 per cent. of the investment from the United States.
    My criticism is that I believe that many pension companies, and many of our various insurance companies, have an investment policy which depends on the size of the dividends rather than one which takes a slightly longer-term perspective. Japan looks to the long term. Unless we put the investment in—whether it be in machine tools or anything else—we shall not produce future growth, and we shall not be able to compete. Therefore, I would like to think that the message will go out from the House tonight to our industries, and to our pension and investment companies, that we must invest more, especially in our machine tools, to create growth in our companies.
    I promised that I would be brief, and I will be. Finally, I shall discuss trade associations, of which there are
    1028
    literally thousands in this country. Some of them do a good job; some exist to choose the date of the annual dinner and the annual golf match.
    The Department of Trade and Industry desperately needs to receive a coherent message from one trade association per sector of industry, so that it knows the views of that sector of industry. I know that the President of the Board of Trade has asked for that. I ask trade associations to combine, so that they can give the Government one coherent message and so that the Government do not become confused by a series of messages from all types of people that does not reflect the whole of that sector of industry. We need one trade association per sector to funnel through the deregulation requirements that we shall need for the future.
    I conclude with those two points—that we need to have one trade association per sector, and that we need to increase our investment in manufacturing.
    9.14 pm
    Mr. Richard Burden: As I come from the west midlands, I have a great deal to say about manufacturing industry, but in view of the lack of time I shall concentrate on one issue—Rover—which has underlain the theme of the debate.
    The sale of Rover to BMW means that, with the exception of Rolls-Royce and Reliant, the last remaining British-owned car manufacturer has been sold to a foreign firm. The reason why it is significant has nothing to do with petty nationalism or wrapping ourselves in the Union Jack; it has to do with the fact, recognised by other countries, that we need a strategic decision-making role in our strategic industries. The sale has destroyed that role. It is ironic that the need appears to be well understood by BMW itself—the assurances that it has given since it made its bid have, ironically, been much more constructive than the response from either British Aerospace or the Government.
    The story of British Aerospace's takeover of Rover and the subsequent sale of Rover by British Aerospace is symptomatic of the short-termism, sleaze and complacency that masquerade as an industrial policy under this Government. I say "sleaze" because Rover was sold to British Aerospace for a song and the sale was financed by sweeteners paid for by the taxpayer. I say "complacency" because the Government allowed it to happen and, indeed, colluded in the process. I say "short-termism" because the decision to sell Rover on was made in the short-term interests of British Aerospace's balance sheet; it had nothing to do with the long-term interests of Rover or the British car industry as a whole. That is what the deal was all about, in contrast with BMW's responses since then.
    The story has now jeopardised the future relationship with Honda which had been so successful. I quite understand why Honda reacted as it did, but I ask Honda to bear it in mind that the relationship with Rover has benefited both sides and does not need to end now. Honda's understandable and justifiable anger towards British Aerospace and the Government should not and need not be taken out on Rover, Rover employees or Rover plants. I hope that the relationship will continue.
    It is sad that the Government are once again jettisoning and ignoring their responsibility to build bridges and to secure, even at this late stage, a strategic decision-making

    1029
    role within the new BMW-Rover partnership. They could secure that role, although doing so might present them with some ideological problems.
    Discussions that are taking place in Europe could allow British Rover employees to receive information, to be consulted and to have an input in a new European-based BMW-Rover partnership, but the Government are doing all that they can to veto the development of European works councils and to stop British employees having a say in their own firms. Why are the Government prepared to stand by and allow Britain's last remaining car manufacturer to be sold to a foreign firm, while refusing to allow British employees to have a say in the same firm and to contribute to the defence of British interests in the merged company? I issue that challenge to the Government. As the discussions about works councils and supervisory boards continue in Europe and elsewhere, the Government will have questions to answer if they try to block the opportunity for British employees to defend British interests as the Government have failed to do.
    A conference took place in Brussels yesterday which was attended by most of the major European car manufacturers and, indeed, by the unions and by Members of the European Parliament, but interest from the British Government was noticeable by its absence. The conference tackled the problem of overcapacity in the European car industry and dealt with the restructuring and reskilling that will be necessary if the industry is to thrive. That conference began to tackle the issue that the American Government are now prepared to tackle—producing a more environmentally friendly motor car and making available the necessary investment.
    The Government say that their manufacturing policy is a success. Why, therefore, are they still looking the other way and refusing to face up to their responsibility? The sale of Rover should never have happened. The fact that it did is testimony to the failure of their policy and to their neglect of manufactuirng industry. The sale took place behind the backs of Rover's employees and over the heads of people who have made Rover such a success. The Government are responsible for that. Their collusion with British Aerospace's short-termism allowed that to happen.
    It is now the Government's responsibility to ensure that, at this late stage, Britain has a strategic decision-making role. They can achieve that by talking to BMW, Honda and Rover and ensuring that the partnership continues. The Government should drop their opposition to British employees having a role and a say in the decisions of a firm that those employees have had made a success.
    9.20 pm
    Mr. Derek Fatchett: I thank the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) for his kind comments about our colleague, Mr. Ron Leighton, which will have been appreciated by all my right hon. and hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that Ron Leighton was one of the few people in politics who held strong views, but had mostly friends and very few enemies. His death is a sad loss to the House and his constituency.
    The President of the Board of Trade asked why the Labour party was concentrating on manufacturing industry during its Supply day. If he had been here for the rest of the debate he would have heard the answer clearly articulated by all my hon. Friends. He would have realised the importance of manufacturing.
    1030
    Indeed, if the President of the Board of Trade took the opportunity of talking to organisations such as the Engineering Employers Federation or to many manufacturing industries, he would be aware of the importance of manufacturing. Is it not strange that the right hon. Gentleman should have the audacity to ask such a question? Is it not clear that manufacturing is important to Britain because it is the wealth-producing sector of our economy? More than 70 per cent. of Britain's exports, which finance our ability to pay our way in the world, comes from the manufacturing sector. For the right hon. Gentleman to ask why manufacturing is important and why the Labour party devotes its time to it suggests that he is out of touch with British industry and is more concerned with his personal ambitions than with the ambitions of the manufacturing sector. The manufacturing sector is important because it produces our wealth and enables us to buy personal and public services. It is about time that the Conservative party recognised that and dropped the empty rhetoric of the 1980s.
    The President of the Board of Trade said that my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made no reference to competitiveness. When I heard that, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's script writer must have written his speech before my hon. Friend delivered his. Then again, given the quality of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that is unfair to the script writer. It would be better to say that the President clearly did not bother to listen to my hon. Friend's speech. When my hon. Friend talks about investment in plant, skills and people and in developing infrastructure, we can reach only one simple conclusion—that Labour Members are talking about increasing the competitiveness of British industry. It is sad that the President does not recognise that. I suspect that the real difference is not that he cannot see it but that ideologically he does not want to see it.
    The Government are committed to some form of industrial policy based on the market, on deregulation and on cheap, flexible, throwaway labour and people. It is a vision that says that Britain in the 21st century can somehow compete by going down market in quality, in labour and in costs. That vision is totally redundant, and it is in no way shared by our world competitors or our European partners. Each of those countries will invest in people and in technology, and recognises their importance. It is a shame for this country that our Government are so divorced from reality that they want to turn the clock back to the economic and industrial strategies of the 19th century rather than going forward to the strategies and policies of the 21st century.
    The President of the Board of Trade failed to understand the purpose of the debate, but he should know the importance of manufacturing and of what we say about competitiveness. If he had been here during the debate he would have heard important contributions from my hon. Friends about three key industries—steel, the motor industry, and aerospace and defence-related activities. The right hon. Gentleman did not speak in any detail about any of those during his opening speech.
    My hon. Friends the Members for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) and for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) made effective speeches about the future of the British steel industry. They recognised the growth in productivity and the extent to which the British steel industry is now a world leader, but they also recognised that the Government have failed to support the steel industry in European negotiations. Before

    1031
    going to Brussels, the Minister for Industry claims that he will stand up for British industry and fight his corner to save jobs in the British steel industry. Would that that be true: would that we had a Minister for Industry prepared to stand up and fight for Britain, but the Government have sold the British steel industry short again.
    The figures speak for themselves. My hon. Friends the Members for Newport, East and for Wentworth explained the situation clearly. Percentage job losses in the German, French, Italian and Spanish steel industries over the decade from 1980 were considerably lower than percentage job losses in the United Kingdom. We have lost on capacity and on jobs. Yet our Government are not prepared to fight for our steel industry. I tell the Minister for Energy, who is to wind up the debate, that we need protection for our steel industry, just as we want a Minister who will argue the corner for British steel. At present that simply does not happen.
    When the President of the Board of Trade was trying to pretend that all was well in the British steel industry he might have considered the United Engineering Steels figures announced this afternoon. A £48·1 million loss has been returned this year, £27 million of which has gone to pay for exceptional costs in connection with closures and redundancies; 1,000 jobs have been lost in the past year. And what company is the biggest single customer of United Engineering Steels? It is Rover.
    That brings me to the second issue which has dominated the debate—the future of the car industry. The linkage is clear not only with United Engineering Steels but with what my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East said about Llanwern. Rover is a key customer of the Llanwern steelworks, and £4·3 billion worth of high-tech products are involved in the turnover of Rover and Rover-related activities. What has happened now? The key fact, and one that should dominate Government thinking, is that control over those activities—including research and development, and future products—has passed from the United Kingdom to BMW and to Germany.
    The key question is not the simple debating point that Conservative Members use as to whether we are in favour of the change or whether we are talking down Rover. We are as interested or more interested than any party in the House to see that venture a success because it concerns jobs for our constituents. It is annoying when Conservative Members try to pretend otherwise. The key question is who will control the future in terms of Rover and Britain's car industry.
    In the past week, the sight of the future of our last major car producer being determined in discussions between a Japanese car company and a German car company annoyed and irritated the British people. Does that not say something about the Government's failure and their abdication of responsibility towards a key industry which is at the heart of our industrial policy and our economic future? The Government have no interest. It reflects the comments of the Prime Minister the other week, when challenged about the practices of British Aerospace and the redundancy payment for their three-month-a-year chairman. The Prime Minister said that it was nothing to do with him, that it was not his responsibility and that he was only the Prime Minister. Are we not clearly being given the same answer to the question about the future of the motor
    1032
    industry? We have a Prime Minister who is not up to his task, a President of the Board of Trade who is more concerned about becoming Prime Minister, and Ministers who are not able to provide the leadership that is important.
    The car industry lacks that leadership, and no other industries lack that leadership more than aerospace and defence. My hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) talked about how we needed to look for ways in which the capacity and skills of the defence industries could be used for other purposes. We heard cheap rhetoric and debating points earlier from the President of the Board of Trade, but he is time-stuck and time-warped in his arguments. He must recognise that the issue of the 1990s is how those skills wil be used in the future. If there is to be a cut in the defence budget, which is clearly happening under the Government, we must ask how that industry's skills and technologies are to be used in the future. The Government have no answer. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), the Government Whip, seems to be full of ideas. He should talk to people in business.
    If the hon. Gentleman considers paragraph 108 of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry report on the aerospace industry—a unanimously agreed document—he will see evidence from GEC, which was quoted at length. I would not see GEC as a socialist organisation or one dominated by card-carrying members of the Labour party, but I shall quote the report as an endorsement of what we have been saying on defence-related matters for some considerable time. GEC have caught up with the Labour party. When will the Conservative Government catch up on those issues? The important paragraph states that the division of responsibility is
    "if we are not careful, almost a classic recipe for eventual run-down and decline of the aerospace industry, because the Ministry of Defence is, in aerospace terms, the main procurer/buyer without having the responsibility for the health of industry. The DTI, of course, has responsibility for the health but has not got the clout to actually do anything about it."
    That sums up the problem in our defence-related industries: it is not just that the DTI does not have the clout—it also does not have the vision of where we are going and what we need to do for those important industries.
    The debate concentrated on three industries, but other issues clearly provided a backcloth for the debate. There were three important issues on which comment is needed. First, virtually every Conservative Member talked about the growth in productivity in our manufacturing industries.
    Nobody could or would want to deny the statistics. There has been that increase in productivity. Sadly, Conservative Members have not looked at the next page of what should be a research script. The crucial question is not just productivity, but our ability to produce wealth and output. I will explain in simple terms what has happened. While our productivity has increased, our output has not increased compared with our European competitors.
    In the 1980s, Britain's manufacturing output increased by an average of 0·5 per cent. a year. Conservative Members should go away and look at the comparable figures for our competitor countries, whose output was growing. The figures for each sector show that in key areas the annual growth rate is simply not sufficient. So productivity is growing, but output is not growing sufficiently and capacity is contracting.
    In the 1980s the average growth in output in metals was 1.4 per cent., in metal goods 0·5 per cent., in motor vehicles and parts 1·5 per cent., in food 1 per cent., in textiles

    1033
    0·8 per cent., and in printing 2·8 per cent. The total overall manufacturing output was 1·9 per cent. Services grew greater, with an economic growth rate of just under 2 per cent., but the growth rate in manufacturing output was not sufficient. Thus we come to the end of the 1980s with a clear condemnation of the Government's failure to protect our manufacturing base.
    The figures for 1979–92 show that at the end of those 13 years output had increased by 3 per cent. under the Government. Despite three proclaimed economic miracles—the first in the early 1980s, the second under the Lawson boom and the third the economic miracle that is supposed to be just around the corner—output has increased by 3 per cent.
    That takes us to the next crucial point about the Government's failure. They have argued that our productivity has increased and that we can therefore compete, but it is clear from the trade deficit figures that our base is shrinking. That is why, for the first time since 1982, this country runs a substantial trade deficit in manufactured goods with the rest of the world.
    What has happened to investment in manufacturing? In only three years under this Government has investment in manufacturing been higher than it was during the last year of the Labour Government. Had Britain achieved the same investment in manufacturing in those intervening years as was achieved in the last year of the Labour Government, £20 billion of additional investment would have taken place. Had that investment gap been filled through the Government's policies, Britain would have been in the first division in terms of ability to compete and could have competed alongside other countries, but we have simply failed to do that.
    Nothing better illustrates one of the deep problems of short-termism in British industry, the demand for a return for shareholders and the short-term demands on finance rather than long-term industrial strategic decisions than what has happened in aerospace and, more important, the figures for profits and investments. Will the Minister justify in his winding up speech figures which show that from 1922–93 there has been a 27 per cent. increase in profits but that at the same time investment in manufacturing has fallen by 0·3 per cent.? Again, the short-termism that has bedevilled British industry is evidenced in those figures. This debate is crucial because it shows that Labour Members understand the importance of manufacturing. We understand competitiveness. Above all else, we understand what has happened as a result of the Government's 14 years of neglect of our manufacturing base. Britain will never be able to provide its people with the living standards that they deserve and that we wish for them until we get effective policies for our manufacturing industry.
    The Government have failed. Their belief in the market means that the Department of Trade and Industry is not at the centre of industrial policy. It hangs on by its fingertips as a marginal Department with a marginal President of the Board of Trade. We need a Government and a strategy committed to industry and manufacturing. The people of this country recognise that Labour can and will offer that. That is why my hon. Friends will vote tonight for a strategy which will not simply win for Britain but is already winning with the British people.
    9.40 pm
    The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): Far from the debate illustrating how Labour Members understand manufacturing industry, it has shown how they uniquely know how to denigrate our manufacturing successes. It has shown that they uniquely are the purveyors of doom and gloom; they want to project the bad news outside the Chamber and they want to show what they regard as Britain's failures. If there is one area where they could succeed, it is in the export of doom and gloom. I am not sure whether they could succeed in exporting doom and gloom because in no time at all they would be in the business of managing, and planning and subsidising it.
    I feel sorry for Labour Members. They could not possibly have known that when they were announcing to the world the failure of the British car industry—they have not bothered to do their research—there was a headline on the front page of the Financial Times which stated:
    "Car output at highest level for nearly 20 years".
    Could not they find it somewhere in their hearts to pay a tribute to the British car industry—to say how well the industry has done in reaching that record level?
    I do not want to be accused of being uncharitable. At 7.8 pm, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), who knows something about manufacturing, was the first Labour Member to praise British manufacturers. He pointed out that we are doing well, the climate is right and there are successes to which attention should be drawn. At 7.8 pm, when the debate had been going for three and a half hours, he was the first Labour Member to recognise that there were real successes out there.
    I shall tell Labour Members where the successes have been sector by sector, as did the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett).
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Eggar: I shall give way in a moment.
    In the data processing and office machinery sector, there has been a 700 per cent. increase in output since 1981. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) should know that, because MIMTEC created 400 new jobs in his constituency, and Bull UK is planning another 200 jobs in that area. Output in the rubber and plastics sector has increased by 70 per cent; chemicals output is up by 50 per cent; data printing output is up by almost 40 per cent; and electronic engineering output is up by almost 35 per cent. Some of that is also in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Output in instrument engineering is up 26 per cent. Some new jobs in that industry were created in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Motor vehicle production is up 20 per cent. and metal manufacturing is up 11 per cent. Those are the facts. That is what the Opposition have sought to denigrate and run down over the past five hours.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: In case it is thought that the Minister has misrepresented me, it is appropriate for me to say on behalf of all Opposition Members that when British industry is doing well, we are the first to congratulate it and to recognise the joint efforts of management and workers.
    I was trying to draw attention to the fact that a major part of our competitive advantage derives from the fact that, after 14 years of Conservative rule, our wage rates and social benefits are about half the level of our major competitors in Europe. Perhaps the Minister would care to refer to that. That gives us a competitive advantage, but at

    1035
    what cost? Is that such a major achievement? I agree that we have benefited from it, but the Minister cannot claim that it is a super-successful economic policy.
    Mr. Eggar: I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. I always thought that he was an independent-minded Member. I had a great deal of respect for what he said in his speech and it does not reflect well on him that when picked out for praise, he feels that he has to reject it and ingratiate himself with his honourable colleagues by saying, "I didn't mean that" and attempting to rewrite his speech. He would earn more respect in the Chamber if he stuck by what he said in his good speech.
    I want to continue with the good news because that is what the British people want to hear. Last night, by accident, I met John Neill, the chief executive of Unipart. I talked about today's debate. He told me about his company. Unipart was a buy-out from British Leyland in 1987. Its main midlands factory was losing £1 million a year when the company was bought out. It was regarded as one of British Leyland's worst factories. Seven years later, it is a highly successful and highly profitable business.
    Cranfield university, working with "Management Today", voted Premier Exhausts the best factory in the midlands, the best engineering factory in Britain and Britain's best factory. In a detailed benchmarking study comparing nine Japanese plants with their nine British counterparts, conducted by Andersen Consulting, Premier emerged as the only world-class British factory ahead of six Japanese factories in terms of quality.
    Forgive me, Madam Speaker, for giving a detailed analysis of success by a British company in a highly competitive area. If we do not send out from the House a clear message that companies have been successful and that we respect and praise them for their success, we do nothing but run down manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Hardy: The Minister may have heard my short remarks in which I paid enormous tribute to the success and record breaking of the engineering steel industry. He may also have heard the question I asked him. I said that the Minister for Industry had said that the subsidies that threaten the existence of our steel industry in south Yorkshire had stopped. I do not believe that there was any justification or evidence for the Minister to have made that comment. I asked whether that point would be cleared up tonight. I hope that the Minister does so before 10 o'clock.
    Mr. Eggar: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I apologise to him, but I was out of the Chamber during his speech.
    Mr. John Evans rose
    Mr. Eggar: The core issue that faces this country and the House is that of competitiveness. Unless we understand that nobody out there owes us a living and that we succeed as a nation by our own efforts and ability to sell in an increasingly competitive world—that was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) and others—we will never succeed. The primary role for increasing competitiveness is for industry.
    Mr. John Evans rose
    Mr. Eggar: The Government have a critical role to play.
    1036
    It is not just the Department of Trade and Industry—all parts of the Government must concentrate on increasing competitiveness. We must work with industry and concentrate on those areas where we can make an improvement. That is why my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will publish a White Paper on competitiveness early in the summer, and we will be working hard to identify areas where further improvements can be made.
    The House heard a thoughtful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West who talked about the need to improve training, education and technical skills. I agree with a great deal of what he said, and that was very much what I tried to achieve when I was at the Department of Employment and the Department of Education.
    The Opposition motion harks back to the dark days of the late 1970s. Those were halcyon days when the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) tried to save British industry by creating co-operatives. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) did not have the time to sit on quangos, because he was busy being the Minister with responsibility for small businesses.
    Those were days when the Labour party dared to call themselves socialists, and when the nationalised industries got more than £2 billion at today's prices from the taxpayer in subsidies. The House should contrast that with the position in 1991, when those same companies—now privatised—paid £3 billion in taxes to the Exchequer at a time when those same companies were winning massive export orders for Britain.
    I do not want to be unfair to the Opposition. The speech of the hon. Member for Livingston suggested that there was to be a degree of repackaging of their policies. We heard that, instead of one national enterprise board, the Opposition now want one national investment bank and lots of regional development agencies. They do not want one national enterprise board to be a failure, but lots of regional failures.
    It is worth reminding the House about that great socialist invention, the National Enterprise Board. That board tried to pick winners, but more often picked losers because the board's investment performance was appalling. Instead of making an annual return of 15 to 20 per cent., it lost 15 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) reminded the House that the board made just over 100 investments in industry. In no fewer than 35 of those investments, the companies had either to be put into receivership or liquidation. Of the rest, 27 resulted in a loss to the taxpayer on disposal.
    Whether making clocks, designing office systems, writing software, tanning hides, selling vehicles or making engineering products—it was all the same to the National Enterprise Board, which lost money on each of those investments.
    Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister is running British industry down.
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but I was not. I was running down the achievements of the National Enterprise Board which was started by the Labour party, and which the hon. Gentleman announced this afternoon that he wants to reinvent in not just one incarnation, but lots of regional agencies.

    1037
    As if that is not enough, the Opposition want to go further. Instead of good, old-fashioned clause 4 socialism, the Labour party wants a new relationship—as they term it—between the Government and nationalised industries. The modern Labour party cannot bring itself to say what it means, and expresses itself in accountancy-speak. We were told the other day that it wants a new set of accounts and a new balance sheet. What the Labour party means is that it wants more state control, and more taxpayers' money spent on more nationalised industries.
    The Labour party wants the private sector's money, but not its expertise. The test of the Labour party's intentions is not its glossy pamphlets or honeyed, well worked-out words, but what it will do when faced with difficult choices.
    Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Eggar indicated dissent.
    Mr. Evans: Coward.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has been attempting to intervene for a long time and I appreciate his frustration. But he must understand that the word that he has used is unacceptable. I hope that he will withdraw it.
    Mr. Evans: I apologise, Madam Speaker, and simply make one final appeal to the Minister to give way. but I withdraw the word "coward" as you, Madam Speaker, asked me to do so—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has withdrawn the word.
    Mr. Eggar: Let me take an example that is hard for the Labour party to accept—the coal industry. A headline in the Evening Standard of 28 September stated:
    "Scargill defeats Smith in vote to renationalise British Coal".
    Since then, I have been asking the Labour party for its policy on British Coal. Eventually, in a world exclusive interview gained by the Yorkshire Post, we were given the answer. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) was smoked out. He said:
    "We ought not to hesitate to take back some"—
    of the pits
    "into the public sector if their activities are not consistent with national energy policy. Or if there is a doubt about safety of their operation. Or they don't have the confidence of the workforce".
    Let us examine that statement. If the Labour party ever comes to power, it will have an energy plan that details tonnages and quality for each pit. If the private sector does not produce from a pit in a way that the Government want, the answer is clear: the pit can be arbitrarily renationalised. That is not socialism, but Soviet planning of the sort that went out 20 years ago.
    It gets worse—if the operation is not safely run, it will not be a matter for the tripartite Health and Safety Executive, but an excuse for arbitrary renationalisation. Even worse, there is the Arthur charter to pay off the National Union of Mineworkers. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, the Leader of the Opposition, has said that if the work force does not have confidence in the management of the mine, renationalisation will follow.
    Presumably, all Arthur has to do to meet the confidence test is to make a single 10p telephone call to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East and the pit will immediately be renationalised on the spot. That is not
    1038
    industrial strategy, but an extremists' charter. That is the reality behind the honeyed words, glossy pamphlets and fancy presentations that form such a part of the Opposition Front-Bench team.
    The coal industry may be a difficult issue for the Labour party to confront, but where will it turn next? What about the privatised industries that it has got its sights on—it will renationalise British Steel, British Aerospace, Rover and British Gas. The Opposition should come clean and tell us what they are going to do. It is clear that they do not want simply to return to 1970s state planning and ownership—that is not enough—but are determined to destroy British industry's competitiveness. The motion does not mention that, but we should not forget that the Opposition are committed to a minimum wage.
    The minimum wage will lead to the loss of up to 2 million jobs. The Opposition have never denied their commitment to it. It has never worked; there is no logic to it; it does not work in any other country and certainly would not work in Great Britain—[Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members scoffing—those are not my words, but the words of Gavin Laird speaking on Channel 4 news.
    They are not content with a minimum wage; they are determined to undermine competitiveness. They have signed up to the European socialist manifesto—to a 35-hour, four-day working week which is estimated to cost British industry as much as another £20 billion. If we add all that to the social charter, they will have destroyed British industry before they even get around to working out a strategy. The only right strategy is a competitive strategy followed by a Conservative Government.
    Mr. Derek Foster rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 319.

    Division No. 153]

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Ainger, Nick

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

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Burden, Richard

    Allen, Graham

    Byers, Stephen

    Alton, David

    Caborn, Richard

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Austin-Walker, John

    Canavan, Dennis

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Cann, Jamie

    Barnes, Harry

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Barron, Kevin

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Battle, John

    Clapham, Michael

    Bayley, Hugh

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Bell, Stuart

    Clelland, David

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Benton, Joe

    Coffey, Ann

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cohen, Harry

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Connarty, Michael

    Blair, Tony

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Blunkett, David

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Boateng, Paul

    Corbett, Robin

    Boyes, Roland

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Bradley, Keith

    Corston, Ms Jean

    1039

    Cousins, Jim

    Illsley, Eric

    Cox, Tom

    Ingram, Adam

    Cryer, Bob

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Cummings, John

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Jamieson, David

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Darling, Alistair

    Jowell, Tessa

    Davidson, Ian

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Keen, Alan

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Khabra, Piara S.

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

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Denham, John

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Dewar, Donald

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Dixon, Don

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Dobson, Frank

    Lewis, Terry

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Livingstone, Ken

    Dowd, Jim

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Loyden, Eddie

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    McAllion, John

    Eastham, Ken

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Enright, Derek

    McCartney, Ian

    Etherington, Bill

    Macdonald, Calum

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    McFall, John

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    McKelvey, William

    Fatchett, Derek

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Faulds, Andrew

    McLeish, Henry

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Fisher, Mark

    McMaster, Gordon

    Flynn, Paul

    McNamara, Kevin

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    McWilliam, John

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Foulkes, George

    Mahon, Alice

    Fraser, John

    Mallon, Seamus

    Fyfe, Maria

    Mandelson, Peter

    Galloway, George

    Marek, Dr John

    Gapes, Mike

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Garrett, John

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    George, Bruce

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Martlew, Eric

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Maxton, John

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Meacher, Michael

    Godsiff, Roger

    Meale, Alan

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Michael, Alun

    Gordon, Mildred

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Gould, Bryan

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Graham, Thomas

    Milburn, Alan

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Miller, Andrew

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Grocott, Bruce

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Gunnell, John

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Hain, Peter

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Hall, Mike

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Hanson, David

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Hardy, Peter

    Mudie, George

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Mullin, Chris

    Harvey, Nick

    Murphy, Paul

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Henderson, Doug

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Heppell, John

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Hinchliffe, David

    Olner, William

    Hoey, Kate

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Home Robertson, John

    Parry, Robert

    Hood, Jimmy

    Patchett, Terry

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Pendry, Tom

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Hoyle, Doug

    Pope, Greg

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Prescott, John

    Hutton, John

    Primarolo, Dawn

    1040

    Purchase, Ken

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Radice, Giles

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Randall, Stuart

    Stevenson, George

    Raynsford, Nick

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Redmond, Martin

    Straw, Jack

    Reid, Dr John

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Rendel, David

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Tyler, Paul

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Vaz, Keith

    Rogers, Allan

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Rooker, Jeff

    Wallace, James

    Rooney, Terry

    Walley, Joan

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wareing, Robert N

    Ruddock, Joan

    Watson, Mike

    Salmond, Alex

    Welsh, Andrew

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Sheerman, Barry

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Wilson, Brian

    Short, Clare

    Winnick, David

    Simpson, Alan

    Wise, Audrey

    Skinner, Dennis

    Worthington, Tony

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wray, Jimmy

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

    Wright, Dr Tony

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

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Snape, Peter

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Soley, Clive

    Mr. Dennis Turner and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

    Spearing, Nigel

    Spellar, John

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Butler, Peter

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Butterfill, John

    Alexander, Richard

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Ancram, Michael

    Carrington, Matthew

    Arbuthnot, James

    Carttiss, Michael

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Cash, William

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Ashby, David

    Churchill, Mr

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Clappison, James

    Atkins, Robert

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Colvin, Michael

    Baldry, Tony

    Congdon, David

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Conway, Derek

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Bates, Michael

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Beggs, Roy

    Couchman, James

    Bellingham, Henry

    Cran, James

    Bendall, Vivian

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

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Day, Stephen

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Booth, Hartley

    Devlin, Tim

    Boswell, Tim

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Dicks, Terry

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Bowden, Andrew

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bowis, John

    Dover, Den

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Duncan, Alan

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Brazier, Julian

    Dunn, Bob

    Bright, Graham

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Dykes, Hugh

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Eggar, Tim

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Elletson, Harold

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Burns, Simon

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Burt, Alistair

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Butcher, John

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    1041

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Evennett, David

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

    Faber, David

    Knox, Sir David

    Fabricant, Michael

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Legg, Barry

    Forman, Nigel

    Leigh, Edward

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Forth, Eric

    Lidington, David

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lightbown, David

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Lord, Michael

    French, Douglas

    Luff, Peter

    Fry, Sir Peter

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Gale, Roger

    MacKay, Andrew

    Gallie, Phil

    Maclean, David

    Gardiner, Sir George

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Garnier, Edward

    Madel, Sir David

    Gill, Christopher

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Malone, Gerald

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Mans, Keith

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Marland, Paul

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Marlow, Tony

    Gorst, John

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Martlew, Eric

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Hague, William

    Merchant, Piers

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Mills, Iain

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Hannam, Sir John

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Harris, David

    Moss, Malcolm

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Needham, Richard

    Hawkins, Nick

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hawksley, Warren

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hayes, Jerry

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Heald, Oliver

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hendry, Charles

    Norris, Steve

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Hicks, Robert

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Ottaway, Richard

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Page, Richard

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Paice, James

    Horam, John

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

    Pawsey, James

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Pickles, Eric

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hunter, Andrew

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Jack, Michael

    Richards, Rod

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Riddick, Graham

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Jessel, Toby

    Robathan, Andrew

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Key, Robert

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Sackville, Tom

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    1042

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

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

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Tracey, Richard

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Tredinnick, David

    Shersby, Michael

    Trend, Michael

    Sims, Roger

    Trotter, Neville

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Soames, Nicholas

    Viggers, Peter

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Walden, George

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Waller, Gary

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Ward, John

    Spring, Richard

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Sproat, Iain

    Waterson, Nigel

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Watts, John

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Wells, Bowen

    Steen, Anthony

    Whitney, Ray

    Stephen, Michael

    Whittingdale, John

    Stern, Michael

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Stewart, Allan

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Streeter, Gary

    Wilkinson, John

    Sumberg, David

    Willetts, David

    Sweeney, Walter

    Wilshire, David

    Sykes, John

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Wood, Timothy

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Yeo, Tim

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Thomason, Roy

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Michael Brown.

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 270.

    Division No. 154]

    [10.15 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Alexander, Richard

    Brazier, Julian

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Bright, Graham

    Ancram, Michael

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Arbuthnot, James

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Ashby, David

    Burns, Simon

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Burt, Alistair

    Atkins, Robert

    Butcher, John

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Butler, Peter

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Baldry, Tony

    Carttiss, Michael

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Cash, William

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Bates, Michael

    Churchill, Mr

    Batiste, Spencer

    Clappison, James

    Beggs, Roy

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Coe, Sebastian

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Colvin, Michael

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Congdon, David

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Conway, Derek

    Booth, Hartley

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Boswell, Tim

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Coucnman, James

    Bowden, Andrew

    Cran, James

    Bowis, John

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

    1043

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Day, Stephen

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)

    Devlin, Tim

    Hunter, Andrew

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Jack, Michael

    Dicks, Terry

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Jessel, Toby

    Dover, Den

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Duncan, Alan

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Dunn, Bob

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dykes, Hugh

    Key, Robert

    Eggar, Tim

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Elletson, Harold

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

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

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Knox, Sir David

    Evennett, David

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Faber, David

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Fairbaim, Sir Nicholas

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Legg, Barry

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Leigh, Edward

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Forman, Nigel

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lidington, David

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Lightbown, David

    Forth, Eric

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Lord, Michael

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Luff, Peter

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    French, Douglas

    MacKay, Andrew

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Maclean, David

    Gale, Roger

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Gallie, Phil

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Madel, Sir David

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Garnier, Edward

    Malone, Gerald

    Gill, Christopher

    Mans, Keith

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Marland, Paul

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Marlow, Tony

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Gorst, John

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Mates, Michael

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Merchant, Piers

    Hague, William

    Mills, Iain

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hannam, Sir John

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Moss, Malcolm

    Harris, David

    Needham, Richard

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hawkins, Nick

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hawksley, Warren

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hayes, Jerry

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Heald, Oliver

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Norris, Steve

    Hendry, Charles

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Ottaway, Richard

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Page, Richard

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Paice, James

    Horam, John

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

    Pawsey, James

    1044

    Pickles, Eric

    Sykes, John

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Richards, Rod

    Thomason, Roy

    Riddick, Graham

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Thurnham, Peter

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

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

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Tracey, Richard

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Tredinnick, David

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Trend, Michael

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Sackville, Tom

    Viggers, Peter

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Walden, George

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Waller, Gary

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Ward, John

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Shersby, Michael

    Waterson, Nigel

    Sims, Roger

    Watts, John

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Wells, Bowen

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Whitney, Ray

    Soames, Nicholas

    Whittingdale, John

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Wilkinson, John

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Willetts, David

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Wilshire, David

    Spring, Richard

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Sproat, Iain

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Wood, Timothy

    Steen, Anthony

    Yeo, Tim

    Stephen, Michael

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Stern, Michael

    Stewart, Allan

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Streeter, Gary

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Michael Brown.

    Sumberg, David

    Sweeney, Walter

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Burden, Richard

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Byers, Stephen

    Ainger, Nick

    Caborn, Richard

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Allen, Graham

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Alton, David

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Cann, Jamie

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Austin-Walker, John

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Clapham, Michael

    Barnes, Harry

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Barron, Kevin

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Battle, John

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Clelland, David

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Coffey, Ann

    Bell, Stuart

    Cohen, Harry

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Connarty, Michael

    Benton, Joe

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Corbett, Robin

    Blair, Tony

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Blunkett, David

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Boateng, Paul

    Cousins, Jim

    Boyes, Roland

    Cox, Tom

    Bradley, Keith

    Cryer, Bob

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Cummings, John

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

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

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    1045

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Hughes, Simon (Southward)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Hutton, John

    Darling, Alistair

    Illsley, Eric

    Davidson, Ian

    Ingram, Adam

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Jamieson, David

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

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Denham, John

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Dewar, Donald

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Dixon, Don

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Dobson, Frank

    Jowell, Tessa

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Dowd, Jim

    Keen, Alan

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Eastham, Ken

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Enright, Derek

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Etherington, Bill

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Lewis, Terry

    Fatchett, Derek

    Livingstone, Ken

    Faulds, Andrew

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Fisher, Mark

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Flynn, Paul

    McAllion, John

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    McCartney, Ian

    Foulkes, George

    Macdonald, Calum

    Fraser, John

    McFall, John

    Fyfe, Maria

    McKelvey, William

    Galloway, George

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Gapes, Mike

    McLeish, Henry

    Garrett, John

    Maclennan, Robert

    George, Bruce

    McMaster, Gordon

    Gerrard, Neil

    McNamara, Kevin

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    McWilliam, John

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Godsiff, Roger

    Mahon, Alice

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Mandelson, Peter

    Gordon, Mildred

    Marek, Dr John

    Graham, Thomas

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Martlew, Eric

    Grocott, Bruce

    Maxton, John

    Gunnell, John

    Meacher, Michael

    Hain, Peter

    Meale, Alan

    Hall, Mike

    Michael, Alun

    Hanson, David

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Hardy, Peter

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Milburn, Alan

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Miller, Andrew

    Henderson, Doug

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Heppell, John

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Hinchliffe, David

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Hoey, Kate

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Home Robertson, John

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Hood, Jimmy

    Mudie, George

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Mullin, Chris

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Murphy, Paul

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Hoyle, Doug

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Olner, William

    1046

    O'Neill, Martin

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

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

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

    Parry, Robert

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Patchett, Terry

    Snape, Peter

    Pendry, Tom

    Soley, Clive

    Pickthall, Colin

    Spearing, Nigel

    Pike, Peter L.

    Spellar, John

    Pope, Greg

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Stevenson, George

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Prescott, John

    Straw, Jack

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Purchase, Ken

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Radice, Giles

    Tyler, Paul

    Randall, Stuart

    Vaz, Keith

    Raynsford, Nick

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Redmond, Martin

    Wallace, James

    Reid, Dr John

    Walley, Joan

    Rendel, David

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Watson, Mike

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Welsh, Andrew

    Rogers, Allan

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Rooker, Jeff

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Rooney, Terry

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wilson, Brian

    Rowlands, Ted

    Winnick, David

    Ruddock, Joan

    Wise, Audrey

    Salmond, Alex

    Worthington, Tony

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Wray, Jimmy

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Short, Clare

    Simpson, Alan

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mr. Dennis Turner and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House regrets that the Opposition persistently denigrates the achievements of United Kingdom companies; recognises the importance of manufacturing to this country's economy; congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its success in achieving the conditions for sustained non-inflationary growth, low interest rates, low inflation and good industrial relations; and welcomes the fact that both the OECD and European Commission are forecasting that the United Kingdom will be the fastest growing major economy in the EC in 1994 and 1995.

    ESTIMATES
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 131(2) (Liaison Committee).
    That this House agrees with the Report [24th February] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
    Question agreed to.
    Ordered,
    That a half day not later than 18th March be allotted for the consideration of the following Supplementary Estimate for the financial year 1993–94:
    Class VII, Vote 1, Housing, England, in so far as it relates to grants in aid to the Housing Corporation.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

    "Back to Basics"
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]
    10.30 pm
    Mr. David Evans: I regard it as a great honour that you, Madam Speaker, have decided to stay in the chair for this Adjournment debate.
    Last October, I was present at the Conservative party conference in Blackpool to listen to a succession of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, make speeches based on the theme of "back to basics". Their speeches won rapturous applause and gained the widespread support of the public as this new, common sense approach instinctively appealed to the hearts and minds of all those present at the conference and the millions of people around the country who saw it on television, listened to it on the radio and read about it in the newspapers.
    "Back to basics" rekindles the spirit of the nation and the desire for traditional values, standards, discipline and order—the foundations of a peaceful, successful and stable society. It promises a return to common sense—something that that lot over there do not have a clue about.
    In the past few months, a number of embarrassments and tragedies have shaken our party. The press has had a field day and has had great satisfaction in linking these individual and personal cases of misconduct and tragedy to the broad approach of "back to basics". This has made some of my colleagues go wobbly. Some have even turned into spineless jellies, wittering on about dropping this new approach. What has happened to the traditional Conservative values of principle, loyalty and courage? We had the strength and determination to face up to the chaos of 1979 and of five years of socialism, so surely we have the backbone and grit to put recent events behind us and concentrate on the central theme—"back to basics".
    The media, urged on by the wriggler from Monklands, East, cynically dismissed "back to basics" by saying that the public have no idea what it means. What a load of rubbish. The people of Welwyn Hatfield and of Britain know exactly what it means. There is a line in the sand separating right and wrong that my constituents understand—yes, all of them.
    Let me share with the House the ten commandments of Welwyn Hatfield. The people of Welwyn Hatfield know when to say please and thank you, and when to raise their hats to a lady—an example not followed by one Opposition Member, who instead of raising his cap pulls it down over his ears. The people of Welwyn Hatfield also know that when a lady needs a seat, they get up and offer theirs.
    Commandment Three: the people of Welwyn Hatfield know when to help an old lady or gentleman across the road. Four: they know how to wait their turn in the queue. Five: they know that drinking and driving is wrong. Six: they know that stealing is wrong. Seven: they know that rape is wrong. Eight: they know that murder is wrong. Nine: they know that adultery is wrong. Even you, Madam Speaker, told me to stick with Janice—and that is exactly what I intend to do.
    My constituents want to know what has happened to the basic value of parental guidance and responsibility. In many of our cities some people have only to look out of their windows at night to see gangs of pint-sized Rambos thieving, raping or—even worse—murdering. Their parents have no idea, or simply do not care, where their
    1048
    children are and what they are up to. By adopting a negligent attitude towards the upbringing of their children, thousands of parents have walked away from all responsibility, leaving their children to face new experiences and challenges with no guidance, no assistance and no discipline.
    Who do children have to look up to now? When I was a lad, I looked up to the village bobby, but today children no longer seem to have role models—or if they have the models are wholly inappropriate. An unsupervised child can quickly fall under the disturbing influence of the televisual media, and before we know it the child is trying to emulate the blood-curdling acts of robocop, the exterminator or some other pathological video nightmare bent on death and destruction.
    Parental responsibility is such a basic value, but it is sadly lacking in many parents. So it is up to the Government to force parents to take an active role in the development of their children. I applaud the Home Secretary's recent announcement of £1,000 fines for parents whose children defy court orders. That might give them the incentive that they need to show a bit of responsibility and authority. I suggest that if that fails to work with the worst offenders, the Home Secretary should strengthen the law to place the parents of persistent offenders in gaol with their hooligan offspring. That would provide them with the perfect opportunity to spend a little quality time together, and it might just persuade those pathetic parents that bringing up a child is a privilege which involves parental duty and responsibility.
    "Back to basics" applies not only to the home but to the school. In the 1960s, some trendy socialist intellectual with a breeze block for a brain came up with the idea that traditional teaching methods were out of date. Reading, writing and arithmetic were old hat, and discipline went out of the window, too. People said then—some people are still saying it now—that what kids need is to read about lesbians and homosexuals. They could not read Shakespeare because he was an heterosexual oppressor.
    I am glad to see the Government going flat out to give parents more control of schools, so that slowly but surely they will return to the basics. The national curriculum will mean a return to sensible and practical subjects.
    Discipline, however, is still a problem. Since the abolition of corporal punishment schools no longer have effective means of controlling unruly children. There is no deterrent. We constantly hear horrific reports of classroom riots, but measures over a long period have diminished the power and the authority of the teacher to the point where they are scared even to touch a child for fear of being suspended. There are even more reports of teachers being subject to violent physical and sexual abuse by their pupils. What is going wrong? Are we all going crackers?
    When I was at school, the class would stand to attention when the teacher entered the room and lessons were conducted in silence. If a child got out of line, he got the cane. The problem is now that children do not know when they are out of line because in the classroom there is no line. Let us get "back to basics", as they are in Welwyn Hatfield.
    The breakdown of values in the home and schools has spilled into the streets. What has happened to neighbourliness, decency and courtesy? We now live in a country where millions of people do not even acknowledge their next-door neighbour. Pensioners can lie dead in their homes for days before they are discovered. The words

    1049
    "please" and "thank you" are fast becoming extinct and the idea of giving up one's seat on the bus for a pensioner or a pregnant woman would not even register in many people's minds. What has happened to the concept of community pride? Why do not people get involved in local groups any more? Why have people stopped going to church? I hear that we have a new Bishop of Durham—one who believes in God, so that may help.
    "Back to basics" means a return to the old community values where people looked out for each other and displayed a little care and attention to those around them. We in Welwyn Hatfield are doing just that. "Back to basics" means a crack down on crime and the Home Secretary needs to lead an all-out war on the growing army of street thieves, muggers, crack dealers, car-jackers, armed robbers, sex pests and joy riders. We have allowed that scum to run riot for too long because we have listened to silver-tongued softies who told us that crime was the fault of society, not of the individual. Lord Woolf tells us that if we are burgled, we should be punished. The message from that statement shows just how out of touch some judges are with the real world. I feel sorry for that particular Lord, because, clearly, he has caught—probably from that lot opposite—mad judge disease.
    The softly, softly approach has not only failed but it has done more damage than anyone could imagine. By counselling and cosseting every criminal, we have failed to instil any understanding of right and wrong. There is no discipline, no order. The hooligans have no idea about the value of hard and honest work and of earning their way in society. Some social worker has told them that society has given them a bad deal of cards. Oh, yes, it is society's fault.
    Now those little hoodlums arrogantly believe that they deserve the right to a nice house, a car, a TV, a video, expensive clothes and all the works, but without any of the hard work that brings those benefits. They prey on society like a pack of jackals. One only has to watch the video footage of cocky young criminals disguised in baseball caps and scarves, ram-raiding shops and then browsing round them as if they are on a Saturday afternoon shopping spree.
    Talking about baseball caps and scarves, it reminds me of a silly old fool—no fool like an old fool—who dresses in disguise, lurks in bushes in Belgravia and helps cement that special relationship between Britain and the United States. When he gets the signal, he embraces all that is good in such a relationship. It is nice to know that the Prime Minister is not alone in wanting to improve our friendship with the Americans.
    We punish little hooligans with community sentences. If that seems a little harsh, we give them a caution or possibly a holiday of a lifetime in Africa. Why not give Government cars to those convicted of joy riding?—[Interruption.] Some people say that we already do. Setting up secure units is the first step, but I should like to see a return to the birch—hang 'em, flog 'em. That might wipe the smug grin off the ugly faces of persistent offenders who have wreaked havoc on society and damaged prople's lives in the knowledge that they will not be punished.
    "Back to basics" means a return to a law-abiding society, in which one can leave one's house during the day knowing that when one comes home it will be safe, arid in which people can walk safely at night without being terrified that they may be raped or mugged. Those who
    1050
    contemplate crossing the magic line should be fully aware that it takes only one false move and the law will fall down on them so hard that they will never do it again.
    "Back to basics" means prosperity, low inflation, low costs, high productivity and a high-skill economy. If that lot over there had their way, it would mean a return to the bad old days of the 1960s and 1970s when the unions ruled the roost—beer and sandwiches at No. 10. They would sign us up to the social chapter, which would mean an inevitable return to the standard of living that we had in 1979 when we could not even bury our dead.
    Building on Conservative values developed in the 1980s will create prosperity, enabling the work force to support those most in need: the old, the sick and the poor; not the lazy, the scroungers and the fiddlers who cream off billions of pounds in social security each year. "Back to basics" means new initiatives that will close off loopholes to the social security rat pack. I suggest here and now that we introduce identity cards.
    "Back to basics" also applies to Ministers of the Crown, MPs, judges, headmasters, chief constables and other leading public servants who should set an example to the people they serve. As leading representatives of our nation, we are expected to keep certain standards. Nobody is perfect—that applies also to politicians. But when the line in the sand has been crossed and exposed to the public, it is time to go—goodbye and good riddance—not to hang on to office like some arrogant little schoolboy hanging on to a new toy. Standards in public life must be adhered to rigidly without exceptions or special circumstances. If we cannot keep up standards and set an example, why should we expect the public to do so? Any acceptance of double standards is an open invitation to moral anarchy.
    It is high time that the Conservative party got the nation back to basics, which means a return to loyalty, integrity and decency. I am sick of certain individuals in my party sniping at our leadership from the shelter of television and radio stations. If they have not the guts to say what they have to say face to face, they should not say it at all.
    In what is now all too often a pathetic attempt at political attack, the Opposition parties are attempting to associate "back to basics" with looking backwards. What a joke. We are not handcuffed to the unions; we do not bleat on about the social chapter; despite all their recent wriggling U-turns, we have no commitment to nationalisation in our party constitution. Labour Members have finally realised that, when they come up with an idea, it is consistently a vote loser, so they have stopped trying. They are bankrupt. However, I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has embraced the spirit of "back to basics" by scuttling off back to his roots in New Zealand. I wish that a few more would follow him. Perhaps the wriggler from Monklands, East might like to go back to Scotland where he lives and stay there.
    The Labour party may still just about have some social policies, although it is hard to find them. The Lib Dems have none at all. They would do anything—and I mean anything—if they thought that they could get a vote out of it. Just wait for the European election campaign. It is Paddy the jock in Scotland; in Wales, it is Taffy through and through; and in England, it is all things to all men. They hit an all-time low in the Tower Hamlets local election when Paddy became Adolf and the Liberal Democrats projected themselves as the neo-Nazi party. They do not understand "back to basics" because they do not have a clue about real

    1051
    values, real standards, real decency and real politics. All they know about is crawling around in the politics of the sewer in their unscrupulous endeavour to get votes.
    "Back to basics" means a return to our grassroots beliefs. The British people know what they are, and we know that they are right. We should not have let them slip away in the first place. We let the hippy has-beens and the trendies have their go and they funked it. Today, values and standards are constantly slipping to an all-time low. It is high time we reintroduced the traditional core values of this nation to shape the Great Britain of tomorrow. The Prime Minister has given us the opportunity. In Welwyn Hatfield, we have made a start, and with the "back to basics" theme, Conservatives nationwide should do the same.
    10.50 pm
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): 'Few hon. Members can command the sort of audience and attention that my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) commanded tonight. Never have I seen so many ministerial colleagues present who are eager to answer my hon. Friend. I am willing to take second place. Of course, this is not the first time that I have had to reply to a frank and powerful speech from my hon. Friend. He will recall his last Adjournment debate on law and order which took place in my first week in the Home Office. On that occasion, I got more credit for the draft speech that I did not make than the one I actually made: my thanks to whoever leaked it. I have prepared five singeing drafts for this weekend's press.
    My hon. Friend is right to return to this subject because it affects us all. "Back to basics" is about ensuring that Government policies are based firmly on the commonsense values of the British people, not trendy sociological theories. It is about addressing the real issues of concern and not being diverted to side issues. It is about ensuring sound money, low inflation, good education and an efficient health service, and recognising that protecting the public is the first duty of Government.
    My hon. Friend ranged widely in his speech and struck a chord on many issues, but I shall deal mainly with his remarks about law and order. That is my responsibility. None of us is in the business of preaching—that is a job for the clergy. In the Home Office, it is our job to deal with crime in society.
    What we are seeking to do in crime and punishment is restore the common-sense principles shared by the vast majority of the British people. The first principle is that crime is wrong. There is no excuse for it and those who seek to explain it away or blame society are deluding themselves and endangering the public. We all know that. Some people are constantly searching for factors that may lead people into crime, but their enthusiasm to find direct causes or links often leads them to fail to denounce the crime itself as plain, downright wrong.
    The second principle is to promote respect for the police and the law. There appears to be a pernicious growth industry of denigrating the police and undermining the rule of law. Those trendy programme makers who rarely show the police in a good light are working to their own biased, politically correct agenda. Despite that, the vast majority of the British people still have faith in our police force and
    1052
    judicial system. For all the humbug that we hear about faults with this country, why is it that when any of our citizens commit crimes overseas they immediately complain that the foreign police and legal system treated them more unfairly than the good old British one would?
    The third principle is that British people want to see the innocent acquitted and the guilty convicted. Our constituents are sick and tired of lengthy legal games letting the guilty go free on technicalities.
    Allowing the guilty to go free and convicting the innocent are both miscarriages of justice in my book. We are determined to have systems in place to reduce still further the chances of an innocent man being convicted, but, equally, we are determined to ensure that there are no unnecessary anachronistic barriers preventing the conviction of the guilty.
    The fourth principle is that punishment should follow conviction. Of course we believe in cautioning in appropriate cases. We believe also in fines and discharges. They are all perfectly sensible sentences. We believe strongly in rehabilitation and deterrence, but we are not afraid to say that punishment is also right. Of course it is. All acts must have a consequence, for good or ill, and criminals must always see that, at the end of the road, there is a suitable punishment for their behaviour. To take that away or dilute it or dress it up in psychobabble is inviting criminals to believe that certain acts do not have unpleasant consequences for them. Those principles run right through our strategy to fight crime.
    We are tilting the balance in the criminal justice system against the criminal and in favour of protecting the public. That is why we are legislating on the right of silence. If a suspect refuses to answer a relevant question from the police, a court should be able to take that into account.
    I agree with my hon. Friend about the need to challenge loutish behaviour. The Evening Standard carried a good example at the end of last year. A young woman on the underground asked someone who was smoking illegally to stop doing so. The young woman then received a torrent of abuse and was punched. The other passengers just looked the other way. Yobbish behaviour leads to crime. Louts who have no respect for others often have no respect for the law. I believe strongly that there should be more citizens like that young woman—and fewer who look away.
    As my hon. Friend knows, we are giving the courts the powers to lock up persistent juvenile offenders. These offenders—the most recent case was graphically detailed in The Sun last week—are a menace to their communities. Those communities are quite properly demanding to be protected. They want to see a tough response to those offenders who persist in breaking the law despite being given the chance to stop offending while under supervision in the community.
    Going back to basics will inform all our law and order policies. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said that he wants conditions in our prisons to be "decent, but austere". Put simply, we want the public to have confidence that, for a criminal, being sent to prison is a proper punishment. We have already announced plans to introduce drug testing in our prisons to put a stop to the drug pushers and junkies who are making a mockery of our prison system. But there is more to do. Prison should mean demanding regimes with hard work and challenging programmes for prisoners. There should be a more stick and carrot approach with privileges given for good behaviour, and taken away for bad.

    1053
    Perhaps most of all, we need to get back to the basics of a proper relationship between the police and local people to fight crime. It is only by 'working together, hand in glove with the police, that local communities will crack crime. We are encouraging the idea of parish constables. We have raised the target for special constables to 30,000, and we will continue to give full support to neighbourhood watch schemes, which now cover more than 5 million households in this country.
    More must be done to make the partnership between the police and local people really work and the Government will do all that we can to achieve that objective.
    My hon. Friend made quite clear in his previous Adjournment debate the sort of action that he wanted to see from the Government. I know that we will never measure up to his demanding standards, but many of the things that he called for in that speech are now under way.
    My hon. Friend said that there was too much cautioning of repeat offenders and too much cautioning for serious crimes. As he may know, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will shortly issue new tough guidance on cautioning.
    Central to the Government's strategy to deal with law and order issues is the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which is currently being considered in a Standing Committee. It is a substantial piece of legislation. It takes forward 19 of the 27 announcements that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made on 6 October at the Conservative party conference. It includes, among others, curtailing the right of silence, allowing courts more powers to withhold bail and allowing the police to use DNA. For those colleagues who have only heard through the media about the Police and Magistrates Courts Bill currently being considered in another place, I say, look at the extra clauses that we are adding to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. They cover drug testing in prisons, computer pornography, cross-border policing, terrorism, secure remands, squatting and others. Those are all
    1054
    measures which will help to ensure that the police and the courts have all the powers they need to protect the public and to punish the guilty.
    My hon. Friend referred to truancy and the lack of respect in schools. The Government are also committed to taking firm action against truancy. I know that my hon. Friend will welcome that.
    I do not think that we can lecture or sermonise people into being good citizens or not committing crimes. I am happy to leave it to the clergy to sermonise about morality and what is good behaviour, but the criminal law must not give the impression that it rewards or ignores criminal behaviour.
    The nonsense of safari holidays for young tearaways sent totally the wrong signals and I am glad that the Department of Health has issued a circular to local authorities on that. I want to encourage much more demanding and character-building outdoor training and we have plenty of mountains in this country to do it on. There is a world of difference between a demanding Blashford-Snell type trek and a Cooks package tour of the night spots of Cairo.
    It comes down to common sense and what attitudes we adopt. Attitudes in this country towards crime—and towards criminals—are changing. There is a yearning to return to old-fashioned values, to a position where those who persist in offending behaviour will be afraid of being caught, and of being dealt with severely and effectively. More and more people see combating crime as one of the biggest challenges facing us, and increasingly they recognise that the prevention of crime is the responsibility not just of the Government and the police, but of us all. They also recognise that the Government are in the lead in combating crime in society. The people—
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr Burden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost of legal aid in connection with actions by council tenants under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and relevant predecessor legislation.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is not possible to identify actions specifically involving council tenants. Nor is it possible to identify actions taken specifically under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act, or any relevant predecessor legislation, since the information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Where a private individual brings a prosecution under section 82 he would not qualify for legal aid. An individual defending an action may be granted criminal legal aid provided that it was considered to be in the interest of justice and his means are such that he requires assistance.

  Costs
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what variation is permitted within the laid-down guidelines regarding(a) awarded costs and (b) expedited costs in (i) civil and (ii) criminal cases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Departmental targets for the payment of costs in criminal proceedings and recent performance against those targets were referred to in the answer I gave the hon. Member on 11 January 1994 at columns 66–68. There are no permissible or formal levels of variation from target. The targets represent realizable but challenging aims for taxing authorities and are used as a means of monitoring and discussing levels of performance. Monitoring is undertaken regularly at various managerial levels in the court service and resources redeployed if necessary to meet fluctuations in workload.

  Payment of costs in civil proceedings is a matter for the parties, rather than the courts. Where the court orders payment of costs within a specific period, it is open to either party to apply to vary the time for payment. Whether the application is granted, and on what terms, is a matter for judicial discretion and will depend on the individual circumstances of each case. Enforcement of the order to pay costs is also a matter for the parties to take forward.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many instances(a) costs and (b) expedited costs were paid within the standard laid down by charter; in how many cases payments were made (i) only after six months and (ii) only after a year or more in each of the past three years; how much money was involved in each case; and if he will make a statement.
  700
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information sought is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

TRANSPORT

  M25
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total cost of(a) construction, (b) maintenance and (c) improvements to the M25 in each year since construction commenced at both current and constant 1992–93 prices.

  Mr. Key
  (a) Construction

  The cost of building the M25 was nearly £1000 million. It was constructed over a period of 14 years between 1972 and 1986 giving an average cost per year of £71.42 million. These are actual costs.

  £ million

  (b) Maintenance

  1990–91

  10·63

  1991–92

  30·73

  1992–93

  24·36

  1993–94

  130·58

  (c) Improvements

  1990–91

  9·31

  1991–92

  14·82

  1992–93

  16·39

  1994–94

  110·70

  1 Estimated spend at current prices.

  Information on spend on maintenance and improvements is not collected for particular routes. The figures given have been collated from a number of different sources and some components have been estimated. Reliable information for the years before 1990–91 is not available.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list each scheme relating to the M25 in his Department's current trunk roads and motorways programme with the total cost in each year since construction began up to estimated completion, at both current and constant 1992–93 prices, for(a) junction improvements, (b) increasing capacity and (c) other improvements.

  Mr. Key
  There are three M25 schemes in the roads programme which are currently under construction. The actual and estimated spend for these schemes are listed in the table:

  £ million

  Junctions 15–16

  1992–93

  7·1

  1993–94

  122·9

  1994–95

  15·3

  Junctions 10–11

  1993–94

  11·5

  1994–95

  133·5

  Junctions 7–8

  1993–94

  11·0

  1994–95

  130·0

  1995–96

  115·0

  1Estimated spend at current prices.

  701
  All three schemes are to increase capacity to dual four lanes largely within the highway boundary.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration has been given to installing automatic roadside speed cameras as a means of reducing the number of road deaths.

  Mr. Key
  Automatic roadside speed cameras are already in use at sites with a history of speed-related accidents and are proving to be very effective at reducing deaths and injuries.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of evidence from abroad as to the effectiveness of the installation of automatic roadside speed cameras as a means of reducing the number of road deaths.

  Mr. Key
  The use of automatic roadside cameras in other countries was one of the factors that led to the change in road traffic law in 1991 permitting their use in Britain.

  However, it is difficult to translate overseas experience to Britain because of the different social attitudes and enforcement practices.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the British Medical Association urging the installation of automatic roadside speed cameras as a means of reducing the number of road deaths.

  Mr. Key
  There is no record of any formal representation from the BMA about the introduction of speed cameras.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission a study of the installation of automatic roadside speed cameras as a means of reducing the number of road deaths.

  Mr. Key
  Such a study has already been commissioned. The Transport Research Laboratory is monitoring the effects of speed cameras on both speed and accidents. Early results from the pilot project in west London suggest that accidents have fallen by 25 per cent. and the number of people killed or seriously injured by over 40 per cent.

  Roads, Warwickshire
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 118, what traffic surveys have been carried out to establish demand for a means of access from the M45 to the A5 in Warwickshire.

  Mr. Key
  None.

  Malaysian Airlines
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) to what extent and on what occasions since the beginning of 1985 Ministers or representatives of Government Departments have been involved in discussions with the Government of Malaysia, and the Malaysian airline MAS, about increasing the availability of slots for that airline at Heathrow airport;
  702
  (2) to what extent and on what occasions since the beginning of 1985 his Department has been involved in discussions with the Civil Aviation Authority about increasing the availability of slots for the Malaysian airline MAS at Heathrow airport.

  Mr. Norris
  No discussions have been held with any of these parties concerning the availability of slots at Heathrow airport. Slot allocation is a matter for the independent co-ordinator at the airport.

  Governmental talks concerning air services arrangements at which both MAS and British Airways were represented were held with the Malaysian Government in July and September 1985, March and August 1989 and March 1993. In 1985 liberal air service arrangements were concluded involving increases in capacity and amendments to routeing and traffic rights for both sides. For the outcome of the 1989 talks I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on 15 Febraury. No further rights were agreed at the talks in 1993 and no dates for further discussions have so far been agreed.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Shares
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax regime applies to payments from share dealings in the United Kingdom received by a person who is resident in the United Kingdom for less than 90 days per year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  All purchases of shares completed within the United Kingdom attract stamp duty. Gains realised on the disposal of shares are liable to capital gains tax if the holder is either actually resident or ordinarily resident within the United Kingdom.

  Alcohol and Tobacco
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the maximum fine for evading duty of £20,000 on imports of wine and tobacco.

  Sir John Cope
  In the magistrates court the maximum penalty for evading duty is the greater of £5,000 or three times the value of the goods. In the Crown court the penalty is unlimited and offenders can be imprisoned. The word "fine" is not used in the Customs and Excise Acts. A penalty is to all intents and purposes the same as a fine.

  Staff Transfers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the rules or procedures concerning bridging loans for permanent transfer expenses and assistance to staff facing serious financial hardships.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Departments are responsible for setting the rules on the expenses that may be paid to members of staff who permanently transfer to another office and who move their homes as a result. The framework of principles under which Departments can determine those rules are set out in the transfer section of the "Civil Service Management Code", a copy of which is in the House Library.

  Food Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions have been received by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise from commission auditors in respect of the examining of food exports entered at any particular port; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Commission auditors produced a report following their visit to United Kingdom Customs in January 1993. Although satisfied with the number of examinations carried out on food exports, they were not satisfied with the depth and rigour of examinations. After considering the auditor's report, Customs issued more detailed guidance to staff on the standards to be observed when carrying out CAP examinations.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the reasons for the practice of Her Majesty's Customs requiring 5 per cent. of goods exported under the common agricultural policy and clearance through ports have to be examined by completely offloading the goods from the container; what ports this applies to; what consultations have been held with food exporters in this and what delays are imposed by it; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 1 March 1994]: In a move to combat fraud against Community funds, all EC Customs authorities are required under Council regulation 386/90 to examine a minimum of 5 per cent. of goods on which a claim to common agricultural policy export refunds is made. This procedure applies to all ports.

  Officers must satisfy themselves as to the description, quality and quantity of the goods by checking representative parts of the load. Goods need be offloaded from the container only when they are packed in such a way that officers cannot otherwise gain access to all parts of the load. In their 1993 report, Commission auditors criticised Customs for failing to carry out export examinations in sufficient depth.

  To guard against the risk that export refunds might in future not be reimbursed from EC funds customs recently reviewed their guidance to officers on the standard of examinations. This has led to the prospect of more goods being offloaded for examination than was the case last year. If exporters wish to reduce the likelihood of goods being examined at ports, they may apply for authorisation for local export control, under which the 5 per cent. examinations are undertaken at the exporter's own premises.

  Consultation with trade representatives on procedures for the control of CAP export goods takes place on a continuing basis. I have agreed to meet trade representatives to discuss their concerns over the more rigorous examination procedures.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what charges are made by customs at Felixstowe and other ports for mandatory examination of food passing through the ports under the common agricultural policy; and how many sailings have been missed at Felixstowe because of this requirement since its introduction.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 1 March 1994]: Customs make no charges at Felixstowe, or any other ports, for mandatory examinations. The question of
  704
  recovery of costs incurred in customs examinations is between the port authority and the exporter. Up to 11 February, six consignments are said to have missed their boat at Felixstowe in 1994 because of Customs examinations. In each case customs had notified that the consignment was required for examination within four hours of receipt of the documents. Subsequent delays in production of the consignment to customs—in one of the cases amounting to seven days—may have contributed to missed sailings.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recommendations EC auditors made on their recent visit to examine the process of mandatory examination of food exports under the common agricultural policy; what representations he has made about these recommendations; and how he intends to implement them.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 1 March 1994]: As part of the European Community fight against fraud, Commission auditors check that member states are properly carrying out their obligations under Community regulations. If they are not satisfied they may prevent the reimbursement from Community funds of refunds paid by member states to exporters. In the case of the United Kingdom, the auditors made it clear following their 1993 audit that significant disallowance would follow if customs' examination standards were not immediately improved.

  I am advised that the auditors' findings in the United Kingdom were reflected elsewhere in the Community and, as a result, the Commission has reminded all member states of the standards that should be achieved. Customs have reviewed their guidance to officers in order to improve the quality and depth of CAP export examinations.

  Brecqhou
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the United Kingdom tax arrangements for business and commerce conducted in Brecqhou; and what tax regime exists for its residents.

  Mr. Dorrell
  United Kingdom-resident individuals or companies conducting business and commerce in Brecqhou are liable to United Kingdom income tax or corporation tax on profits earned from such activities.

  No direct taxes are imposed on Brecqhou on either residents or non-residents. The only taxes are a nominal charge on the value of property and import duties, chiefly on liquor and tobacco.

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

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 16 February 1994]: The list provides the information which is available within each of my Departments. The values given are approximate and are not the replacement value.

  Government Actuary's Department

  No equipment stolen in the last three years.
  705
  Office of Her Majesty's Paymaster General

  No equipment stolen in the last three years.

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  £

  Approximate value Mobile Telephone

  350·00

  6 Answerphones

  77·00 each

  14 Dictaphones

  120·00 each

  2 Standard Telephone Handsets

  20·00 each

  3 Large Desk Staplers

  66·00 each

  3 Portable Computers

  500·00 each

  4 Scientific calculators

  11·50 each

  4 High energy Light Bulbs

  36·00

  Typist chair

  80·00

  Video Player

  400·00

  Fan

  32·90

  Royal Mint

  No equipment stolen in last three years

  Department for National Savings

  £

  Approximate value

  Pair of Digital Scales

  35·00

  Feature Telephone

  40·00

  Ordinary Grey Telephone

  8·00

  3 Time Delay Humidistats

  50·00

  National Investment and Loans Office

  No equipment stolen in the last three years.

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise1

  1991–92

  27 Personal Computers

  10 Portable Computers

  2 Lap-Top Computers

  15 Printers

  5 Fax Machines

  2 Photocopiers

  Answerphone

  Call Logger

  4 Radio Handsets

  Total Value of goods=£77,725.28

  1992–93

  22 Personal Computers and Software

  5 Printers

  16 Keyboards

  3 Fax Machines

  2 Mobile Telephones

  Tape Streamer

  2 PC Mice

  Monitor

  Camera Lens, Case

  8 Radio Handsets

  Total Value of goods=£60,210.19

  1No breakdown available for individual items.

  Central Statistical Office

  Approximate value

  11 Standard Telephone Handsets

  £22·00 each

  9 Facility Telephone Handsets

  £60·00 each

  Electric Stapler

  £98·00

  706

  Inland Revenue and Valuation Office Agency

  Approximate value (£)

  IT Equipment

  Panasonic Laser Printer

  OKI Dot Matrix Printer

  ICL CPU Board

  Drum Replacement Unit

  2 Equinox Processors

  2 Equinox Tape Streamer

  2 Ampex VDUs

  2 Ampex keyboards

  Security Badge

  Total

  20,000·00

  Panasonic Laser Printer

  1,400·00

  Meridian Hard Disk Drive

  1,000·00

  Amstrad FX Fax Machine

  600·00

  VDU Security Badge

  Grundig Dictating Machine

  18 Calculators

  Stop Watch

  Stationery

  Electric Grundig Dictating Machine

  Blank Floppy Disks

  Training Section Video

  VDU

  Printer (PAYE)

  Printer (CODA) broken

  Total

  12,000·00

  Compaq LTD/286

  MS DOS

  Lotus 123

  Total

  3,000·00

  MS Mouse

  40·00

  Toshiba Laptop

  PaintJet Printer

  800·00

  HP Image Scanner

  2,000·00

  Compaq LTE 286 laptop

  3,000·00

  MS Mouse

  40·00

  Cannon Fax

  440·00

  Agenda Hand Held Computer Organiser

  Mouse Adapter Lead

  Compaq LTE 386 Laptop

  3,000·00

  Interface Card for HP Scanjet

  Desktop Expansion Base for Compaq LTE

  350·00

  Freelance Plus Software

  Compaq 386

  VGA Monitor

  Epson 1050

  Workstation

  HP Laserjet III

  VDU Keyboard

  VDU Keyboard

  Total

  3,179·00

  Compaq LTE 386 laptop

  2 VDUs plus keyboards

  Printer

  Bull VDU plus keyboards

  Total

  3,000·00

  Disk Drive

  Monitor

  Keyboard

  Floppy disks

  Mains Smoother

  Total

  630·00

  707

  Approximate value (£)

  2 x lmb memory upgrade boards from Compaq laptop

  400·00

  2 Software packages

  400·00

  3 Microsoft Mice

  120·00

  Microsoft Mouse

  70·00

  Compaq Contura Notebook and Memory Expansion

  1,600·00

  2 Panasonic Laser Printers

  1,500·00

  HP95 Palm Top

  3,500·00

  ICL Mainframe terminal

  900·00

  ICL Mainframe terminal

  900·00

  Badge Reader

  200·00

  Smith Corona PWP7000 Word Processor

  600·00

  Zenith Bull PC

  1,500·00

  HP Laserjet 3 Printer

  1,000·00

  Mainframe Controller

  5,000·00

  Compaq 386

  1,800·00

  HP Laserjet 3 Printer

  1,000·00

  Epson Printer

  3,300·00

  Toshiba Portable PC

  1,500·00

  Circuit Board for HP Painjet

  100·00

  Artemis Printer

  3,000·00

  Microsoft Mouse

  99·00

  Freelance Software Package and Discs

  500·00

  Hard Disk (84 Mbyte)

  650·00

  Canon Bubble Jet Printer

  300·00

  Compaq 2865 Portable PC

  3,000·00

  Canon Bubble Jet Printer

  300·00

  Microsoft Mouse

  85·00

  3 Floppy Discs

  10·00

  1 Bull Terminal

  3 Bull Terminal

  5 ICL Keyboards

  Fax Machine

  Total

  2,000·00

  Microsoft Mouse

  45·00

  Norton Utilities

  Norton Disk Explorer

  Manual

  Total

  70·00

  Compaq 386 LTE S/20

  MS DOS

  Smart 3.1

  Total

  2,000·00

  3 Deskpro 3865/20 Model 60

  Deskpro 3865/20 Model 40

  CD ROM and Modem

  Prolinea 3/255

  4 Mice

  Total

  10,000·00

  Nokia Terminal

  900·00

  Compaq Laptop LTE

  1,800·00

  ICL DRS 55/20 PC

  Infotec Fax Machine

  2 Panasonic Answerphones

  Portable PC

  Total

  6,000·00

  Canon Printer

  200·00

  MS DOS

  MS Windows

  Word for Windows

  Total

  550·00

  708

  Approximate value (£)

  Compaq 386

  MS DOS

  Smartware 2

  Norton Utilities

  Total

  2,000·00

  Biofolio Computer Art

  150·00

  ICL DRS Controller

  2,000·00

  HP Laser Jet 3

  3,562·00

  2 HP Laster Jet 4

  3,000·00

  Zenith Bull

  Compaq 386

  2 Mice

  Total

  3,500·00

  3 Compaq Deskpro

  Mouse

  Total

  4,500·00

  Canon Photocopier

  Campaq 386

  Epson Printer

  Total

  3,500·00

  6 ICL Tech. 486SX (boxed)

  6,250·00

  Campaq 386

  1,500·00

  Wordstart

  Redundant

  1 ICL CS 386

  1,200·00

  Floppy Discs

  120·00

  3 ICL Processor

  3,400·00

  Amstrad Portable

  900·00

  Pslon Organiser

  320·00

  ICL DRS 55/20

  7 ICL 486 Processor

  Infotec Fax Machine damaged

  Total

  8,000·00

  6 ICL 4865/25 Processors

  6 ICL CS386 Processors

  Total

  12,000·00

  12 ICL CS386 Processors

  12,000·00

  HP Laser Jet 3

  Compaq Prolinea 4/50

  Total

  2,650·00

  Compaq 486 Lite Laptop

  2,500·00

  2 Compaq 486 Lite Laptops

  5,000·00

  Box of Floppy Discs

  120·00

  Development Tapes

  50·O0

  Total value of equipment lost or stolen

  100,287·00

  General Equipment

  26 Video Recorders (2 with remote control)

  23 Microwaves

  11 Cameras

  29 Telephones

  4 Mobile Telephones

  34 Dictaphones

  2 Electronic Typewriters

  9 Televisions

  13 Headphones

  709

  5 Photocopiers

  11 Fax Machines

  4 Dictation Machines

  2 Word Processors

  PC Computer with Printers

  24 CPU (without keyboard or monitors)

  VDU

  4 Printers

  3 Grundig Stenorette

  Approximate value of known goods = £20,10·49.

  £ million

  Administrative Expenditure of the Institutions (Commitments)

  Institution

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Commission

  612

  664

  763

  846

  970

  1,049

  1,152

  1,293

  1,445

  1,734

  1,833

  (percentage annual increase in real terms)

  (1·5)

  (8·5)

  (4·9)

  (10·2)

  (3·6)

  (4·7)

  (6·7)

  (6·0)

  (14·9)

  (2·2)

  Parliament

  177

  176

  224

  255

  287

  288

  322

  372

  445

  479

  503

  (percentage annual increase in real terms)

  (-7·2)

  (20·3)

  (7·8)

  (8·1)

  (-3·9)

  (6·9)

  (9·8)

  (13·4)

  (3·1)

  (1·5)

  Council

  98

  116

  136

  145

  153

  176

  211

  264

  262

  272

  291

  (percentage annual increase in real terms)

  (10·2)

  (11·0)

  (1·0)

  (1·4)

  (10·0)

  (14·6)

  (18·4)

  (-5·7)

  (-0·7)

  (3·4)

  Court of Justice

  23

  23

  29

  33

  37

  44

  50

  56

  63

  69

  72

  (percentage annual increase in real terms)

  (-3·3)

  (15·7)

  (9·7)

  (7·1)

  (13·4)

  (8·5)

  (6·6)

  (6·5)

  (5·0)

  (2·0)

  Court of Auditors

  13

  14

  17

  19

  20

  21

  41

  25

  28

  30

  32

  (percentage annual increase in real terms)

  (-0·8)

  (15·3)

  (7·6)

  (3·8)

  (-0·7)

  (83·9)

  (-41·9)

  (6·4)

  (3·5)

  (4·0)

  Notes:

  1984–1992 figures taken from the annual Statements on the European Community Budget. 1993 and 1994 figures taken from adopted budgets, as amended.

  All sterling figures converted at the rate of £1=1·3243 ecu, the rate notified in the Official Journal as prevailing on the last working day of last year (31 December 1993).

  The Community budget is established on an annual basis. However, ceilings for six main categories of expenditure were included in the financial perspective agreed by the European Council at Edinburgh in December 1992. This included an overall ceiling, in 1992 prices, on administrative expenditure, which is as follows:

  Appropriations for commitments

  Administration

  £ million

  Percentage increase

  1995

  2,703

  —

  1996

  2,786

  3·1

  1997

  2,869

  3·0

  1998

  2,907

  1·3

  1999

  2,945

  1·3

  Note: Converted at the rate of£1=1·3243 ecu, the rate notified in the Official Journal as prevailing on the last working day of last year (31 December 1993).

ENVIRONMENT

  Council Tax
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many proposals to amend council tax valuations have been received by each valuation office in England; how many of these have been settled to date; what percentage this represents of the total; and what is the number and percentage of settled proposals which have involved an amendment to the original valuation banding.
  710

  EC Expenditure
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will produce a table to show the total expenditure of the EC institutions, including their predecessors and components parts, in pound sterling for each of the last 10 years and for that forecast for the current year and that planned for the next five years and the percentage annual increase in real terms for each of those years.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 1 March 1994]: Administrative expenditure for each of the Community institutions and the percentage annual increase in real terms for the last 10 years are as follows:

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 17 February,Official Report, column 967.

  Details of the percentage of settled proposals which have involved an amendment to the original valuation banding and those which have been withdrawn by the proposer are not collected centrally.

  Peat
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the membership of his Department's working group into peat and related matters and their occupations.

  Mr. Baldry
  The current membership of the working group into peat and related matters is as follows:

  Mr. R. C. Mabey—DOE Minerals Division (Chairman)

  Miss A. E. Ward—DOE Minerals Division

  Dr. T. Simpson—DOE Minerals Division

  Mr. R. Bunce—DOE Directorate of Rural Affairs

  Mr. S. G. Fulton—Scottigh Office Environment Department

  Mr. P. Samuel—MAFF Land Use Planning Unit

  Ms A. Corbishley—MAFF Horticulture Division

  Dr. J. Blackman—MAFF Agricultural Development and Advisory Service

  Mr. D. M. Ellis—Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

  Mr. S. Gorman—Cumbria County Council

  Mr. S. Shorthose—Humberside County Council

  Mr. R. Moon—Somerset County Council

  Mr. D. Henderson—Howat-Forestry Authority

  Mr. D. Stroud—Joint Nature Conservation Committee

  Ms J. Heap—English Nature

  Dr. B. Johnson—English Nature

  Mr. R. Lindsay—Scottish Natural Heritage

  Dr. M. Smith—Countryside Council for Wales

  Mr. R. Woolmore—Countryside Commission

  711

  Dr. B. Wheeler—Department of Animal & Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield

  Mr. R. Stockdale—Chairman, Peat Producers Association

  Mr. R. Bond—Peat Producers Association

  Mr. A. Robertson—Peat Producers Association

  Mr. R. Sykes—DOE Minerals Division (Secretary)

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, columns 733–34, what was the budgeted and actual cost of each public information campaign listed.

  Mr. Baldry
  Following is the information required:

  Helping the Earth Begins at Home

  The budget for this campaign is £6,383,520·65.

  Actual contracts awarded to 25 February 1994 are £6,242,032·08.

  Rent to Mortgage

  The budget for this campaign is £411,434·23.

  Actual contracts awarded to 25 February 1994 are £408,543·18.

  These figures cover all TV, press and radio advertising costs and promotional items.

  Chewing Gum
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the advice available and research undertaken into the removal of chewing gum from brick pedestrian precincts for local authorities.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department has not issued any advice or undertaken any research into methods of removing chewing gum. This is a matter for local authorities in view of their responsibilities for street cleansing. I am aware, however, that Westminster city council is currently testing equipment aimed at dealing with this problem.

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Foundation staffing and support costs

  360,000

  418,350

  711,256

  1,261,503

  1,544,950

  Trusts' running costs

  1,039,000

  1,170,025

  1,292,407

  1,622,319

  1,521,017

  Projects

  54,000

  70,000

  76,353

  390,721

  1,145,766

  Computer systems

  0

  0

  0

  283,772

  199,037

  Training

  0

  18,000

  37,790

  181,183

  272,230

  Total grant allocation

  1,453,000

  1,676,375

  2,117,806

  3,739,498

  4,683,000

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he determines that a proposed Groundwork trust will not adversely affect existing environmental charities in the area.

  Mr. Atkins
  The proposal for Groundwork trust is worked up by local people in partnership. A steering group is formed comprising members of the. local authority, business community and voluntary organisations and community groups in the area. The Groundwork Foundation gives guidance to the steering group working up a proposal and seeks to ensure that the trust will work in partnership with, and complement the work of, existing environmental agencies.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if Groundwork trusts have paid money to other environmental charities to advance projects under Groundwork's remit.

  Mr. Atkins
  Yes. Groundwork trusts work in partnership with other environmental organisations and
  712

  Upper Limb Disorders
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations his Department has received from the Health and Safety Executive regarding work-related upper limb disorders in the construction industry.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Groundwork
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what suggestions have been made during his Department's internal review of Groundwork as to how links between Groundwork trusts and existing environmental charities could be improved with particular reference to funding arrangements.

  Mr. Atkins
  As part of the Department's internal review of its sponsorship of Groundwork, officials are currently carrying out consultations with a number of Groundwork's partners and customers, including environmental organisations. The present funding arrangements for Groundwork will be considered as part of the review.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 732, if he will provide a breakdown of spending of the grant-in-aid given to the Groundwork Foundation for each year from 1988–89 to 1992–93 using the same categories as he used in his previous answer.

  Mr. Atkins
  The table shows the breakdown of spending of the grant-in-aid allocated to the Groundwork Foundation for each year from 1988–89 to 1992–93.

  community groups in undertaking projects and will assist them in putting together the most appropriate funding package. Groundwork trusts may also themselves provide funding to assist other environmental groups.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what limits he sets on the spending of a Groundwork trust.

  Mr. Atkins
  None. The Department makes a contribution to the running costs of Groundwork trusts. Trusts may also apply for relevant grants for projects in competition with other organisations.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he gives to Groundwork trusts to help them avoid adversely affecting existing environmental charities.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Groundwork Foundation is responsible for managing the network of Groundwork trusts. One of the criteria the Department advises the foundation to adopt in considering the case for a new trust is that it will
  713
  complement the work of existing local organisations. Once established, trusts are encouraged to work in collaboration with such organisations.

  Art (Merseyside)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who appointed the members of the advisory group to which the Merseyside development corporation refers its public art initiatives; and how often they meet.

  Mr. Baldry
  The advisory group which provides informal advice on the Merseyside development corporation public arts initiative is drawn from a wide range of arts organisations on Merseyside. Representatives from these organisations have been invited to join the group by Mrs. Paula Ridley, MDC board member and chairperson of the group. The group meets four times a year.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names of the advisory group to which the Merseyside development corporation refers its public art initiatives, their qualifications and place of birth.

  Mr. Baldry
  The membership of the advisory group on Merseyside development corporation's art initiative is drawn from Merseyside art institutions. It is an ad hoc body with no statutory responsibilities and as such my Department does not keep records of names, qualifications and places of birth.

  Housing Capital Receipts
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what housing capital receipts are held by each London borough council as at 31 March 1993.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on total usable capital receipts held at 31 March 1993 is given in the table. No comparable information is available for housing receipts alone, since local authorities are not required to account separately for such receipts.

  £ thousands

  Barking and Dagenham

  21,587

  Barnet

  22,428

  Bexley

  4,560

  Brent

  1,269

  Bromley

  30,230

  Camden

  2,060

  City of London

  20,220

  Croydon

  nil

  Ealing

  10,059

  Enfield

  13,274

  Greenwich

  nil

  Hackney

  17

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,317

  Haringey

  5,576

  Harrow

  17,221

  Havering

  7,450

  Hillingdon

  20,923

  Hounslow

  6,163

  Islington

  792

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,486

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,960

  Lambeth

  804

  Lewisham

  2,200

  Merton

  nil

  Newham

  nil

  Redbridge

  8,372

  Richmond upon Thames

  14,631

  Southwark

  nil

  714

  £ thousands

  Sutton

  2,860

  Tower Hamlets

  4,194

  Waltham Forest

  4,077

  Wandsworth

  14,819

  Westminster

  22,787

  Source: Local authority returns.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what authority the London Docklands development corporation funds voluntary organisations for three years only.

  Mr. Baldry
  The London Docklands development corporation has delegated authority from the Department to take their own decisions about support for individual voluntary sector projects which are consistent with their regeneration objectives. The Department's own policy is that such grants should not normally exceed three years in the first instance.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the financial reserves held by each London borough council as at 31 March 1993.

  Mr. Baldry
  The latest available information, as reported to the Department by the local authorities, is as follows:

  Estimated General Fund reserves at 31 March 1993

  £ thousands

  City of London

  184,989

  Camden

  -146

  Greenwich

  1,583

  Hackney

  2,516

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  Islington

  1,367

  Kensington and Chelsea

  12,401

  Lambeth

  -10,032

  Lewisham

  3,009

  Southwark

  7,225

  Tower Hamlets

  14,096

  Wandsworth

  32,064

  Westminster

  24,301

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  Barnet

  14,835

  Bexley

  7,830

  Brent

  -1,235

  Bromley

  59,369

  Croydon

  29,939

  Ealing

  26,051

  Enfield

  16,084

  Haringey

  10,939

  Harrow

  21,242

  Havering

  15,387

  Hillingdon

  5,536

  Hounslow

  7,023

  Kingston upon Thames

  3,933

  Merton

  9,952

  Newham

  14,391

  Redbridge

  7,688

  Richmond upon Thames

  6,522

  Sutton

  7,982

  Waltham Forest

  6,726

  Local Government (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a decision on the Commission's report on the future of local government in Gloucestershire.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply of Tuesday 1 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman),Official Report, column 643.

  Senior Regional Director, London
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to appoint the senior regional director for London; and what are the terms of reference and duties which he intends to give to that person.

  Mr. Baldry
  We hope to announce the appointment of the regional director for the Government office for London in the near future. The duties of the regional director will be those set out in my earlier reply to the hon. Gentleman,Official Report, 8 February, column 146.

  Council Tenants
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total cost to local authorities of actions by council tenants under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the relevant predecessor legislation for each year since 1989.

  Mr. Atkins
  This information is not held centrally.

  Hertsmere District Council
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking over allegations of curruption and irregular property dealings in Hertsmere district council.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is not a matter for the Government. Allegations of corruption by local authorities should be made to the district auditor or the police for them to investigate.

  New Towns
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contributions have been made by the Commission for New Towns towards promotional activities in each local authority convered by a former new town development corporation since 1988.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information is as follows:

  Local authority area

  Contribution £ thousands

  1988–89

  Corby D.C.

  100·0

  Peterborough C.C.

  80·5

  West Lancashire D.C.

  122·0

  1989–90

  Easington D.C.

  5·0

  Peterborough C.C.

  169·0

  Warrington B.C.

  6·0

  West Lancashire D.C.

  100·0

  716

  Local authority area

  Contribution £ thousands

  1990–91

  Easington D.C.

  5·0

  Halton B.C.

  68·5

  Peterborough C.C.

  132·0

  West Lancashire D.C.

  50·0

  1991·92

  Halton B.C.

  158·5

  Peterborough C.C.

  100·0

  Warrington B.C.

  75·0

  West Lancashire D.C.

  25·0

  The Wrekin

  76·5

  1992–93

  Halton B.C.

  166·0

  Milton Keynes B.C.

  2,500·0

  Peterborough C.C.

  72·0

  Warrington B.C.

  75·0

  West Lancashire D.C.

  25·0

  The Wrekin

  170·0

  1993–94

  Halton B.C.

  165·0

  Milton Keynes B.C.

  1,450·0

  Peterborough C.C.

  40·0

  Warrington B.C.

  75·0

  West Lancashire D.C.

  25·0

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters responding to the draft and final report of the Local Government Commission were riot considered by the commission as they were ruled to have arrived after the deadline for representations in relation to the commission's proposals for Humberside; in what circumstances letters sent in response to earlier consultations by the Local Government Commission in relation to Humberside were ignored after deadlines; and if he will give a breakdown of letters received in terms of support for the various options put forward by the commission in response to both the draft and final report in relation to proposals for Humberside.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the Local Government Commission and I have written to it today asking it to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Waste Shipments
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further action is needed in the United Kingdom to implement Council regulation (EEC) No. 259/93, the waste shipments regulation.

  Mr. Atkins
  I announced on 7 February that the United Kingdom had ratified the Basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. The waste shipments regulation, which comes into operation on 6 May, provides the legal framework for implementing the obligations of the convention in the European Community.

  Most of the regulation is directly applicable throughout the Community, but domestic regulations are required to give full effect to a number of provisions. The Government have just issued a draft statutory instrument for consultation, accompanied by a draft circular giving

  717
  guidance on the implementation of the EC regulation in the United Kingdom. Copies of both documents have been deposited in the Library.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, columns 733–34, if he will place in the Library the results of market research relating to the advertising campaigns; and how many coupon/telephone responses were received to each campaign in this financial year.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department will place copies of market research relating to the "Helping the Earth Begins at Home" and rent-to-mortgage campaigns in the House of Commons Library.

  Coupon/telephone responses for these campaigns in this financial year, to 25 February 1994, are:

  Helping the Earth Begins at Home

  Telephone—12,080

  Coupon—19,520

  Rent-to-mortgage

  Telephone—7,486

  Coupon—10,281

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of women; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: Women accounted for 29 per cent. of all public appointments made by my Department in 1993 to non-departmental public bodies and nationalised industries.

  Toxic Waste (Crime)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the plans for the National Criminal Intelligence Service to investigate the extent of organised crime within the toxic waste industry in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is currently no evidence to suggest that organised crime has infiltrated the United Kingdom's toxic waste industry.

  The National Criminal Intelligence Service is in touch with relevant agencies elsewhere in Europe and the United States and will continue to monitor the situation closely.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill [Lords] on referrals from the private sector to the Insolvency Service for investigations leading to prosecution under the proposed involvement of the private sector in mechanical processing work of the Insolvency Service.
  718
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  It is not apparent that the provisions of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill will have any affect on the possible involvement of the private sector in the work of the Official Receiver.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much the Insolvency Service executive agency spent on consultants in total for each financial years since 1991–92 and in the current financial year to 31 January.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The total amounts spent on consultants employed by or engaged in work for the Insolvency Service were:

  £

  1991–92

  659,480

  1992–93

  698,930

  1993–941

  790,800

  1 To 31 Januaiy 1994.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff were dismissed from the Insolvency Service executive agency in the years 1991, 1992 and 1993; and if he will give the reasons.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The following numbers of staff were dismissed during the relevant years:

  Number

  1991

  2

  1992

  5

  1993

  6

  Dismissal was for a variety of reasons.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many private consultants were employed by the Insolvency Service in each financial year since 1991–92 and in the current financial year to 31 January.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The following numbers of private consultants were employed by or engaged in work for the Insolvency Service:

  Number

  1991–92

  16

  1992–93

  18

  1993–941

  20

  1 To 31 Januaiy 1994.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the report of the pre-operational safety review team mission to Sizewell B will be published.

  Mr. Eggar
  Copies of the report of the pre-operational safety review team mission to Sizewell B have been received from the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna and placed in the Library of the House. In October and November 1992, the team conducted a review of the operational safety arrangements at Sizewell B at the invitation of Her Majesty's Government, following a suggestion from Nuclear Electric, the operators of Sizewell
  719
  B. As I informed the House on 16 December 1992, Official Report, column 237, the review team concluded that Sizewell B is a well-managed nuclear plant.

  It is normal practice for a pre-OSART review to be in two stages. A follow-up visit, with a smaller team, took place on 14 to 18 February.

  Oil Exploration
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will indicate the level of exploration drilling on the United Kingdom continental shelf last year and the number of those wells successful in locating hydrocarbons; and if he will make a statement on the trend revealed.

  Mr. Eggar
  Fifty-one exploration wells were drilled last year, a figure lower than in recent years but still comparing favourably with the late 1970s and early 1980s when levels were lower. Thirteen significant discoveries were made in 1993, giving a one in four success rate. The average since exploration began in 1964 is about one in 4·5.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects manufacturing output to exceed the levels of 1990.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Latest official forecasts of manufacturing output were published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Foreign Ownership
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 741, what assessment he has made of the extent to which transfer of control of other firms from the United Kingdom to other countries will increase the living standards of the British people.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The effects of any particular acquisition must be judged on a case-by-case basis. However, in general the Government believe that open markets will be beneficial to economic growth.

  Klockner Werke Steel Plant
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations the Government have made to the European Commission on the decision of a public sector consortium led by the Bremen regional government to purchase and maintain the Klockner Werke steel plant.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Following representations made by my officials on 4 November I raised our concerns regarding public sector participation in the restructuring of Klockner Werke directly with Commissioner van Miert on 9 December and wrote to him about them on 15 December.

  European Steel Industry
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations the Government have made to the European Commission on the issue of declaring a state of manifest crisis in the European steel industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.
  720

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes it is proposed to introduce in relation to fire safety in the regulations in relation to children's nightwear; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Nightwear (Safety) Regulations 1985 regulate for fire safety in children's nightwear. These regulations are being considered as part of the overall review of legislation under the deregulation initiative. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) on 21 January 1994,Official Report, column 882.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of women; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: A total of 239 public appointments were made by this Department in 1993. Forty-seven of these appointments-24·5 per cent.—were women. This Department is fully committed to equal opportunities for women in public appointments, and has set itself a goal to increase the number of women in DTI public appointments to 30 per cent. by 1996.

  RECHAR 2
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the European Commission's proposals for RECHAR 2.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 22 February 1994]: The European Commission announced on 16 February its intention to launch 13 European structural funds Community initiatives for the period 1994 to 1999. The resources allocated to these initiatives amount to 13·45 billion ecu.

  One of the proposals is for a new RECHAR initiative for assistance to coalfield areas and 0·4 billion ecu has been allocated to it. I shall write to Commissioner Millan to seek a substantial share of the new RECHAR for the United Kingdom.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the names, occupations and employers of the chairpersons and members of all the executive and advisory non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 1 March 1994]: There would be disproportionate cost involved in providing the names, occupations and employers of the chairpersons and members of all the Department's executive and advisory non-departmental public bodies.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Regional Orchestras
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he will receive a copy of the Arts Council working party report into the funding of the regional orchestras.
  721
  Mr. Brooke
  I understand that the report, which was produced jointly by a group of council members and officers, will be considered by the Arts Council at its meeting on 2 March. The report is a working document for the use of the Council. My Department routinely receives information copies of Arts Council papers.

  Conservation Legislation
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the outcome of his officials' discussions with the Department of the Environment in respect of their review of certain aspects of the legislation to protect ancient monuments, historic buildings and conservation areas, outlined on page 53 of the Government's White Paper, "Deregulation: Cutting Red Tape."

  Mr. Brooke
  My right hon. Friend and I will be publishing in late spring or early summer the final version of planning policy guidance note 15, which will reflect the outcome of our review of various regulations affecting historic buildings and conservation areas, on which we consulted last year. I shall also shortly be issuing a revised Ancient Monuments (Class Consents) Order, which will clarify and simplify the procedures for the approval of certain minor works affecting scheduled ancient monuments.

  Youth Organisations
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are his current major initiatives involving youth and voluntary youth organisations in sporting or other fields.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Sports Council has commissioned Youth Clubs UK to develop a programme for the delivery of sport within a youth work setting. In addition, a number of youth organisations have received financial assistance from the Foundation for Sports and the Arts. The Arts Council's youth arts fund supports strategic national youth arts initiatives by the national umbrella youth arts organisations. The Department's heritage grant fund also part funds cathedral camps, which enable young people to carry out basic conservation work in our great cathedrals. Youth arts organisations also benefit under the Government's business sponsorship incentive scheme.

  Oakwood Hospital
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he intends to de-list Queen's house and St. Andrew's house at Oakwood hospital in Maidstone.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have not received an application to de-list either Queen's house or St. Andrew's house.

  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what salaries the advisory group concerning public art initiatives of the Merseyside development corporation are paid; and who is the chairman.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The advisory group which provides informal advice on Merseyside development corporation art initiatives receive no payment or expenses for their contribution.
  722
  The ad hoc group is chaired by Mrs. Paula Ridley, chair of the Tate gallery Liverpool and a trustee of the Tate gallery.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Malaysia
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what grant or other financial undertaking was made to Her Majesty's Government in respect of the Sepang airport project in Malaysia; what are the details of the undertakings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We told the Government of Malaysia in February 1993 that we would consider their request for grant finance from the aid and trade provision budget to help develop the new airport at Sepang. No financial undertaking has been given to Her Majesty's Government in respect of this project.

  Middle East
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each project funded by the Overseas Development Administration in(a) Syria, (b) Saudi Arabia, (c) Oman, (d) Qatar, (e) Egypt, (f) Lebanon, (g) Israel, (h) the west bank and Gaza, (i) Iran and (j) Iraq over the last five years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  During the past five years we have not funded any projects through country programme allocations in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, Iran and Iraq. My answer of 7 February 1994, to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), column 70, gave details of the projects we have funded in Oman during this period. I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses lists of the projects that we have funded in Egypt and the occupied territories.

  Arun III, Nepal
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what is the estimated cost, in pounds sterling, per unit kilowatt hour of energy to be generated by the Arun III project in Nepal;

  (2) how many schemes were considered by the World bank and the Nepali Government prior to the selection of the Arun III 400MW dam scheme; and what was the estimated (a) cost and (b) output of each scheme.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are in touch with the World bank to see if it can provide the information requested. I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place a copy of the environmental impact statement for the Arun III project in the Library.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A copy of the summary environmental impact assessment has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Consultative Group Meeting, Amsterdam
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the United Kingdom executive director of the World bank and the United
  723
  Kingdom were represented at the ninth consultative group meeting on the common fund for commodities in Amsterdam from 14 to 18 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Neither the United Kingdom nor the UK executive director of the World bank are represented on the consultative committee of the common fund.

  World Economic Forum
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the United Kingdom was represented at the annual meeting of the world economic forum on 28 to 30 January in Davos; what instructions the Government gave to the representative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer attended the informal gathering of world economic leaders in Davos on 28 to 30 January as part of the world economic forum's annual meeting. It was not an intergovernmental meeting, but provided an opportunity for international economic policy makers to discuss longer-term trends in the world economy on an informal basis.

  United Kingdom contributions to the world bank 1984–93

  IDA

  IBRD

  IFC

  Other

  Year

  £ million

  $ million

  £ million

  $ million

  £ million

  £ million

  1984

  169·2

  40·8

  28·1

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  124·3

  5·3

  3·8

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  118·6

  38·0

  26·9

  12·2

  8·2

  —

  1987

  133·0

  28·7

  20·2

  6·1

  3·8

  0·3

  1988

  207·0

  11·0

  6·6

  6·1

  3·6

  0·2

  1989

  169·5

  19·8

  12·6

  6·1

  3·7

  0·1

  1990

  173·0

  19·8

  10·2

  —

  —

  0·1

  1991

  145·9

  19·8

  11·7

  —

  —

  0·6

  1992

  273·0

  19·8

  10·2

  —

  —

  0·5

  1993

  187·3

  19·8

  12·9

  21·0

  14·1

  0·4

  Notes:

  IDA—International Development Association.

  IBRD—International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

  IFC—International Finance Corporation.

  Other—Contributions to various technical assistance activities (e.g. Foreign Investment Advisory Services (FIAS); Africa Project Development Facility (APDF); African Management Services Company (AMSCo); United Kingdom consultants trust fund including contributions paid by the Department of Trade and Industry).

  Contributions to IDA and for technical assistance activities are in £ sterling. Subscriptions to IBRD and IFC are in United States dollars; the second column shows the £ sterling equivalent of payments made.

  World Bank Group
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the final deficit or surplus balance has been for the World bank group for each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Details of net income for members of the World bank group are in the table.

  Malawi
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of current United Kingdom involvement in aid and development projects in Malawi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In response to a question from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) on 7 February, column 67, a list of our current bilateral aid projects in Malawi was placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria he takes into consideration when deciding on United Kingdom involvement in aid and development projects in Malawi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Several factors are taken into account including needs, particularly of the poor; progress on economic reform and good government; capacity to implement projects well; and the activities of other donors.

  International Bodies (Budget Contribution)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the annual budget contributions by the United Kingdom to(a) the International bank for reconstruction and development, (b) the International Development Association and (c) the International Finance Corporation for each of the past 10 years in (i) pound sterling and (ii) United States dollars.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is in the table.

  World Bank Group: Net Income FY84–93 ($ million)

  IBRD

  IDA

  IFC

  MIGA

  FY84

  600

  (71)

  26

  —

  FY85

  1,137

  (65)

  28

  —

  FY86

  1,243

  15

  25

  —

  FY87

  1,113

  106

  54

  —

  FY88

  1,004

  142

  101

  —

  FY89

  1,094

  88

  197

  2·8

  FY90

  1,046

  316

  157

  2·6

  FY91

  1,200

  165

  166

  2·2

  FY92

  1,645

  716

  180

  0·5

  FY93

  1,130

  (149)

  142

  1·1

  725
  Notes: Figures in brackets indicate a deficit.

  FY=Fiscal Year (July-June).

  IBRD=International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

  IDA=Intemational Development Association.

  IFC=International Finance Corporation.

  MIGA=Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency.

  Name

  Date in service

  Number of units and size (MW)

  Installed capacity (MW)

  Rated capacity (MW)

  Actual energy (Gwh/yr)

  Pan auti

  —

  3x0·8

  2·4

  2·4

  0

  Trisuli

  1962

  7x3·0

  21·0

  18·0

  114·6

  Sunkosi

  1973

  3x3·5

  10·5

  8·6

  56·7

  Gandak

  1979

  3x5·0

  15·0

  9·4

  43·8

  Kulekhani I

  1982

  2 x 30·0

  60·0

  60·0

  154·7

  Devighat

  1983

  2x4·7

  14·1

  14·1

  89·7

  Kulekhani II

  1986

  2 x 16·0

  32·0

  32·0

  95·0

  Marsyangdi

  1989

  3 x 23·0

  69·0

  69·0

  462·0

  Andi Khola

  1991

  3x 1·7

  5·1

  5·0

  44·4

  Sub-Total

  —

  —

  229·1

  218·5

  1,060·9

  Miscellaneous Small Hydro

  —

  —

  7·0

  7·0

  23·2

  Total

  —

  —

  236·1

  225·5

  1,084·1

  In addition, the latest available data indicate installed thermal capacity of about 55 MW. Reliable estimates of current demand levels are not readily available, but over the course of the last year load shedding has been an almost daily occurrence in Nepal, indicating regular shortages of power.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much overseas aid has been given to Mozambique each year since 1980, expressed in money terms, real terms on 1980 and as a real term percentage increase or decrease on the previous year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The figures are listed in the table:

  Gross public expenditure to Mozambique 1980—1992–93

  £000s

  Gross public expenditure

  Constant 1980 prices

  Percentage change (year on year)

  1980

  4,629

  4,629

  —

  1981

  5,379

  4,827

  +4

  1982

  1,924

  1,606

  -67

  1983

  1,805

  1,431

  -11

  1984

  4,182

  3,169

  +122

  1985

  8,366

  5,997

  +89

  1986

  7,424

  5,153

  -14

  1987

  23,836

  15,764

  +206

  1987–88

  20,747

  14,043

  —

  1988–89

  34,834

  22,095

  +57

  1989–90

  20,839

  12,359

  -44

  1990–91

  26,171

  14,363

  +16

  1991–92

  18,087

  9,335

  -35

  1992–93

  34,141

  16,970

  +82

  Note: British Aid Statistics changed to reporting on a financial year basis from 1987.
  726

  Nepal
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current number of hydro-electric plants in Nepal; how many megawatts each produces; what is the total estimated electricity need of Nepal; and what percentage of that need is expected to be produced by each of the existing hydro-electric plants.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The table shows the current list of hydro-electric plants on the interconnected system in Nepal.

  Assisted Capital Projects
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish all Overseas Development Administration assisted capital projects over £5 million in value by country and purpose.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Consultants and Accountants
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what contracts his Department has with Price Waterhouse; and what is their value.

  Mr. Ancram
  Current contracts with Price Waterhouse are:

  Pilot market test of typing services.

  Pilot market test of messengers.

  Review of the existing financial systems within Estate Services

  Division (DHSS) and reporting on the necessary adjustments

  to satisfy market testing and possible agency status.

  Efficiency scrutiny and evaluation of "Relate (NI)".

  Option appraisal to identify best way forward for value for money audit work.

  Follow-up of a number of value for money studies at selected hospital sites.

  Assisting DHSS develop a strategic approach to personnel management.

  Preparation-monitoring monthly financial position of a client company of IDB.

  Financial company appraisal of Mivan Windows.

  Preparation of a strategic plan for a Local Enterprise Agency.

  Business review of Extern.

  In order to safeguard commercial confidentiality, the value of the contracts cannot be disclosed.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the contracts that his Department has with(a) consultants and (b) accountants.
  727
  Mr. Ancram
  The information required is not available from all Departments in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, current contracts under general headings are:

  Consultants

  Accountants

  Capital works

  260

  Nil

  General management

  195

  34

  Information technology

  20

  10

  Privatisation

  12

  8

  Next Steps

  Nil

  1

  Others

  59

  3

  Animal Health
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he has taken to ensure that imports of livestock do not erode the animal health status of the Province.

  Mr. Ancram
  Under the single market trade in live animals between member states is subject to common rules. Within these rules the Department of Agriculture is carrying out all the checks permitted on imported animals at the point of destination in Northern Ireland to ensure that the required trading conditions have been met.

  Submissions have been made to the European Commission seeking additional trade guarantees against the introduction of a number of diseases from which Northern Ireland can claim freedom and for which there are no common trading rules.

  Northern Ireland importers and the farming community have been made aware through media publicity and a leaflet and poster campaign of the potential disease risks associated with imported livestock.

  Sheep Dip
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Northern Ireland farmers have been affected through the use of organo-phosphorus sheep dips.

  Mr. Ancram
  No cases of affected farmers have been reported.

  Rural Areas
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effect of the cuts in hill livestock compensatory allowances and rises in petrol, diesel and car tax on the drift of population from rural areas; and what proposals he has to support the rural areas.

  Mr. Ancram
  With increases in incomes in the less-favoured areas in recent years, assisted significantly by improvements in livestock premiums, much reduced interest rates and controlled inflation, there is no reason to believe that these measures will have any effect on the rate of population change in rural areas. Proposals for the specific support of rural areas are contained in the Northern Ireland structural funds plan (1994–99), which, following wide-ranging local consultation, is currently under consideration by the European Commission.

  Potatoes
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to help potato producers in Northern Ireland to market their produce better.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Department has an ongoing programme of advice to both the seed and ware sectors of the industry. Officers are made available on secondment to trading organisations to liaise with farmers to improve the marketability of their ware potatoes. Officers work with farmers and wholesalers to improve the health, quality and general marketability of seed potatoes. The Department's ad hoc advisory staff, research and development facilities and market development staff are available and regularly used by growers.

  Financial support may be available under the group marketing grant scheme, which is designed to encourage the development of commercially managed marketing groups for agricultural and horticultural produce.

  Animal Health
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what extent bovine spongiform encephalopathy is now on the decrease; and when the ban on exports of bovines and beef can be lifted.

  Mr. Ancram
  Up to 24 February there have been 1,200 confirmed cases of BSE in Northern Ireland compared with approximately 120,000 in Great Britain. While the number of confirmed cases is continuing to rise, there has been a downturn in the rate of increase and in the proportion of younger animals in which BSE is confirmed.

  Under European Community legislation it is prohibited to export from the UK live cattle over six months of age and bone-in beef from herds which had had a case of BSE. The EC scientific veterinary committee in conducting a scientific evaluation of BSE in September 1993 endorsed the Community control measures on BSE. There has been no change in this position. The lifting of the ban would be a matter for consideration initially by the European Commission which is keeping the position under review and has been made aware of the improving disease situation in the United Kingdom.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland has sought financial assistance from the EC veterinary fund to help with its animal health programme.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland submitted an application in 1991 for assistance from the EC veterinary fund in respect of expenditure on animal disease eradication. The application has been unsuccessful to date but the Department's bid remains active in 1994.

  Foxes
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent forecast he has made of the fox population in Northern Ireland; and what consideration he has given to introducing a bounty cull on foxes.

  Mr. Ancram
  No recent forecast has been made of the fox population in Northern Ireland. The bounty scheme
  729
  which ended in 1977 was shown to be having only a marginal effect on the number of foxes and there are no plans to reintroduce such a scheme.

  Earth Tremors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each of the last four years, and for the current year to date(a) the location and (b) the Richter scale measurement of earth tremors that have occurred; and what structural damage was reported.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has placed the information requested in the Library of the House. The British Geological Survey has located 1,478 earthquakes in the United Kingdom and the offshore area in the period January 1990 to mid-February 1994. One of these tremors occurred in Northern Ireland on 19 October 1990 at Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim, with a magnitude equivalent to 2·5 on the Richter scale. The tremor was caused by the sudden collapse of an abandoned salt mine. Other damage was minimal.
  730

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made with his proposals to introduce an element of competition into the generation and supply of electricity in Northern Ireland; and what plans he has to refer the matter to the Monopolies Commission.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  As a result of the restructuring of the electricity industry and the sale of the four power stations in March 1992 to three independent companies, competition has been successfully introduced into the generation of electricity in Northern Ireland. The Director General of Electricity Supply for Northern Ireland is charged with the task of introducing arrangements to facilitate the development of competition in supply. The director general reported on his plans for this on 16 December 1993. Any question of a Monopolies Commission reference is a matter for the director general in the first instance. I am not aware that he considers there is any need for this at present.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Youth Initiatives
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his current major initiatives involving youth.

  Mr. Maclean
  We are currently taking action across a wide front. For example, we are promoting safer cities projects focusing on young people and crime; we are issuing fresh guidance on the cautioning of offenders; we are beginning a review of national standards for community penalties; and we have introduced legislation which will enable the courts to deal more effectively with persistent 12 to 14-year-old offenders, to sentence 15 to 17-year-olds to longer periods of detention in a young offender institution, and to order the detention under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 of younger children who have committed grave crimes. We are also supporting over £1 million worth of experimental work in the field of crime reduction, the aim being to reduce the propensity of young people to engage in criminal activity.

  Field Sports
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he received from organisations and individuals prior to the drafting of clauses 52 and 53 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

  Mr. Maclean
  During the past two years we have received numerous representations from right hon. and hon. Members; from members of the public; from field sports organisations including the British Field Sports Society, the Moorland Association, the British Association

  Employment

  Non-employment

  Results

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Settled on terms

  101

  74

  174

  11

  13

  2

  Success after hearing

  19

  24

  296

  6

  2

  4

  Dismissed after hearing

  27

  42

  26

  2

  5

  0

  Total

  147

  139

  196

  19

  20

  6

  1 An additional 34 cases were favourably settled by Complaints Officers before any Legal Officers were involved. Figures were not collected on these settlements for previous years.

  2 The 1993 figure includes 78 individual cases against one Yorshire textile company (Haggas) where claims of discrimination by night shift workers were upheld.

  In 1991–92 the CRE spent £800,000 on legal and professional fees. The costs were £1,400,000 in 1992–93 and are expected to be in the region of £1,000,000 for the current financial year.

  Prison Disturbances
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many disturbances have taken place in prisons in England and Wales since January 1993.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  732
  for Shooting and Conservation, the Association of Masters of Foxhounds, the Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles; and from the British Horseracing Board.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research was undertaken by his Department to the drafting of clauses 52 and 53 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

  Mr. Maclean
  No formal research was undertaken, although we received many reports of incidents which led to our conclusion that proposals along the lines of clauses 52 and 53 should be introduced.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisations and individuals he consulted prior to the drafting of clauses 52 and 53 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

  Mr. Maclean
  There was no formal consultation process, but Ministers met informally a number of right hon. and hon. Friends and representatives of field sports organisations, including the British Field Sports Society and the Moorland Association.

  Racial Discrimination
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much the Commission for Racial Equality has expended on legal fees for cases of alleged racial discrimination over the last three years;

  (2) how many cases of alleged racial discrimination, financed by the Commission for Racial Equality, have been brought over the last three years; and how many were (a) successful and (b) unsuccessful.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The results of individual complaints cases taken up by the Commission for Racial Equality are as follows:

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 2 March 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of disturbances which have taken place in prisons in England and Wales since January 1993.

  An act of concerted indiscipline can be defined as the refusal by a group of inmates to conform to the normal rules and regulations of a prison.

  An analysis of the incidents reported to the Prison Service Incident Management Support Unit in the period 1 January 1993 to 26 February 1994 reveals that there were 171 recorded incidents of concerted indiscipline.
  733

  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of remand prisoners being held in police cells within the Greater London area on 26 February.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 2 March 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of remand prisoners being held in police cells within the Greater London area on 26 February 1994.

  No remand prisoners were held in police cells in the Greater London area on that date.

  Bail Hostels
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current occupancy rate for bail hostels in the west midlands; and what assessment he has made of the immediate consequence if two of the hostels in the west midlands were closed.

  Mr. Maclean
  The occupancy rate for approved hostels in the west midlands in January, the most recently available monthly figure, was 80 per cent. The probation committee has been asked to identify two hostels for closure, with a requirement to reduce expenditure by £400,000 a year. In doing so the committee will need to assess the options, taking account of local circumstances and the consequences of closure. I have not yet received such an assessment from the committee.

  Police Emergency Services
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made as to the effect on expenditure on emergency police services of the introduction of the APCO 25 service;

  (2) what liason has taken place with other Departments to calculate what savings might be made using the APCO 25 system for all emergency services.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office is in regular touch with a number of other Government Departments on all aspects of radio communications for the emergency services, including the benefits which might be gained from adopting a single standard for all services. Preliminary discussions have been held on the potential benefits of both the APCO 25 and TETRA standards, but final decisions on which of these offers best value for money will have to wait until the two standards have been finalised and products based on them are available.

  Prison Escort Services
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the reasons for the use of private hire vehicles for transporting James Hurley and other persons.
  734
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. John Spellar, dated 2 March 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the reasons for hiring a private vehicle to transport James Hurley and other prisoners on 16 February.

  A Prison Service secure cellular van would normally have been used for this escort, but it had been taken off the road on 15 February for emergency repairs to the heating system. The Metropolitan Police were approached for a replacement vehicle but they were unable to supply one. No other source for a cellular vehicle was available.

  As on previous occasions when a cellular vehicle has not been available, a coach was hired from a private company with whom the Prison Service has a contract. The staffing level for a secure, cellular vehicle is normally one senior officer and two prison officers. The hired coach was staffed by an acting senior officer and four prison officers, the level of the escort having been increased because an open vehicle was being used.

  Transgenic Animals
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many project licences were granted under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in 1990, 1991 and 1992 for the production or use of transgenic animals in scientific procedures;

  (2) how many designated establishments are currently licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to produce or use transgenic animals in scientific procedures;

  (3) if he will issue a statement on the terms used to define a transgenic animal when compiling the annual Home Office statistics of scientific procedures on living animals.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Sixty-two project licences were current in 1990 for the use of production of transgenic animals; 89 in 1991; and 121 in 1992.

  Forty-six establishments were licensed to breed or use transgenic animals in 1992. Figures for 1993 are not yet available.

  The Home Office statistics treat as transgenic animals those carrying genetic material from other species.

  EU Integration Policy
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on views expressed in the European Commission document "European Social Policy: Options for the Union" on the requirement for a successful integration policy.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Secretary of State for Employment will be sending a paper to the Commissioner for Social Affairs at the European Commission before 31 March. This paper will set out the Government's views.

  Police Sirens
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department over what distance he estimates police sirens can be heard; and if he will introduce a lower volume option so that noise pollution particularly in built up areas and at night is reduced.
  735
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The distance over which a police siren can be heard is subject to a number of factors, including the time of day, air temperature and location. Most vehicles are fitted with a control for the siren to enable its volume to be reduced if circumstances permit.

  Immigrants and Refugees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what longitudinal studies have been conducted on the economic performance of immigrants and refugees and the factors which contribute to their successful integration into the British labour market.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No such longitudinal studies have been published, though some studies in progress will be able to address some of the questions raised by the hon. Member. Several Government Departments are collaborating in mounting the "Working Lives Survey", a major sample survey of people's experience of work. The Home Office contribution to this study is paying for an additional "booster" sample of 2,000 respondents from the main ethnic minority groups. Some of the ethnic minority respondents will be immigrants, although it will not be possible to distinguish between refugees and other immigrants. Results should be available during 1996.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 February, Official Report, columns 801–3, if he will place in the Library the results of independent survey research, the other relevant measures which demonstrate response to advertising and the result of the independent audit on the buying efficiency of television advertising.

  Mr. Howard
  Research surveys contain commercially confidential information which it would not be right to reveal. I do not therefore propose to have them placed in the Library.

  Nor could the results of the auditing of the buying efficiency of television advertising be revealed without seriously weakening the negotiating position of Central Office of Information agencies which act on behalf of Departments. I can, however, state the primary outcome of each campaign as measured by research, in relation to the objectives given in my answer on 16 February, columns 801–3.

  Electoral Registration
  Awareness of the need to put one's name on a form or register rose from 64 per cent. to 72 per cent. (all groups of potential voters). Within that total, awareness of the need among 16–24 year olds rose from 33 per cent to 49 per cent. The total of ethnic minorities aware of the advertising was 44 per cent. and this will be the benchmark against which future figures will be measured. If those people saying they intended to register as a result of advertising did so, 93 per cent of all groups would be able to vote: 73 per cent. of 16–24 year olds; and 81 per cent. of ethnic minorities.

  Smoke Alarms
  In 1989 ownership of alarms was 31 per cent. of households. Research of the current phase of advertising cannot be completed until after the campaign has finished in March. However, the March 1993 phase had helped push the total to 63 per cent. and my Department is confident of reaching the 70 per cent. target this year.

  Car Crime Prevention
  Ninety per cent. of respondents recognised car crime prevention advertising after the September 1993 phase.
  736
  Sixty-three per cent. said it would make them do more about car security compared with 57 per cent. after the February 1993 phase.

  Special Constables Recruitment
  As of 21 February 1994, there have been 8,410 enquiries, subsequently converting to 4,314 applications as a result of the 1993–94 campaign. Final conversion rates are not yet available.

  Wymott Prison (Fires)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what implications arose from Crown immunity in relation to fire protection at Wymott prison and the fire at that prison last year; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Peter Pike, dated 2 March 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking what implications arose from Crown immunity in relation to fire protection against Wymott prison last year; and if he will make a statement.

  The main aspects of concern over the fires during the disturbances at Wymott prison last year were over the fires started deliberately in the covered walkways. The service-ducts in those walkways had all been insulated in accordance with the Building Regulations appropriate at the time. A review of all prisons of the same era is underway to establish the remedial work needed.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what incidents would be considered by his Department to be covered by the term "special service incidents"; what information he has on the total cost to fire brigades for attendance at such calls for the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Special service incidents are those attended by fire brigades for purposes other than fire-fighting purposes. It is not possible to distinguish between resources which are available for the purpose of fighting fires, and those which are available to respond to special service calls. As a consequence, it is not possible to provide information on the cost to fire authorities of attending special service calls.

  British Citizenship
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department is conducting into the factors which influence individuals to make an application to become British citizens; and how the findings of that research could be used to amend current application procedures to encourage more long-term foreign residents to make an application.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A proposal for such research is under consideration, primarily as a contribution towards improving the forecasting of demand. It is unlikely to be directly relevant to the question of encouraging applications for British citizenship.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 February, Official Report, columns 801–3, what was the budgeted and actual cost of each public information campaign listed.

  Mr. Howard
  The cost of phases of campaigns completed so far this financial year was:

  £

  Electoral Registration (TV)

  620,000

  Smoke Alarm Installation (TV) Crime Prevention (TV, radio, press, posters,

  1,020,000

  promotions)

  3,459,443

  Special Constables Recruitment (press, posters)

  800,000

  Police Graduate Recruitment (press)

  119,889

  Passport Renewal (press)

  70,000

  The actual cost of those campaigns was as budgeted.

  Further phases of car crime prevention and smoke alarms advertising are currently running at a budgeted cost of £1,820,842 and £1,000,000 respectively.

  Convicted Child Abusers
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what checks are carried out to ensure that convicted child abusers are unable to work with, or set up, charities whose work brings them into contact with children.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Police checks may be carried out on those who have applied to work with certain national voluntary child care charities which are members of the Voluntary Organisations Consultancy Service, where the nature of the work involves substantial access to children. The current review by the Home Office of arrangements for access to criminal records for vetting purposes may result in checks being made more widely available to the voluntary child care sector.

  Child Battery
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of years to be served in prison for those convicted in each region of child battery in 1993.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 2 March 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what was the average number of years to be served in prison for those convicted in each region of child battery in 1993.

  I regret to inform you that the information you have requested is not available. Child battery is counted as an assault offence in the offence classification and is not separately distinguishable.

  Welsh Prisoners
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners from(a) Gwynedd, (b) Clwyd and (c) Powys are currently serving custodial sentences in prisons in England.
  738
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 2 March 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many prisoners from (a) Gwynedd, (b) Clwyd and (c) Powys are currently serving custodial sentences in prisons in England.

  The available information is for the county of the sentencing court and the latest provisional statistics are for 31 December 1993. On that date the numbers of prisoners held in Prison Service Establishments in England and Wales who had been sentenced by courts in Gwynedd, Clwyd and Powys were 106, 205 and 39 respectively.

  Prison Coach Escape
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of prisoners being transported and the number of prison officer escorts in the prison coach escape which took place on 17 February while on its way to Wandsworth prison; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 2 March 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question on the number of prisoners being transported and the number of prison officer escorts in the prison coach escape which took place on 17 February while on its way to Wandsworth prison.

  On 16 February, eight prisoners were being escorted on the National Escort by five prison staff.

  A full inquiry into the escape of two prisoners from this escort is under way. One prisoner was recaptured shortly after by the police but the other remains at large.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers, and at which prisons, have been disciplined in each year since 1991 for the use of racially derogatory or insulting language under the terms of the "Code of Conduct for Prison Officers Race Relations Manual" published in 1991.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. John Cummings, dated 2 March 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking about the numbers of prison officers who have been disciplined for using racially derogatory or insulting language since 1991.

  The Race Relations Manual to which you refer was published in 1991 as part of the Prison Service's commitment to equality of opportunity and the elimination of discrimination on improper grounds. It is not in itself a code of conduct, but a manual which consolidates all previous advice and guidance on race relations matters. The Manual makes it clear that the use of racially derogatory or insulting language towards prisoners is not acceptable.
  739
  In July 1993 a new code of discipline was introduced which cites "racial or sexual harassment or discrimination towards inmates, colleagues or members of the public" as specific examples of behaviour which may lead to disciplinary action. Since the implementation of the new code, no instances of disciplinary awards for this type of offence have been recorded. There was no requirement for all disciplinary cases under the pre-July 1993 code of discipline to be reported centrally, but we are aware of the following two cases since 1991, each concerning one officer.

  Prison

  Result

  Date

  High point

  Dismissal

  February 1992

  Leicester

  Written reprimand

  November 1992

  Directorate of Telecommunications
  Dr. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what were the reasons for declining to insert a clause in the sale agreement for the privatisation of DTELS requiring the purchaser not to change staff terms and conditions without their prior agreement;

  (2) what consideration he has given to offering staff of DTELS a five-year deal protecting the severance and redundancy terms after the organisation is privatised; and what were the reasons for his decision.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The unions representing DTELS staff requested a Government guarantee for the protection of staff redundancy money in the event that the new owner of DTELS become insolvent. They also asked that the new owner should undertake not to vary staff severance terms without consent and that anyone dismissed for refusing consent would be automatically entitled to redundancy payments.

  It is Government policy that there should be a clean break on privatisation. Any argument for special treatment therefore has to be examined on its merits, judged against the perceived risks to the business. In DTELS' case, although it has competitors, it has a strong market position, a reliable and stable customer base and a good record on contract renewal. It was concluded, therefore, that there should be no redundancy money guarantee.

  Staff redundancy terms are protected on transfer by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. While it was not a condition of sale, shortlisted bidders were asked whether they were prepared to give an undertaking as requested by the unions on any future variation of severance entitlements. The preferred bidder, National Transcommunications Ltd., has confirmed that it will fully meet its TUPE obligations. It has assured us that in the period after sale, subject to its strategy and business needs, it will not be seeking to discuss and agree changes to staff terms. It also accepts that any variation in terms would require negotiation and staff, in respect of which it sought to enforce change, would need to have given consent.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding conditions at Blakenhurst prison in Redditch and alleged action of ill-treatment of prisoners; and if he will make a statement.
  740
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Richard Burden, dated 2 March 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions asking what representations he has received regarding conditions at Blakenhurst prison and alleged action of ill treatment of prisoners.

  I am aware that you have written to the management contractor at Blakenhurst raising the case of one of your constituents who is held there. As at any prison many of the concerns that are raised by prisoners, their relatives or their representatives are dealt with by the prison management. Prisoners also have access to the Board of Visitors, and they can also make representations to persons and bodies outside the prison, including of course their Members of Parliament.

  I should also explain that, at contracted prisons such as Blakenhurst, a Prison Service Controller is appointed with a statutory duty under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to keep under review, and report to the Secretary of State on, the running of the prison. In fulfilling this function he completes monthly reports to officials; and reports and investigates any particular matters drawn to his attention or of which he becomes aware. This would include any allegations of mistreatment of prisoners and complaints about the conditions at the prison. Many of these issues would be resolved at establishment level.

  If there is any particular issue of concern to you please do not hesitate to let me know.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners and staff were involved in the disturbance at Blakenhurst prison on 24 February; what was the duration of the incident and the extent of injuries and damage; what plans he has to hold an inquiry; and when the chief inspector of prisons will inspect Blakenhurst;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 17 January, Official Report, columns 446–52, regarding assaults in prison establishments, what steps were taken at Blakenhurst to improve prison-staff relations and discipline at the prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answers 1 March 1994]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 2 March 1994:

  HM Prison, Blakenhurst

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director-General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about Blakenhurst prison, concerning prisoner and staff relationships and the disturbance on 24 February.

  Both the controller and the Director General are satisfied that relationships between staff and prisoners and discipline at Blakenhurst are generally good and, as would be expected with a new prison, are improving with greater experience. As at other establishments the director and his staff are always looking to maintain and improve them and to ensure that any breaches of prison rules that do occur are dealt with appropriately.

  Your question was presumably prompted by the level of assaults at Blakenhurst. New prisons tend to record more assaults. In line with experience at other new prisons the number of assaults at Blakenhurst now appears to be on a downward trend, although that trend is likely to be affected by the adjudications which are being undertaken following the disturbance on 24 February, about which you also asked.

  The Director General has appointed an inquiry team, headed by the Prison Service Area Manager for Mercia, which has already started its investigation into the incident.
  741
  A total of 111 prisoners were in the particular houseblock where the incident occurred but not all were involved in the subsequent events. The inquiry will seek to establish, amongst other things, the individual involvement of prisoners. 36 staff were involved in the incident which lasted from 1430 until 2122. Minor injuries were caused to staff and prisoners. Current estimates indicate that approximately £25,000 of damage was caused to the houseblock.

  Unless otherwise directed by the Secretary of State, it is for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons to decide when he wishes to inspect a prison. However, we have been informed that the Inspectorate will commence an inspection of Blakenhurst on 23 May.

  The number and percentage of severe disablement allowance recipients in receipt of the following benefits, and the average amount of the other benefit in payment

  Benefit

  Claimant1

  Average amount2 £

  Percentage

  Partner1

  Average amount2 £

  Percentage

  Income Support (IS)3

  186,000

  56·11

  61·6

  11,000

  52·83

  3·6

  Housing Benefit (HB) without Income Support4

  9,000

  23·75

  3·0

  4,000

  19·43

  1·3

  Community Charge Benefit (CCB) without Income Support4

  14,000

  4·43

  4·6

  6,000

  4·57

  2·0

  Attendance Allowance (AA)5

  82,000

  Not available

  27·2

  Not applicable

  Not applicable

  Not applicable

  1 With the exception of AA, all figures quoted are in respect of benefit units. A benefit unit may be a single person or a couple, both of whom may be in receipt of SDA. AA is paid to an individual.

  2 With the exception of AA, the average amount quoted refers to the benefit unit rather than the individual. In the case of AA benefit is paid to the individual.

  3 The IS figures also include cases where HB and/or CCB are in payment. Source: income support statistics quarterly sample inquiry. May 1993.

  4 There is considerable overlap between HB and CCB, many cases receiving both benefits. Source: Derived from the housing benefit and community charge benefit management information system sample and the income support annual statistical inquiry. The inquiries are 1 per cent, samples of HB/CCB and IS cases in May 1992.

  5 The information refers to cases where AA is combined with SDA and paid to the individual, and there is therefore no information on partners. The average amount of AA in payment to SDA recipients is not available. Source: 1 per cent, sample of claimants to SDA on 4 April 1992.

  Notes:

  1. Information on other benefits which may be in payment with SDA is not available.

  2. The statistics are for Great Britain.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was(a) the number of claimants and (b) the amount spent on (i) invalid care allowance and (ii) carers' premium in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information is in the tables. The information on expenditure on the carer's premium gives data only on the weekly expenditure and in view of the fluctuating caseload should not be used to estimate annual expenditure.

  Invalid care allowance (ICA) beneficiaries1

  Numbers

  1979

  6,349

  1980

  6,648

  1981

  7,098

  1982

  8,005

  1983

  8,847

  1984

  9,494

  1985

  10,284

  1986

  30,587

  1987

  91,392

  1988

  109,334

  1989

  120,816

  1990

  133,912

  1991

  159,324

  1992

  188,717

  1993

  230,313

  742

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the number and percentage of severe disablement allowance recipients who are in receipt of other income by source and average amount of such other income.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested. The latest available information is in the table.

  ICA Expenditure4

  3£ million

  1978–79

  4

  1979–80

  4

  1980–81

  5

  1981–82

  6

  1982–83

  8

  1983–84

  10

  1984–85

  11

  1985–86

  13

  1986–87

  104

  1987–88

  184

  1988–89

  173

  1989–90

  184

  1990–91

  208

  1991–92

  285

  1992–93

  366

  Income support beneficiaries with carer premium

  Numbers

  1991

  2228,000

  1992

  262,000

  1993

  385,000

  Carer premium average weekly expenditure

  £ million

  1991

  0–3

  1992

  0–7

  1993

  1–0

  1 Invalid care allowance unit 100 per cent, count. Allowances current at a point in time between mid-December and mid-January. ICA was

  743
  extended to include married women with effect from 22 December 1984.

  2 Income support statistics annual inquiries, May 1991–92—1 per cent. sample.

  3Income support statistics quarterly inquiry, May 1993–5 per cent. sample. Figures rounded to the nearest thousand. Carer premium introduced October 1990.

  4Departmental report.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details of the public appointments he is responsible for making in addition to those identified in "Public Bodies 1993", including non-executive agency and other departmental management boards.

  Mr. Hague
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for the appointment of trustees to the Maxwell Pensioners Trust, The Maxwell Pensioners Charitable Trust, the Motability 10th Anniversary Trust, The Far East (Prisoners of War and Internees) Fund and Queen Mary's Roehampton Trust. He also appoints the pensions ombudsman, the social fund commissioner and the chief executives of the Department's agencies.

  Child Support
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how long on average it takes the Child Support Agency to make payment of maintenance once an assessment has been completed, broken down by area CSAC;

  (2) what is the average time taken by the Child Support Agency to pursue defaults of maintenance by absent parents.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 28 February 1994:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions about the payment of child maintenance and pursuit of defaulters.

  The average time taken to make a payment is dependant on the method of payment and the frequency as agreed between the absent parent and the Agency's account controller. It is not therefore currently possible to give reliable data on average times broken down by CSAC.

  The Child Support Computer system records individual case records, and automatically flags individual maintenance defaulters to be pursued. For that reason, average times across the Agency are not currently available.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fish Exporters
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 586, what compensation has been negotiated for fish exporters for loss of business and dislocation of orders due to action by French fishermen.

  Mr. Jack
  The compensation available under French law from the French regional authorities relates to direct and substantiable losses. We have secured the assurance of the French Government that such claims will be paid, and 744
  the Fisheries Departments will assist all operators in a position to mount claims which are arguably in this category to submit and pursue them with the relevant authorities. Our policy has been to minimise indirect losses not covered by these arrangements, by making it very clear to the French authorities that we require them to ensure that legitimate trade can go ahead. We have also reactivated the arrangements set up last year for police protection to be provided on arrival in France upon pre-notification of arrival arrangements, via the Fisheries Departments, to the French authorities.

  Animal Exports
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many live animals were exported in 1993.

  Mr. Soames
  Because of delays following the introduction of the Intrastat system, details of the total numbers of live animals exported in 1993 are not yet available. It is not possible to say when they will become available, but when they do I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action her Department is taking to investigate alleged irregularities by Ministry veterinary officers and other officials in relation to the enforcement of regulations controlling the export of live animals; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Moley) on 16 February 1994, at column 847.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 18 February, Official Report, columns 1056–58, if she will publish (a) the take-up rate of publications ordered relating to "At the Farmer's Service", (b) the number of calls monitored relating to the pesticide poisoning of wildlife campaign, (c) the numbers attending seminars relating to the IACS—integrated administration and control systems—scheme and (d) the results of the quantitative assessment of the animal welfare campaign.

  Mr. Jack
  The take-up, to date, of publications ordered relating to "At the Farmer's Service" is 16,500 complete sets and 19,000 individual sections;(b) 1,070 calls have been received relating to the pesticide poisoning of wildlife campaign; (c) the attendance at seminars relating to the IACS scheme was 3,510; and (d) over 21,000 animal welfare leaflets have been distributed via exhibitions at major livestock events.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 18 February,Official Report, columns 1056–58, if she will place in the Library the results of market research relating to each of the campaigns listed.

  Mr. Jack
  Executive summaries of market research relating to the campaigns listed will be placed in the Library.
  745

  Deregulation
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will identify for each of the proposals put forward to Government by the business deregulation task forces, and represented by numbers 96 and 99 in the publication "Deregulation Task Forces: Proposals for Reform"(a) which the Government have already taken action on, (b) which are under further consideration and (c) which are not being considered further.

  Mr. Jack
  In relation to proposal 96, we argued consistently in Brussels during the discussions on reform of the common agricultural policy that a premium scheme for male beef animals with payment in two stages based on age would be very complex to run. Since the reformed new scheme has only recently been agreed, any fundamental changes are likely to be for the longer term. The food, drink and agriculture task force's recommendation will be looked at carefully when such major changes are considered.

  Regarding proposal 99, the Government are considering whether a quicker and simpler system for paying forestry grants could be introduced. This is in line with a Environment Select Committee recommendation made last year. The Government are also considering whether there is scope for more self-regulation by the forestry industry.

  Less-favoured Areas
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what basis the calculations of average subsidies per hill sheep farm in England were made in her press statement of 30 November and of her answers of 2 February,Official Report, column 737, which indicated an average subsidy receipt for English less-favoured area farms; and if she will account for the difference.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The average quoted in the press statement of 30 November related to the estimated average direct subsidy which would be paid to full-time farms classified as severely disadvantaged area specialist sheep farms in England in 1993–94. This is consistent with the tables which were prepared for the autumn review and copies of which were placed in the Library of the House.

  LFA livestock farms in England: holdings and net farm income by ESU size group

  ESU size group (a)

  Farms partly or wholly in the LFA with any beef cattle and/or sheep (b)

  Farms classified as cattle and sheep (LFA) farms (c)

  Number (June J 992)

  Proportion

  Netfarm income (1992–93) £000

  Number (June 1992)

  Proportion

  Netfarm income (1992–93) £000

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  <8

  5,204

  29

  —

  4,590

  39

  —

  8 < 16

  2,359

  13

  —

  1,909

  16

  3·1

  16 < 28

  2,476

  14

  —

  1,752

  15

  9·4

  28 < 40

  2,041

  11

  —

  1,171

  10

  12·0

  40 < 60

  2,508

  14

  —

  1,184

  10

  19·8

  60 < 100

  2,383

  13

  —

  910

  8

  24·1

  100 < 200

  992

  5

  —

  298

  3

  —

  200 + and over

  127

  1

  —

  28

  0

  —

  All sizes

  18,090

  100

  —

  11,842

  100

  13·7

  Average over all sizes

  36

  —

  —

  24

  —

  —

  Average over 8 ESU

  49

  —

  —

  37

  —

  —

  746
  The figures contained in the written replies relate to the total number of farms in England with at least 50 per cent. of their land in the less-favoured areas classified as LFA cattle and sheep farms and an estimate of the total direct livestock subsidy payments on beef and sheep in the less-favoured areas in 1994. These payments will of course include those to the large number of very small farms and to farms not classified as SDA specialist sheep.

  Hill and Upland Farms
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what information is available from the data collected in connection with(a) the integrated administration and control system and premium claims, (b) the annual farm census and (c) the farm business survey of the number and proportions of (1) all hill and upland livestock farms and (2) hill and upland livestock farms drawing over two thirds of their standard gross margins from sheep, cattle or cattle and sheep, falling into (i) four to 11, (ii) 12 to 15, (iii) 16 to 28, (iv) 29 to 39, (v) 40 to 69, (vi) 70 to 98, (vii) 99 to 199 and (viii) 200 and over British size units; and if she will provide a breakdown of the average net income according to all sources available to the Ministry of farms of each of categories (1) and (2) in each size band;

  (2) what is the average size of (a) all hill and upland livestock farms and (b) all upland hill and livestock farms of four British livestock size units and over, according to (i) the integrated administration and control system and premium claims, (ii) the annual farm census and (iii) the farm business survey.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]: The current system of farm size classification uses economic size units based on 1988 standard gross margins rather than British size units which were based on 1980 SGMs. The readily available information from the agricultural census and the farm business survey, based on ESUs, is given in the table. Economic size and type of farm are not recorded on the forms used for IACS or hill livestock compensatory allowance claims. Properly weighted estimates of net farm income for the non-standard farm type covered by columns (1) to (3) of the table cannot be provided without disproportionate costs.
  747
  (a) The relationship between ESUs and BSUs is not straightforward. However, averaged over all farm enterprises in England two ESU are approximately equal to one BSU.

  (b) Breeding and others.

  (c) Farms mainly or wholly in the LFA with more than two thirds of their total SCM in cattle and sheep except farms classified as dairy.

  Herring Gulls
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to whom the single licences were issued in 1990, 1991 and 1992 for the killing of a total of 3,332 herring gulls; and what reasons were given for the application.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 1 March 1994]:. These licences were issued to a council in Yorkshire to remove eggs, nests and adult birds for the purposes of preserving public health.

  Bullfinches
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will give details of the single licences issued in 1991 and 1992 which resulted in a total of 989 bullfinches being shot; to whom the licences were issued; which premises were involved; and what inspections of the premises were made by her Department before the licences were issued.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 1 March 1994]: The Ministry issues a general licence each year to allow commercial fruit growers in those areas most affected by bullfinches to kill or take these birds during the period of greatest damage in order to protect their crops. This general licence, which has been approved by English Nature, the statutory conservation agency, is valid from 1 November to 30 April each year and for 1991 and 1992 it was limited to the counties of Essex, Kent and Suffolk; the districts of East and South Cambridgeshire, Fenland and Huntingdon in the county of Cambridgeshire; and the district of Stratford-on-Avon and the parishes of Brandon and Bretford, Monks Kirby and Sherbourne in the county of Warwickshire.

  Growers using the licence are not inspected by the Ministry but they are required to send the Ministry a report of the number of birds killed or taken under the authority of the licence. The locations of the farms reporting action under the licence are shown.

  Number of returns

  County

  1991

  1992

  Kent

  9

  14

  Suffolk

  1

  1

  Cambridgeshire (part)

  1

  1

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Appeals (Operation Jackpot)
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the average length of time in those cases for which the appeals have already been held relating to Operation Jackpot between the investigator reporting a case to the Crown Prosecution Service as involving a possible miscarriage of justice and the hearing of those cases in the Court of Appeal.

  The Attorney-General: As the necessary information is not at present to hand, I will write to the hon. Member.
  748
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations the Crown Prosecution Service has received from the Police Complaints Authority with regard to criminal prosecutions or disciplinary proceedings against police officers arising out of Operation Jackpot in those cases where the appeals have been heard; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the reasons for the delays in hearing those appeals before the Court of Appeal of defendants which have now been heard in cases relating to Operation Jackpot.

  The Attorney-General
  There are a number of factors which may affect the progress of individual cases. Not all apply in every case. They are (i) the time it takes for the officers to complete their investigation and prepare a report; (ii) review by the prosecution of the material; (fit) the time it takes to list a case in the Court of Appeal; (iv) listing the case for determination of any issues relating to disclosure; (v) preparation of the appeal by the defence.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Attorney-General if the Crown Prosecution Service has received or considered any representations from the Metropolitan police in relation to those appeals which have been heard relating to Operation Jackpot.

  The Attorney-General
  In the course of the review, the Crown Prosecution Service consulted the officer conducting the inquiry and his views were considered.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) if the Crown Prosecution Service has considered the potential consequencies for the careers of individual police in relation to its approach to those appeals which have been heard relating to Operation Jackpot;

  (2) if the Crown Prosecution Service in deciding its approach to appeals which have been heard in cases relating to Operation Jackpot has taken account of possible criminal prosecutions of, or disciplinary action against, the police officers concerned.

  The Attorney-General
  No. The approach of the Crown Prosecution Service has been to examine all the evidence, including any evidence tending to suggest that police officers may have committed criminal offences or breaches of discipline, to determine whether the Crown could properly seek to sustain the conviction.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  China
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Governor of Hong Kong to discuss future relations with the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I look forward to seeing the Governor of Hong Kong during his next visit to the United Kingdom
  749
  from 30 March to 9 April. This will be an opportunity to take stock with the Governor, following the welcome decision of the Hong Kong Legislative Council to pass the first electoral Bill and the publication of the Bill on the remaining electoral issues.

  European Union
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to improve communications between the United Kingdom and other European Union member states.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  At last December's European Council my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary discussed how improved physical and information links throughout the Community could increase the Community's growth and competitiveness. The European Council agreed that the Commission, assisted by a group of personal representatives of heads of government would co-ordinate work on trans-European network projects. The Council also asked for a report on information networks to be prepared by a group of prominent persons who would represent industry and users.

  Yugoslavia
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet his European counterparts to discuss developments in the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will next meet his European Union counterparts at the Foreign Affairs Council on 7 March, when developments in the former Yugoslavia will feature on the agenda.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings he has had with other Foreign Ministers regarding the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary meets his European Union colleagues regularly to discuss Bosnia. He also maintains close contact on the issue with other Foreign Ministers, including those of Russia and the United States. European Union Foreign Ministers are next due to discuss Bosnia at the Foreign Affairs Council on 7 March.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the United Kingdom's contribution to obtaining a peace settlement in Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom's contribution to both the humanitarian effort and the efforts to obtain a peace settlement has been second to none. We have taken a lead within the European Union efforts to encourage a negotiated settlement, and are working intensively with other interested countries to build on the Sarajevo ceasefire.

  We welcome and support closer United States and Russian engagement on international efforts to secure a settlement.
  750
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Foreign Minister of Bosnia to discuss the latest position in the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last met the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina at the European Union meeting with the Bosnian parties on 29 November 1993.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received from UNPROFOR and NATO on the situation in the Bihac pocket as concerns reports of a resumption of hostilities between Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Government forces.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We receive regular reports on the situation in Bosnia from UNPROFOR through the United Nations. These include the Bihac pocket, where fighting has been reported between both Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Government and Bosnian Government and local Muslim forces.

  Poland
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is proposing to take to strengthen the links between the United Kingdom and Poland.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our relations with Poland are already close and friendly. There are strong and growing commercial links. I believe the one problem between us, the air services dispute, is close to resolution. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary hopes to visit Poland later this month.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current policy respecting Bosnia.

  Mrs Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Bosnia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The continuing ceasefire in Sarajevo, and the recent ceasefire agreement between Bosnian Government and Bosnian Croat forces, are welcome steps towards an end to the fighting. We also welcome the agreement between the Bosnian and Croat Governments initialled in Washington yesterday. This is an important step towards a formal negotiated settlement in Bosnia. We are now working intensively with other interested countries to build on these developments. We still believe that a negotiated settlement between the parties is the only way to end the killing.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council on the situation in Bosnia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There is a continuing process of informal consultation between Security Council members,
  751
  including permanent Security Council members, and with other partners. The most recent formal meeting of the Security Council took place on 14 February.

  European Community Enlargement
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards enlarging the European Community.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  On 1 March, Sweden, Finland and Austria reached political agreement with the European Union on their terms of entry. European Ministers also made progress in the negotiations with Norway. There are still difficult institutional questions to be resolved among the present member states before formal agreement can be completed. But we remain committed to concluding the negotiations at the 7–8 March Foreign Affairs Council.

  Air Strikes
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the use of air strikes to enhance international security.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Air strikes cannot enhance international security by themselves. However, in certain circumstances, as in the case of the UN/NATO operation to end the bombardment of Sarajevo, readiness to undertake air strikes can play a useful role as part of a strategy to bring about a peaceful resolution of conflict.

  Middle East
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the Israeli Foreign Minister to discuss the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans at present to meet the Israeli Foreign Minister, but we expect to continue to have regular contacts with Mr. Peres to discuss the middle east peace process.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit the middle east to monitor the peace process.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  During his visit to the region' from 3 to 7 January, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had useful discussions with key players in the peace process. There are no plans at present for a further visit.

  Tuzla
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his Department's plans for the relief of Tuzla.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  UNHCR convoys are supplying aid to Tuzla by road from Belgrade and Zenica.

  We welcome the announcement in Moscow yesterday that the Bosnian Serbs have agreed to allow Tuzla airport to be opened to humanitarian supplies in the near future.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took the lead at the NATO summit in proposing that NATO urge the
  752
  United Nations to draw up plans to open Tuzla airport to humanitarian supplies. UNPROFOR has drawn up these plans, which include the possibility of calling for NATO close air support if necessary. These have our full support. As a first stage the Nordic battalion of UNPROFOR is to take possession of Tuzla airport from the Bosnian Government within the next few days. We have offered up to 15 specialists to help to operate the airport.

  Iraq
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his United Nations Security Council partners on the subject of policy towards Iraq; and if be will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Iraq is discussed regularly by the Security Council. We remain determined that Iraq must comply fully with all its international obligations as set out in Security Council resolutions.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from the British high commissioner to India and the British high commissioner to Pakistan on the recent allegations of brutality by the Indian security forces against men and women in the Indian-occupied area of Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We receive regular information from Her Majesty's High Commissioners in New Delhi and Islamabad about allegations of human rights abuses by the security forces in Kashmir. We remain concerned that abuses continue to take place.

  Malawi
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress towards the establishment of a multi-party democracy in Malawi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Good progress has been made and the United Kingdom is giving substantial assistance to the transition process. Multi-party elections are to be held on 17 May and voter registration began on 21 February. Political exiles have been allowed to return, and opposition parties legalised. The National Consultative Council is overseeing the transition to multi-party democracy, including the drafting of a new constitution and bill of rights.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has recently made to, or received from, opposition parties in Malawi about the creation of a multi-party democracy in Malawi;

  (2) what representations he has recently made to, or received from, the Government of Malawi about the creation of a multi-party democracy in Malawi;

  (3) what representations he has received from, or made to, individuals, organisations or political parties in other African countries about the creation of a multi-party democracy in Malawi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since the referendum in Malawi last June, we have maintained a regular dialogue with all
  753
  the parties, including the ruling Malawi Congress party, which will be contesting the multi-party elections on 17 May. Most recently my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey met members of all parties during her visit from 27 to 29 January.

  We have responded to requests for help by allocating £270,000 towards the United Nations' electoral assistance project, including the provision of constitutional and boundaries experts. We have had no recent representations from other African countries over Malawi.

  Norway
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations for Norwegian entry into the EC.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Accession negotiations are continuing with Norway after the marathon ministerial session which started on 25 February. Although there are still some difficult issues to be resolved, we remain committed to concluding the negotiations at the 7–8 March Foreign Affairs Council.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Kuwaiti Government about delays in dealing with claims against Kuwaiti nationals who sought refuge in the United Kingdom following the Iraqi invasion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No representations have been made to the Kuwaiti Government on such matters. Claims against foreign nationals formerly resident in the United Kingdom should be pursued by claimants through such legal means as are available.

  Sudan
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom last raised the issue of the civil war in Sudan at the United Nations Security Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have not ruled out recourse to the United Nations Security Council but would not want to pursue this option unless we were confident that this would be constructive. We deplore the latest outbreak of fighting in the south, and condemn the bombing by the Sudanese air force of civilian targets. On 21 February we and our European Union partners issued a declaration to this effect, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the peace process in Mozambique and the United Kingdom's contribution to it.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are concerned about delays in implementing the general peace agreement in Mozambique, especially the assembly/demobilisation of forces. The parties must address these delays urgently so that the elections can take place on schedule in October 1994.
  754
  The United Kingdom has made a crucial contribution by training 540 Mozambican instructors to train the unified Mozambican army. We shall continue, in the United Nations and elsewhere, to actively support the Mozambican peace process.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what is the total cost of United Kingdom aid and assistance to Government and Renamo political and democratic training in Mozambique;

  (2) what assistance he is giving to Renamo in respect of democratic training and the development of political structures.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have made no direct contribution to democratic training in the development of political structures in Renamo or to political and democratic training in Mozambique. We have, however, provided from diplomatic wing funds £18,000 worth of office equipment for Renamo's office in Maputo, and small amounts for three other parties—PCN, PPPM and UNAMO.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the Nyanga training phase of the formation of the new Mozambique defence force.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  British Army instructors trained 540 instructors for the new unified Mozambican army, FADM, from October to December 1993. The latter have now returned to Mozambique, where they will train the main infantry battalions of FADM. A small British Army training team is assisting them. Formation of FADM is a crucial part of the peace process.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact or communication he has had with representatives of Renamo since October 1992.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Renamo leader met my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey during his visit to London on 22 February 1993 and had talks with officials. Our ambassador in Maputo has travelled to the Renamo base in Mozambique several times and my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey met Mr. Dhaklama there on 10 December 1993. We continue to maintain regular contacts with Renamo officials in Maputo, and our ambassador met Mr. Dhaklama there on 27 February.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to, or received from, parties involved in the demobilisation process in Mozambique.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom is a member of all four commissions set up under the general peace agreement between the Government of Mozambique and Renamo and responsible for overseeing implementation of the peace process. We are active in these commissions to help move the process, including demobilisation, forward. In addition, our ambassador regularly meets both senior Mozambican officials and members of the Government of Mozambique as well as Renamo leaders.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the approximate cost of United Kingdom military aid to Mozambique,
  755
  in both Mozambique and Zimbabwe, each year since 1980, expressed in money terms, real terms in 1980, and as a real term percentage increase or decrease on the previous year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I am unable to give the figures for United Kingdom military aid to Mozambique: these figures are confidential between the Governments concerned.

  NATO Information Service
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current NATO information service budget; what are the comparable figures in real terms within each of the past three years; what are its main uses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  NATO's information budgets for the present and past two years, at current exchange rates, are:

  1992 £3,522,505

  1993 £3,855,186

  1994 £3,757,339

  Allowing for an estimated inflation rate over the period of between 2·7 and 4 per cent., there was a real budget increase of 6·4 per cent. in 1993 over 1992, and a real decrease of 5·2 per cent. in 1994 over 1993. Over the whole period the budget increased in real terms by 0·8 per cent.

  NATO organises and sponsors multinational information programmes on various aspects of the alliance with the objective of explaining the aims and achievements of the alliance to public opinion in NATO member countries, and improving public understanding and knowledge of the alliance in the countries of central and eastern Europe. Activities directed towards these ends are: visits to NATO by groups from NATO and co-operation partner countries, seminars, speaking tours, workshops, conferences in NATO and co-operation partner countries, the publication of the bi-monthly "NATO Review" and other publications designed to support NATO objectives, film, television and photographic coverage of NATO events and general support for the media in their coverage of NATO developments.

  Libyan Students
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Libyan students were studying in the United Kingdom at the most recent date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  According to information provided by the institutions, there were 520 Libyan students at United Kingdom higher and further academic institutions in the public sector in 1991–92—the latest year for which there are figures.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many' British students were studying in Libya in each of the past five years and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We do not maintain records of United Kingdom students studying in other countries. However, we believe that currently there are few, if any, United Kingdom students studying in Libya.
  756

  South Africa
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relationship with South Africa.

  Mr. Hurd
  We fully support the efforts to achieve a peaceful transition to non-racial democracy in South Africa. We have stepped up our help for the process and will be making a major contribution to election monitoring. We keep in close touch with all sides at the highest level and remain prepared to help South Africa's transition to democracy in any way South Africans feel can be useful.

HEALTH

  Cannabis
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) in what form cannabis is made available on prescription;

  (2) what guidelines are available to general practitioners and consultants on the medicinal application of cannabis and as to how patients may obtain it;

  (3) in what circumstances cannabis may be prescribed to patients.

  Mr. Bowis
  The availability of cannabis is covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 which is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Under section 7 of that Act it is unlawful for a medical practitioner to prescribe it to a patient. There are no guidelines for general practitioners or consultants on its application. If it were shown that there were indications for the use of cannabis in specific medical conditions, we would look at it carefully and would not rule it out as a prescribed drug. The supporting data would need to be presented to the Medicines Control Agency for assessment with a view to licensing the preparation. A drug called Nabilone, which contains the main active ingredient of cannabis, is already licensed in the United Kingdom for the treatment of nausea in patients with cancer. A doctor may prescribe Nabilone for other conditions on his own responsibility.

  Pathology
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of expertise and training is required of hospital staff who analyse pathology specimens.

  Mr. Sackville
  The expertise and training required of staff who undertake the analysis of specimens varies according to the type of analysis being undertaken and other factors.

  Home Visits
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she plans to introduce to educate patients not to demand unnecessary home visits from doctors; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Department of Health officials are working with the general medical services committee of the British Medical Association on a further development
  757
  of the "Help Us To Help You" campaign which will encourage the responsible use of general practitioner out-of-hours service by patients.

  Depo-Medrone
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what new advice has been issued by her Department to national health service doctors regarding possible side effects of using the drug Depo-Medrone in epidural therapy;

  (2) what discussions have taken place between her Department and the relevant medical professional bodies about the use of the drug Depo-Medrone; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps she has taken to ensure that national health service staff are aware of the recommendation from the manufacturers of the drug Depo-Medrone that epidural administration of the drug may cause meningitis and arachnoiditis;

  (2) what steps she is taking to investigate the risks of epidural administration of the drug Depo-Medrone; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Officials of the Department have had discussions with representatives of the Pain Society and the British Society of Rheumatology. We are aware that the clinical affairs committee of the British Society of Rheumatology has issued a statement to its members on epidural injection of Depo-Medrone, a copy of which will be placed in the Library. The statement advises that, because of the risks attached, if a doctor wished to use Depo-Medrone, individual informed consent would have to be obtained in view of the potential serious complication; and that it was desirable to use steroid preparations other than Depo-Medrone. We are considering what further action by the Department may be desirable in the light of this statement.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice has been issued by the Committee on Safety of Medicines on the epidural administration of the drug Depo-Medrone;

  (2) what advice has been issued by the Medicines Control Agency on the epidural administration of the drug Depo-Medrone.

  Region

  1991–921 Trust income3 (£ million)

  Per cent, of total provider income3

  1992–931 Trust income3 (£ million)

  Per cent, of total provider income3

  1993–942 Trust income3 (£ million)

  Per cent, of total provider income1

  Northern

  106

  9

  366

  29

  637

  49

  Yorkshire

  299

  23

  643

  45

  1,320

  89

  Trent

  148

  9

  547

  30

  1,338

  69

  East Anglian

  37

  5

  130

  16

  624

  75

  North West Thames

  179

  13

  768

  52

  1,196

  79

  North East Thames

  363

  21

  801

  44

  1,346

  72

  South East Thames

  180

  12

  501

  30

  1,269

  76

  South West Thames

  264

  23

  388

  28

  805

  59

  Wessex

  68

  7

  369

  32

  771

  70

  Oxford

  20

  2

  175

  20

  506

  56

  South Western

  483

  39

  946

  74

  1,215

  92

  West Midlands

  107

  6

  316

  16

  876

  41

  Mersey

  402

  42

  711

  70

  973

  94

  North Western

  159

  10

  460

  27

  672

  37

  England

  2,815

  15

  7,121

  36

  13,548

  67

  758
  Mr. Sackville
  No specific advice has been issued by the Medicines Control Agency or the Committee on Safety of Medicines. Depo-Medrone is not licensed for epidural administration. The data sheet produced by the manufacturer and authorised by the licensing authority carries a clear warning that Depo-Medrone should not be used for epidural administration.

  Financial Information Project Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will state in respect of the £300,000 loaned by West Midlands regional health authority to the company FIP(a) on what date the loan was made, (b) what percentage interest per annum is being paid by FIP and by what percentage this interest differs from that payable on an unsecured loan; (c) who are the directors of FIP and (d) whether FIP is a public or a private company.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The loan of £300,000 to Financial Information Project Ltd. by West Midlands regional health authority was made in January 1992. The loan is subject to indexation based on changes in the health service price index. Unsecured loans do not attract a "standard" rate of interest. Treasury loans to the public sector via the national loans fund or the Public Works Loan Board currently attract interest rates of 5 per cent.—for loans between one and two years—or 58 per cent., for loans between two and three years. Focus Information Systems Ltd. is the new name for the company previously known as FIP Ltd. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Health Management Trust and has no directors. The trustees of HMT are: Mr. A. J. Bloore (Chairman), Mr. J. Overton, Mr. S. Sargeant, Mr. C. C. Ashton and Mr. A. J. Mills (director of finance at Warwickshire health authority). HMT is a registered charity.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for health what level of funding was made available to trusts in each region in each year since 1991–92; and what these figures are as a percentage of the total NI-IS provider unit funding.

  Mr. Sackville
  Trusts are no longer funded directly but earn their income through contracts to provide healthcare services. The table shows the total contract income of trusts by regional area, by amount and percentage of total national health service provider contract income.
  759
  1Estimated outtum.

  2 Forecast outturn at Quarter 3.

  3 Income includes non-NHS income and income generation.

  Source: NHS Management Executive Management Accounts.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trusts there were in each region in each year since 1991–92; and what are those figures as a percentage of the total number of health provider units.

  Region

  Number of Operational Trusts in 1991–92

  Number of Operational Trusts in 1992–93

  Number of Operational Trusts in 1993–94

  Number of Operational Trusts in 1994–951

  Number of Operational NHS Trusts in 1994–95 as a percentage of total health provider units2

  Northern

  3

  9

  19

  34

  94

  Yorkshire

  3

  9

  23

  26

  96

  Trent

  3

  13

  29

  41

  91

  East Anglian

  2

  5

  15

  18

  100

  North West Thames

  4

  18

  27

  29

  385

  North East Thames

  6

  14

  24

  27

  87

  South West Thames

  7

  10

  17

  27

  81

  South East Thames

  1

  9

  20

  31

  96

  Wessex

  4

  11

  21

  26

  100

  Oxford

  1

  6

  15

  24

  100

  South Western

  9

  18

  22

  23

  100

  West Midlands

  4

  10

  24

  47

  90

  Mersey

  8

  16

  23

  25

  100

  North Western

  2

  8

  13

  34

  97

  Special Health Authorities

  0

  0

  0

  5

  62

  Total

  57

  156

  292

  417

  92

  1 Numbers are based on the approval to date of 135 applications for Fourth Wave Trust status. They do not include the remaining 9, Fourth Wave Trust applications, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has yet to make a decision on.

  2 The decisions on the 9 remaining applications for 4th wave Trust status will determine the status of 7 directly managed units and 1 Special Health Authority. Since these decisions are still outstanding these units have been classed as "units not operating as NHS Trusts in 1994–95" for the purpose of calculating these percentages.

  3 Includes Teddington Memorial NHS Trust. Although established as an NHS Trust, it is not due to become fully operational until 1 April 1995, following a shadow period of 2 years.

  Publicity (Costs)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent by her Department on publicity to doctors, in each year since 1979–80.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Guidance from the Department is issued to ensure that the national health service provides high-quality, effective and efficient health care. Funds are supplied from the Department's central funding. Separate costs of issuing guidance, circulars and letters to individual groups within the national health service cannot be identified.

  Care in the Community
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations she is holding with the Royal College of Psychiatrists about the release of psychiatric patients with a history of violent behaviour under the care in the community programme; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The royal college, and other professional bodies, have been fully consulted about the steps we have taken to ensure that psychiatric patients are not discharged from hospital before they are ready to leave and that they are cared for safely, whether in hospital or the community. These steps include the proposed new power of supervised
  760
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The table shows the total number of operational national health service trusts in each region in each year since 1991–92. The information required to calculate these figures as a percentage of the total number of health provider units is not available centrally for the years 1991–92 to 1993–94. The information for 1994–95 is shown in the table.

  discharge, new guidance on the discharge of mentally disordered people from hospital and their continuing care in the community, and the introduction of supervision registers for people with severe mental illness who may present a significant risk to themselves or others.

  We shall be bringing forward legislation to introduce supervised discharge at the earliest opportunity. The new guidance on the discharge and continuing care of mentally disordered people was circulated for consultation in January and will be issued in definitive form as soon as we have taken account of the comments received, and of the relevant recommendations of the Ritchie inquiry. Separate guidance issued on 16 February, HSG(94)5, requires health authorities to have contracts in force by 1 April 1994 which ensure that supervision registers are established and maintained.

  We remain in close contact with the college on these and related matters.

  AZT
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans her Department has to allow the introduction of the drug AZT to(a) mothers-to-be and (b) other patients suffering from HIV and AIDS.

  Mr. Sackville
  Zidovudine, AZT, is currently licensed in the United Kingdom for the following indications.

  he management of patients with advanced HIV disease, such as those with the acquired immune deficiency

  761
  syndrome (AIDS) or AIDS-related complex (ARC).

  in adult patients with HIV infection.

  in early symptomatic patients with CD4 counts of less than 500/mm3, or in asymptomatic patients with markers indicating risk of progressive disease including repeated CD4 counts of less than 200/mm3, or with CD4 counts between 500/mm3 and 200/mm3 which are rapidly falling.

  HIV-infected children over the age of 3 months who have HIV-related symptoms or who are asymptomatic with markers indicating significant HIV-related immune suppression.

  Applications for the licensing of any further indications will be considered by the Medicines Control Agency according to established procedures.

  NHS Staffing Levels
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she has received on how there could be a reduction of 200,000 NHS jobs without a reduction in services to patients.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have received no such advice. The substantial progress that is being made on the creation of a more flexible work force has, among other measures, enabled more patients to be treated within the national health service than ever before.

  Norwich Union Healthcare
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she has examined the content of broadcasts made by paid officers of NHS trusts promoting Norwich Union Healthcare; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I am aware that some national health service staff have appeared in broadcasts aimed at publicising collaborative ventures with private insurers to facilitate the more effective use of NHS paybeds. Paybeds generate valuable income for improving services for all patients.

  Asthma
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many special consultants there are in asthma practice in London; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Consultants in respiratory medicine and paediatric consultants with a special interest in asthma are not recorded separately. The number of consultants in thoracic medicine in London is 11·0 whole time equivalent, as shown in the annual medical and dental census.

  The hon. Member may wish to contact the director of public health medicine in each of the four Thames regional health authorities for more information.

  Lewisham and Southwark Health Authority
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total annual budget of the Lewisham and Southwark health authority for the most recent available year.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for South East Thames regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Peter Barker, the chairman, for details.
  762

  Consultancies
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by each health authority in London on consultancy fees during the current financial year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Dentistry
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have been recruited by each health authority in England in each of the last three years; and how many dentists are currently employed by each of England's health authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of salaried dentists employed by each family health services authority is shown in the table.

  Number of salaried dentists as at 18 February 1994

  England

  Family health services authority

  Number of dentists

  England

  91

  Cleveland

  —

  Cumbria

  1

  Durham

  —

  Northumberland

  —

  Gateshead

  —

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  —

  North Tyneside

  —

  South Tyneside

  —

  Sunderland

  —

  Humberside

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  Bradford

  —

  Calderdale

  —

  Kirklees

  —

  Leeds

  —

  Wakefield

  —

  Derbyshire

  2

  Leicestershire

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  Barnsley

  —

  Doncaster

  —

  Rotherham

  —

  Sheffield

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  4

  Norfolk

  3

  Suffolk

  —

  Bedfordshire

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  Barnet

  —

  Brent and Harrow

  —

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  —

  Hillingdon

  —

  Kensington, Westminster and Chelsea

  9

  Essex

  3

  Barking and Havering

  —

  Camden and Islington

  —

  City and East London

  8

  Enfield and Haringey

  —

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  —

  East Sussex

  —

  Kent

  5

  Greenwich and Bexley

  7

  Bromley

  1

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  30

  Surrey

  3

  763

  Family health services authority

  Number of dentists

  West Sussex

  1

  Croydon

  —

  Kingston and Richmond

  —

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  1

  Dorset

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  Wiltshire

  1

  Isle of Wight

  1

  Berkshire

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  3

  Northamptonshire

  —

  Oxfordshire

  —

  Avon

  —

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  3

  Devon

  —

  Gloucestershire

  1

  Somerset

  —

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  Shropshire

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  Birmingham

  —

  Coventry

  —

  Dudley

  —

  Sandwell

  —

  Solihull

  —

  Walsall

  —

  Wolverhampton

  —

  Cheshire

  —

  Liverpool

  2

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  —

  Sefton

  —

  Wirral

  —

  Lancashire

  1

  Bolton

  —

  Bury

  —

  Manchester

  —

  Oldham

  —

  Rochdale

  —

  Salford

  1

  Stockport

  —

  Tameside

  —

  Trafford

  —

  Wigan

  —

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional revenues she has made available to health authorities in(a) London and (b) England to enable them to respond to patients needing emergency national health service dental treatment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The costs of emergency dental services provided under arrangements made by family health services authorities are met centrally from the general dental services fund.

  Health Authority Publications
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the publications produced by each health authority in London during the current financial year; and what were the costs involved in each publication.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The hon. Member may wish to contact the chief executives of the regional health authorities for details.
  764

  Children's Rights
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the United Kingdom's initial report to the United Nations committee on the rights of the child will be published; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  I am pleased to announce that the United Kingdom's initial report on implementation of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child was submitted to the United Nations committee on the rights of the child today. The report is also published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office today. Copies have been placed in the Library. A distribution of copies will be made shortly to the large public libraries, local authorities, health authorities and national health service trusts and to a selection of voluntary child care organisations. Similar distributions will take place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  The report details how United Kingdom law, policy and practice meet the provisions of the convention. It reveals a positive record in the United Kingdom on the treatment of children, as well as detailing the safeguards that exist, and which we are constantly seeking to improve, to ensure children's rights to special consideration and protection are met.

  Transitional Grant
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the needs of carers are accounted for in the formula used to distribute the special transitional grant.

  Mr. Bowis
  In 1993–94 the distribution of the grant is based predominately on personal social services standard spending assessments. These include factors which are intended to reflect needs for community care expenditure in the round, including the needs of carers. In 1994–95 the grant will be based exclusively on PSS SSAs.

  Youth Initiatives
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list her current major initiatives involving youth and voluntary youth organisations.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Children Act gives local authorities responsibility to support children in need and their families wherever possible, and to provide services for young people. Standard spending on children's services for 1993–94 has increased by 32 per cent. since 1990–91.

  The Department is funding a programme of grants to the voluntary sector exceeding £8 million to help them develop family support services, day care services, services for the young homeless and young people leaving care, and initiatives to divert young people from crime.

  We are also encouraging and supporting organisations which provide information and services for young people in the fields of mental health, drug prevention and HIV/AIDS.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total expenditure on press and public relations and on publications for issue to the public by(a) her Department, (b) health authorities and (c) NHS trusts, in 1992–93; what were the figures for (a) and (b) in 1982–83; and what is her estimate of changes in this expenditure in the current year.
  765
  Mr. Sackville
  The information available centrally is for 1992–93 and relates to the Department of Health and health authorities only. Estimates of changes in expenditure for 1993–94 are not available. Information for 1992–93 is as follows:

  Functions which are commonly associated with press and public relations are carried out by the Department's Information Division

  £ million

  Manpower and running costs

  1·749

  Publications for issue to the public

  4·622

  Provisional health authority expenditure on public relations functions taken from the annual financial returns of regional health authorities, district health authorities is

  5·350

  Mental Health Services, London
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) from what part of the budget for 1994–98 the extra £10 million allocated for community-based mental health services in London will be found;

  (2) how the extra £10 million allocated for community-based mental health services in London will be spent.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The extra £10 million for community-based mental health services in 1994–95 forms part of the total £85 million available for primary and community developments in the London initiative zone in 1994–95. Decisions on how the resources will be allocated will be taken by the London implementation group and the Thames regional health authorities in the light of development plans and proposals received from local health authorities and national health service trusts.

  Psychiatric Nurses
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community psychiatric nurses have been employed in the national health service in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is shown in the table. The figures show that there has been an increase in the number of nurses working in community psychiatrics between 1983 and 1992 of 194·4 per cent.

  Community psychiatric nursing—England at 30 September 1983 to 1992 Whole-time equivalent

  Numbers

  1983

  1,430

  1984

  1,880

  1985

  2,310

  1986

  2,530

  1987

  2,770

  1988

  3,080

  1989

  3,380

  1990

  3,600

  31991

  3,750

  1992

  4,210

  Notes:

  1. All figures are rounded to the nearest ten and exclude agency staff.

  2. The figures include both qualified and unqualified nurses working in the community psychiatric nursing area of work. We are unable to identify nurses with a community psychiatric nursing qualification.

  3. Previous published figures included 10 whole-time equivalent senior nurses in error.

  Smoking
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the full cost of producing printing and distributing the action plan document on reducing smoking.

  Mr. Sackville
  The cost of production and printing was £35,321. It is not possible to give an accurate figure for the cost of distribution.

  Supervised Discharge
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to introduce legislation to provide supervised discharge.

  Mr. Bowis
  At the earliest opportunity.

  Limb Defects
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is now being taken to investigate clusters of babies born with limb defects; what form the inquiry will take; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) on 1 March at column 678.

  Doctors' Performance
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to put forward a Bill to widen the scope of the General Medical Council's disciplinary remit to introduce a new procedure on professional performance; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are considering proposals put forward by the General Medical Council about new performance procedures to deal with cases where a doctor's pattern of professional performance is seriously deficient but does not amount to serious professional misconduct.

  Administrative Staff
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many managerial and administrative staff have been employed by each family health services authority in each region since 1989;

  (2) if she will publish a table showing the total number of staff employed by family practitioner committees (a) in total and (b) by region in 1989.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]: The information available is shown in the tables. Family health services authorities manage the introduction of general practitioner fundholding, the monitoring of GP prescribing and the development of clinical audit in primary care—all initiatives introduced since 1989 aimed at improving the effectiveness of patient care and value for money. In 1992–93 FHSA administrative expenditure represented only 2·5 per cent. of the £6·5 billion of taxpayers' money spent on the FHS.
  767

  General and Senior Managers (G and SM) and Administrative and Clerical (A and C) staff in Family Health Services Authorities (FPCs in by region in England, September 1989–92 (whole-time equivalent)

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Region

  G and SM

  AandC

  GandSM

  AandC

  G and SM

  A and C

  GandSM

  A and C

  Northern

  0

  270

  30

  290

  40

  310

  80

  340

  Yorkshire

  0

  310

  60

  350

  100

  340

  90

  350

  Trent

  0

  320

  60

  350

  50

  460

  100

  510

  East Anglia

  0

  180

  30

  180

  40

  230

  70

  200

  North West Thames

  0

  420

  30

  240

  70

  470

  80

  480

  North East Thames

  0

  400

  40

  340

  60

  430

  60

  500

  South East Thames

  0

  370

  50

  340

  70

  270

  130

  380

  South West Thames

  0

  290

  50

  340

  10

  90

  70

  370

  Wessex

  —

  230

  40

  230

  40

  270

  30

  270

  Oxford

  —

  180

  50

  260

  40

  230

  50

  240

  South Western

  0

  260

  30

  270

  40

  300

  40

  320

  West Midlands

  0

  480

  90

  590

  100

  530

  100

  540

  Mersey

  0

  180

  20

  150

  40

  300

  50

  260

  North Western

  10

  460

  70

  430

  70

  440

  100

  490

  England Total

  30

  4,360

  640

  4,350

  790

  4,650

  1,040

  5,240

  Sources of data:

  Figures for 1989 and 1990 are from the Department of Health Non Medical Workforce Census.

  For 1991 and 1992 figures are from the Department of Health form KM49.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10, with "0" denoting less than 5 and "—" denoting zero.

  2. Totals may not add due to rounding.

  Staff in Family Practitioner Committees by Region in England at 30 September 1989 (whole time equivalents)

  Region

  Numbers

  Northern

  280

  Yorkshire

  320

  Trent

  320

  East Anglia

  190

  North West Thames

  430

  North East Thames

  420

  South East Thames

  370

  South West Thames

  300

  Wessex

  230

  Oxford

  190

  South Western

  260

  West Midlands

  520

  Mersey

  190

  North Western

  480

  England Total

  4,510

  Source of data:

  Department of Health Non Medical Workforce Census.

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 and may not add due to rounding.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Archbishop of Canterbury
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will list, for each of the last five years, how much money has been given towards running the Archbishop of Canterbury's office or his charitable activities.

  Mr. Alison
  The following sums were paid by the Commissioners towards the running costs of the Archbishop of Canterbury's office. These include staff salaries, clergy and lay, travel and subsistence and general administrative costs. The commissioners do not contribute to the archbishop's charitable activities.
  768

  £

  1989

  544,000

  1990

  676,000

  1991

  811,000

  1992

  882,000

  1993

  911,000

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list all television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising and other promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 conducted by the Cabinet Office(a) in the current financial year and (b) planned for 1994–95, showing for each the objectives and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of the advertising;

  (2) if he will list all television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising and other promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 conducted by the Office of Public Service and Science and his agencies (a) in the current financial year and (b) planned for 1994–95, showing for each the objectives and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of the advertising;

  (3) if he will list all television advertising, newspaper advertising, radio advertising and other promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 conducted by the Central Office of Information (a) in the current financial year and (b) planned for 1994–95, showing for each one the objectives and mechanisms for assessing the effectiveness of the advertising.

  Mr. David Davis
  I have been asked to reply.

  Television, radio and newspaper advertising and other promotional campaigns with a budgeted cost in excess of £10,000 conducted by the Cabinet Office, including the Office of Public Service and Science and its agencies, in the curent year are listed. In addition, newspapers

  769
  advertising is used for recruitment. The Central Office of Information conducts no television advertising, newspaper

  Campaign aims and objectives

  Mechanism for assessing effectiveness

  OPSS

  Publicity for 1993 charter mark winners to highlight the achievements of the 93 winners and encourage other organisations to measure their performance against the charter mark criteria.

  Assessed through market research.

  Promotion of the 1994 charter mark scheme to encourage as many public service organisations as possible both to assess their performance against the criteria and to take part in this year's competition.

  Analysis of applications received and market research.

  Charterline advertising to raise awareness of the service and to assess, during the pilot service, the effectiveness of different forms of advertising.

  Analysis through qualitative and quantitative research.

  HMSO

  Promotion of publications, videos and IT product range.

  Analysis of coupon responses, orders received directly and sales.

  Promotion of HMSO's status as a British Standards Institution agent.

  Analysis of sales.

  Strengthening of awareness of HMSO in central and local government, the health service and public utilities.

  Market research before and after campaign, plus analysis of coupon responses.

  Civil Service College

  Promotion of courses and other activities to ensure that enough customers are attracted to meet its financial and other targets.

  Results are assessed by customer response.

  Correspondence
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will publish a table indicating the average length of time Government Ministers take to respond to letters from hon. Members;

  (2) what are the targets for the time taken for Government Ministers to respond to letters from hon. Members.

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply by my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) on 23 March 1993, columns 551–52, showing the volume of correspondence from hon. Members to Ministers and agency chief executives in 1992, the targets set for reply and the percentage of replies sent within target. The corresponding 1993 figures will be published shortly.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give details of the public appointments he is responsible for making in addition to those identified in "Public Bodies 1993", including non-executive agency and other departmental management boards.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I make appointments to the complaints task force and the technology foresight steering group. There are seven members of the complaints task force, including the chairman. The technology foresight programme has 13 members and three advisers.

  I am responsible for appointing the chief executives of the following executive agencies: Chessington Computer
  770
  advertising, radio advertising or other promotional campaigns on its own behalf. The budget for 1994–95 will be finalised shortly.

  Centre; Civil Service College; Occupational Health Service; Recruitment and Assessment Services; Central Office of Information and Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I am responsible for appointing the non-executive directors of the HMSO board.

EDUCATION

  Voluntary Youth Organisations
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are his current major initiatives involving voluntary youth organisations.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department is providing grants of some £8.6 million over the three years to 1995–96 to 60 national voluntary youth organisations. In addition, the Department is providing support to regional and local voluntary youth bodies through the youth work development grants scheme and through a partnership scheme with the London Boroughs Grants Committee.

  Technology Colleges (Sponsorship)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the amount of sponsorship by each sponsor for each of the technology colleges announced on 28 February.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The value of sponsorship pledged by the main sponsors for each of the 12 technology colleges is listed in the table.
  771

  School/sponsor

  Value £ thousands

  Chalvedon Grant Maintained School

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  50·0

  Fairfield Catering

  37·0

  Roy Millard Associates

  15·0

  SIMS Centre

  5·0

  PMD Associates

  4·0

  Chatham Grant Maintained Grammar School for Girls

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  50·0

  GEC Marconi Avionics

  20·0

  Clifton Reed Consultants

  15·0

  Research Machines

  10·0

  Klick Technology

  7·5

  Data Collection Systems

  5·0

  Architects Joint Partnership

  3·0

  Collingwood Grant Maintained School

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  50·0

  GTi Educational Systems

  25·0

  Oracle Corporation (UK)

  15·0

  Motorola

  10·0

  Deacon's Grant Maintained School

  Perkins Group

  49·0

  Database and Apricot Computers

  27·0

  Greater Peterborough TEC

  20·0

  Pearl Assurance

  3·0

  George Spencer Grant Maintained School

  Sir Harry Djanogly

  79·0

  Database and Apricot Computers

  20·0

  Midland Bank

  1·0

  Glyn Grant Maintained School

  ADT Group

  100·0

  Harraby Grant Maintained School

  Carnaud Metal Box

  25·0

  Cavaghan & Gray

  25·0

  Talk-Tel Communication

  20·0

  Cumbria TEC

  10·0

  Kemnal Manor Grant Maintained County High School

  Philip and Pauline Harris Charitable Trust

  50·0

  Architects Joint Partnership

  12·5

  Ballast Nedam Construction

  12·5

  Klick Technology

  12·5

  Research Machines

  12·5

  Saffron Walden Grant Maintained County High School

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  50·0

  Acom Computers

  30·0

  Messrs. Wilby and Burnett

  5·0

  St. George's Grant Maintained Technology School

  Mr. Reg Brearley

  100·0

  Database and Apricot Computers

  20·0

  St. Peter's Collegiate Church of England Voluntary

  Aided School

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  50·0

  Database and Apricot Computers

  20·0

  Lucas Aerospace

  22·0

  Dixons Wallcoverings

  5·0

  Unilab

  5·0

  Saintbridge Grant Maintained Technology School

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  50·0

  Systems Integrated Research

  25·0

  Charrwells

  15·0

  Denford Machine Tools

  35·0

  AT Poeton (Gloucester Plating)

  2·5

  Permali (Gloucester)

  2·5

  CM Downton

  2·5

  772

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made as to how many of those pupils currently covered by the assisted places scheme would have entered private education without the support offered by the scheme.

  Mr. Forth
  Very few. Over 80 per cent. of parents covered by the scheme have annual incomes below the national average and about 40 per cent. have incomes so low that the pupil is entitled to a free place. Such parents could not afford to meet school fees themselves.

  Education (Lewisham)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of the Further Education Funding Council's budget supports institutions in Lewisham.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Further Education Funding Councils' recurrent funding allocations to institutions for 1993–94 covered the period 1 April 1993 to 31 July 1994 and amounted to £3.201 billion. Allocations to institutions in the London borough of Lewisham amounted to £24 million, or about 0·7 per cent. of the total.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total budget for each grant-maintained(a) primary school and (b) secondary school in (i) Lewisham and (ii) London for 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is given in the lists.

  Total budget for each Grant Maintained School in:

  Total budget£

  (i) Lewisham

  (a) Primary Schools

  Turnham Primary with nursery GM School

  1,046,106

  (b) Secondary Schools

  There are none

  (ii) London

  (a) Primary Schools

  All Saints (Carshalton) CE School

  284,425

  Barnehurst Infant GM School

  401,814

  Barnehurst Junior GM School

  472,137

  Charville Primary School

  858,178

  Corpus Christi RC Primary School1

  240,009

  Crofton Junior School

  1,177,722

  Dollis Junior School

  761,032

  Dormers Wells First School1

  233,829

  Dormers Wells Middle School1

  223,095

  Ethelburga Primary School

  439,828

  Friars Primary School'

  140,512

  Grange Park Infant School

  555,895

  Grange Park Junior School

  578,793

  Hayes Park Infant School1

  126,479

  Hayes Park Junior School1

  158,727

  Hillbrook Primary School

  925,909

  Hillside Infants School

  251,830

  Hillside Junior School

  287,213

  Holy Innocents Roman Catholic School

  488,590

  Oak Farm Infant School

  568,784

  Oak Farm Junior Mixed School

  729,645

  Oakington Manor Primary School

  727,025

  Osidge Primary School

  503,369

  Selsdon Primary School1

  342,959

  773

  Total budget (£)

  St. Andrews CE Primary School

  154,619

  St. Andrews RC Primary School1

  278,195

  St. Annes RC Primary School1

  194,144

  St. Anthony's RC Primary School1

  218,552

  St. Bedes RC Infant School1

  234,617

  St. Bernadette RC Junior Mixed School

  146,022

  St. Charles RC Primary School1

  281,613

  St. Francesca Cabrini GM School

  985,427

  St. James the Great RC Primary School1

  232,350

  St. Josephs RC Infant School1

  151,523

  St. Josephs RC Junior School1

  191,390

  St. Laurence CE Junior School

  289,306

  St. Lukes CE Primary School1

  172,076

  St. Matthews CE Primary School1

  94,607

  Stanley Park Infants School1

  144,741

  Stanley Park Junior School1

  165,482

  Wood End First School

  720,628

  Wood End Middle School

  576,885

  (b) Secondary Schools

  Abbotsfield School

  1,950,200

  Abbs Cross School

  1,880,323

  Albany School

  1,854,018

  Alperton High School

  1,842,781

  Archbishop Tenison School

  1,687,063

  Ashmole School

  1,560,002

  Beaverwood School for Girls

  2,523,313

  Beverley School

  1,081,348

  Bexley Erith Technical GM School

  1,020,078

  Bishop Douglass RC School'

  782,607

  Bishop Thomas Grant School

  2,909,556

  Bishopshalt School

  2,551,075

  Brentside High School

  2,637,138

  Broomfield GM School

  1,743,264

  Bullers Wood School for Girls

  2,748,877

  Burntwood School

  4,487,358

  Cardinal Hinsley High School

  1,227,373

  Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School

  2,729,542

  Chadwell Heath High School

  2,112,265

  Charles Darwin School

  2,738,262

  Cheam High School

  2,736,790

  Chingford School

  1,441,363

  Claremount High School

  3,454,916

  Convent of Jesus and Mary GM High School

  2,697,063

  Coopers School

  3,110,095

  Copland Community School and Tech School

  3,217,865

  Drayton Manor High School

  3,219,216

  Dunraven GM School

  3,753,813

  Edenham School

  2,573,840

  Elliott School

  3,870,951

  Enfield Grammar School1

  743,425

  Finchley Catholic High School

  1,507,554

  Graveney School

  5,244,434

  Greenford High School

  2,916,472

  Gumley House Convent School

  2,634,950

  Gunnersbury Catholic School for Boys

  2,551,931

  Harlington Community School1

  825,192

  Haydon School

  3,136,670

  Hayes School

  3,284,877

  Hendon School

  3,028,952

  Highams Park School

  2,959,096

  Holy Cross Convent School

  1,769,791

  Jews Free School

  2,228,040

  John Paul II RC School

  1,633,050

  Kelsey Park School

  2,488,746

  Kingsbury High School

  5,344,018

  La Retraite RC Girls GM School

  1,929,728

  La Sainte Union Convent School

  1,856,608

  Langley Park School for Boys

  2,966,972

  Mellow Lane School

  2,707,249

  Mill Hill GM High School

  3,476,578

  Newstead Wood School for Girls

  2,119,866

  Nonsuch High School for Girls

  2,407,563

  Northolt High School

  2,925,776

  Northwood School

  2,465,238

  Notre Dame High School

  1,071,845

  774

  Total budget (£)

  Queen Elizabeth GM School for Boys

  2,796,642

  Queens Park Community School

  2,532,850

  Queensmead School

  2,680,510

  Raines Foundation School

  3,432,149

  Ravens Wood School for Boys

  2,589,922

  Richard Challoner School

  1,692,418

  Riddlesdown GM School

  2,939,118

  Sacred Heart of Mary Girls School

  1,138,361

  Sacred Heart RC School1

  579,657

  Salesian College

  1,653,473

  Salvatorian College

  790,326

  Southfields School

  3,645,574

  St. Catherines RC School for Girls

  1,028,617

  St. Columba's RC Boys School

  1,761,471

  St. Gregorys RC High School

  1,932,523

  St. Ignatius College

  1,569,158

  St. James Catholic High School

  942,535

  St. John Rigby School

  2,542,122

  St. Josephs College

  1,649,960

  St. Martin in the Field High School

  1,196,551

  St. Mary's and St. Joseph's GM School

  1,709,573

  St. Mary's CE High School

  1,721,788

  St. Michaels Catholic Grammar School

  1,083,517

  St. Michaels School

  1,094,571

  St. Olave's and St. Saviours Grammar School

  1,729,329

  St. Philomena's Catholic High for Girls

  2,098,339

  Stratford School

  2,158,996

  Sutton Grammar School for Boys

  1,556,234

  Swakeleys School

  1,959,550

  The Coopers Company and Coborn School

  3,443,500

  The Douay Martyrs School

  2,669,865

  The Ellen Wilkinson School for Girls

  2,823,045

  The Frances Bardsley School for Girls

  2,877,329

  The Hayes Manor School

  1,933,220

  The John Fisher School

  1,840,742

  The Latymer School

  1,859,059

  The London Nautical School

  1,680,058

  The London Oratory School

  4,559,637

  The St. Thomas the Apoostle GM College

  1,212,528

  Thomas More GM School

  976,222

  Triffin School

  2,289,250

  Uxbridge High School

  2,199,164

  Vyners School

  2,099,170

  Wallington High School for Boys

  1,670,559

  Wallington High School for Girls

  1,882,587

  Wilsons School

  1,855,838

  The amount shown for total budget includes Annual Maintenance Grant, Special Purpose Grants for Restructuring Development, Premises, VAT, Transitional Grant, Section 11 Grant and Capital Grants payable to the Schools in 1993–94.

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

EMPLOYMENT

  Banking and Financial Services
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report the figures from his Department's Employment Gazette showing the total number of people employed in banking and financial services, standard industrial classification 8, in Greater London in the latest quarter and the equivalent quarters of 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information can be obtained from the NOMIS database and table 1.5 of the Employment Gazette, both of which are accessible from the Library.
  775

  Paid Annual Leave
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will produce a table showing entitlement to paid annual leave in each EU country.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A table showing statutory annual leave entitlement and public holidays in all EU countries was published in an article in the September 1993 edition of Employment Gazette—"Working time and holidays in the EC: how the UK compares".

  The article also presents "Labour Force Survey" results on paid annual leave entitlement actually received in practice by United Kingdom employees. Fully representative, comparable, data on actual paid annual leave entitlement in other EU states are not available.

  Labour Statistics (Lewisham)
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were signed off from the Lewisham and Catford jobcentres without reason being given after a Restart interview during 1993.

  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 P. J. Walsh to Mrs. Bridget Prentice, dated 2 March 1994:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of people who were signed off without a reason being given after a Restart Interview at Lewisham and Catford Jobcentres.

  Unfortunately, the information you request is not available. Statistics on people who leave the register after a Restart Interview are collected only where we can demonstrate that the sign off was the direct result of the interview. Undoubtedly this somewhat underestimates the total effectiveness of Restart Interviews but the alternative would be to include numerous people who would have left the register anyway. The figures I can, therefore, give you are in the attached table.

  These figures reflect only the direct results of Restart. We do not know how many people subsequently take up a job or a place on an employment or training programme as a result of the guidance given to them at their interview.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Lewisham jobcentre

  Catford jobcentre

  Number of Restart Interviews carried out in 1993

  5,040

  5,137

  Number of people placed into jobs

  122

  161

  Number of people who took up other benefits

  38

  8

  Number of people who signed off as a direct result of Client Adviser Action

  146

  21

  Number of people who started on the following ED programmes:

  1,576

  1,605

  Jobclub

  Restart Courses

  Jobplan Workshops

  Job Review Workshops

  Training for Work

  Community Action

  Work Trials

  Business Start-Up Scheme

  Job Interview Guarantee

  776

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the average level of awards in cases where industrial tribunals have recommended the reinstatement of an employee dismissed by their employer and this has not been implemented by the company concerned in the last year for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The average total award of compensation where an order for reinstatement or re-engagement was not complied with was £13,602 in the 12 months ended 31 March 1993.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to review the operation of current employment legislation relating to industrial tribunals in respect of the enforcement of reinstatement decisions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to do so.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to ensure that awards by industrial tribunals are based on a realistic estimate of loss of earnings.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The level of awards, including those relating to loss of earnings, is for industrial tribunals to decide, subject to any financial limits which may apply. These limits are reviewed annually and the results of the latest review will be announced in due course.

WALES

  Housing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make it his policy that Tai Cymru devotes its budget primarily towards ensuring there are sufficient houses available to rent;

  (2) what assessment he has made of Tai Cymru's policy of insisting that housing associations build houses for sales as well as for rent, with particular reference to its effect on homelessness in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I expect that Housing for Wales will market some 10 per cent. of its programme for low-cost home ownership in 1994–95. That will help ensure that more people who wish to and can afford to progress by stages to full home ownership have the chance to do so—and thus avoid being constrained to a lifetime of renting alone. It will also mean that the rented social housing stock, now accounting for about 15,000 lettings per annum, can be managed more flexibly to provide for those in greatest housing need.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funds for local authority areas were approved by Tai Cymru to be spent by housing associations in Wales. in 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Local authorities are not funded by housing associations.

  Doctors (Home Visits)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he plans to introduce to educate patients not to demand unnecessary home visits from doctors; and if he will make a statement.
  777
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The charter for patients in Wales urges patients to take greater responsibility for their own health and to treat health service workers with proper consideration. Health departments and the general medical services committee of the British Medical Association are working together on an initiative to reinforce this message. The "Help Us to Help You" campaign, which we intend to introduce in Wales in April/May 1994, will encourage the responsible use of GP out-of-hours services.

  Railway Lines
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions there have been between the Department of Transport and the Welsh Office over the future of socially necessary railway lines; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  From April socially necessary services will be a matter for the Franchising Director. Welsh Office officials have already discussed Welsh issues with him.

  Planning Commission
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what encouragement or directive the Welsh Office has given to local authorities in Wales to make provision of public transport, walking and cycling facilities and traffic management a condition of planning permission, where appropriate.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Guidance on the appropriate use of planning conditions is given in Welsh Office circular 1/85. Planning Policy Guidance Note 6, "Town Centres and Retail Development", encourages local authorities to promote effective traffic management in town centres.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many public interest immunity certificates he, or his predecessors, have been asked to sign in each year since 1979; how many he or his predecessors declined to sign; and if he will make a statement of his policy on signing public interest immunity certificates.

  Mr. Redwood
  There have been no requests to Welsh Secretaries for public interest immunity certificates to be signed since 1979. The signing of such certificates depends on the facts of each case.

  Aberconwy (Strategic Development)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how the allocation to Aberconwy borough council out of the strategic development scheme for 1994 was reached; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Strategic development scheme allocations for 1994–95 were determined by a number of factors which were common to bids from all authorities.

  A strategic approach was positively encouraged and bids forming part of an acceptable local strategy received priority. Associated factors taken fully into account included value for money, jobs created, voluntary sector input, sustainable economic development and private sector investment.

  Within this framework the merits of Aberconwy borough council's bids were assessed against those of competing bids from other authorities for finite resources.
  778
  Officials have arranged to meet officers of the council on Friday 4 March 1994.

  National Curriculum (Implementation)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been expended in preparation of paperwork, reading materials, instruction manuals and files for the implementation of the national curriculum in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Since 1988, the Welsh Office has spent £20·1 million in respect of the national curriculum in Wales on the development and issue of national curriculum orders, related assessment materials, and guidance for teachers.

  Barlands Quarry, Bishopston
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will announce his decision on the public inquiry held at the Guildhall, Swansea on 8 July 1993 regarding Barlands quarry, Bishopston.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A decision will be issued as soon as possible.

SCOTLAND

  Dornoch Academy
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to publish the report of the recent inspection of Dornoch academy by Her Majesty's inspectors of schools.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  This report was prepared as part of general policy advice from officials to the Secretary of State about the proposals for self-governing status submitted by the Dornoch academy school board. It will therefore not be published.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the income scale which will apply to the assisted places scheme in Scotland in school session 1994–95.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  For school session 1994–95, I propose to lay regulations before the House in due course providing for progressive parental contribution for one assisted pupil in relation to family income as follows:

  Part of relevant income to which the specified percentage applies

  Parental contribution (percentage)

  That part (if any) which exceeds £9,450 but does not exceed £10,275

  9

  That part (if any) which exceeds £10,275 but does not exceed £11,115

  12

  That part (if any) which exceeds £11,115 but does not exceed £12,781

  15

  That part (if any) which exceeds £12,781 but does not exceed £15,341

  21

  That part (if any) which exceeds £15,341 but does not exceed £18,685

  24

  That part (if any) which exceeds £18,685

  33

  779
  The relevant income scale is open ended, but the remission can, of course, be given only where the parental contribution is less than the school tuition fee.

  Agricultural Science Agency
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the performance of the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency against its targets for 1993–94 and the setting of targets for 1994–95.

  Mr. Lang
  The agency is on course to meet the key performance targets for 1993–94 which I set out in my answer of 31 March 1993, column 319.

  For 1994–95 I have set the agency the following key performance targets:

  fulfilment of the Service Level Agreement with the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department within the running costs voted to the Agency for 1994–95;

  recovery of full economic costs for charged services;

  formal consultation with all major customers on the quality of the work done by the Agency in 1994–95;

  completion of 90 per cent. of all scientific tests and analyses within the timescale set by customers; and secure national quality management accreditation for the analytical chemistry and pesticide usage work of the Agency.

  Bankruptcy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many convictions were obtained against bankrupts and company directors for each of the last five years in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information is not held centrally on whether persons convicted are bankrupts or company directors.

  Earth Tremors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each of the last four years, and for the current year to-date(a) the location and (b) the Richter scale measurement of earth tremors that have occurred; and what structural damage was reported.

  Mr. Stewart
  The British Geological Survey has located 1,478 earthquakes in the United Kingdom and its offshore area in the period January 1990 to mid-February 1994. For seven of these earthquakes, reports have been received of minor damage to properties—none of these has occurred in Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has placed the relevant BGS reports covering the information requested in the Library of the House.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what number and percentage of women aged 16 to 60 years were employed(a) full time and (b) part time in each Scottish constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information in exactly the form requested is not available. The number of female full-time and part-time employees in employment in each Scottish constituency is available from the censuses of employment carried out in 1981, 1984, 1987, 1989 and 1991. This information is on the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. Library staff are ready to assist in accessing the information.
  780
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what number and percentage of men aged 16 to 65 years were employed in each Scottish constituency in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information in exactly the form requested is not available. The number of male employees in employment in each Scottish constituency is available from the censuses of employment carried out in 1981, 1984, 1987, 1989 and 1991. This information is on the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. Library staff are ready to assist in accessing the information.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what percentage of(a) men and (b) women in each age group were (i) in full-time education, (ii) on Government training schemes, (iii) employed, (iv) self-employed, (v) ill or disabled, (vi) unemployed, (vii) retired or (viii) in any other category in each year since 1979 in each Scottish constituency.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not available.

  Computer Discs
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce early legislation making illegal the production, manufacture and distribution of computer discs containing sexually explicit material.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is already an offence, under section 51(2) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, for any person to publish, sell or distribute or, with a view to its eventual sale or distribution, make, print, have or keep any obscene material. The definition of material includes any "disc or other kind of recording (whether of sound or visual images or both)". For the avoidance of doubt, a Government amendment has been tabled to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to ensure that computer transmissions are covered by section 51. The need for further legislation will be assessed in the light of the recently published report of the Home Affairs Select Committee on computer pornography.

  Kyle and Carrick District Council
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions and on which dates he or any of his Ministers have met the Conservative group on Kyle and Carrick district council in a ministerial capacity.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 21 February 1994]: I expect to meet the Conservative group on Kyle and Carrick district council, among others, on 4 March 1994. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) met the same group on 16 July 1993. No other such meetings have taken place.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the board of the National Museum of Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]: The information requested is as follows:

  781

  Mr. Robert Smith (Chairman)

  Professor Lalage Bown OBE

  Mr. Ronald Cramond CBE

  The Countess of Dalkeith

  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn QC MP

  Sir Alistair Grant

  Mr. Alexander Grant Gordon CBE

  Dr. Hugh Ingram

  Professor Peter Jones

  Dr. Derek Pringle CBE

  Dr. Anna Ritchie

  Professor Christopher Smout

  Sir John Thomson, GCMG

  All members were appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the members currently appointed to the Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]: The information is as follows.

  Hon. Lord Prosser QC (Chairman)

  Professor Gordon Benson

  Miss Kirsteen Borland

  Mr. William A. Cadell

  Mrs. Kathleen Dalyell

  Dr. Deborah Howard

  Mr. Gerald Ogilvie-Laing

  Mr. Allen S. Matheson

  Professor Tom Ridley

  Mr. Robert R. Steedman

  Professor Robin G. M. Webster

  Mr. H. Roland Wedgwood

  Urology Services (Ayrshire)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how much it cost Ayrshire and Arran health board to re-run the tendering process for the area urology contract between the North Ayrshire and Arran and South Ayrshire NHS trusts; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps the Ayrshire and Arran health board has now taken to ensure that bids for contracts within its area will be considered on a comparable basis; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will make a statement listing the individual members of Ayrshire and Arran health board's evaluation committee;

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 4 February, Official Report, column 962, how many copies were produced by Ayrshire and Arran health board of its 1992–93 annual report and its financial review 1992–93; what criteria were applied by the health board in distributing these; and what arrangements the health board has made to enable the population within the Ayrshire and Arran health board area to be made aware of the contents of the report and the financial review;

  (5) what was the involvement of Alan Clark Associates in the preparation and publishing of Ayrshire and Arran health board's annual report and financial review 1992–93; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) what procedure is used by Ayrshire and Arran health board to consider tenders for health services; which bodies and committees within the health board are involved in this process; and if he will make a statement;

  (7) what assessment Ayrshire and Arran health board has made of the facilities within the health board that are available for supplying urology services; what assessment has been made of the effect of the planned new day surgery unit at the Ayr hospital on this provision; and if he will make a statement.
  782
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: The information requested is not held centrally. These are matters for Ayrshire and Arran health board.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what involvement Ayrshire and Arran health board had in the decision of the South Ayrshire trust to build new day surgery facilities at the Ayr hospital; how this decision related to the award of the area urology contract to the South Ayrshire trust; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether Ayrshire and Arran health board orginally envisaged the day surgery unit opened at Crosshouse hospital on 4 October 1993 supplying urology services as part of its remit; when the proposals were drawn up; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) when the South Ayrshire Trust decided to invest in new day surgery facilities at the Ayr hospital; whether these plans were considered for inclusion in the original specification of the Ayr hospital before it was put out to tender; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: The board agreed with the decision to have day surgery units, but the precise services to be provided were not decided when the decision of principle was taken. Day surgery plans were not included in the original specifications of the Ayr hospital.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 6 December,Official Report, column 84, (1) who made representations to the NHS management executive concerning the award by Ayrshire and Arran health board of the area urology contract to the North Ayrshire and Arran NHS trust which necessitated a re-running of the tendering exercise;

  (2) what information was provided, and by whom, which led the NHS management executive to conclude that the bids from the North Ayrshire and Arran and South Ayrshire trusts had not been prepared on a comparable basis; and what adjustments were made to the bids to ensure that this was the case.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: Following representations from the chairman of the South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS trust, the then chief executive of the NHS management executive asked Ayshire and Arran health board to explain the background to its decision to award the area urology contract to the North Ayrshire NHS trust. From the information subsequently provided, it appeared that the tender from the North Ayrshire trust was based on marginal costs whereas that of the South Ayrshire trust was based on full economic costs. The health board accepted the NHS ME's view and decided that the two trusts should be invited to re-submit bids based upon a detailed specification.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what current facilities within the Ayrshire and Arran health board area are available to be used for urology services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: Urology services within the Ayrshire and Arran health board area are provided from 46 in-patient beds and operating theatre sessions at the Ayr and Ballochmyle hospitals together with out-patient clinics at Ballochmyle and Ayrshire central hospitals.

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the South Ayrshire national health service trust or the North Ayrshire and Arran national health service trust offer contractual incentives to general practitioner fundholders within Ayrshire and Arran health board to secure contracts for treating their patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: No. Both NHS trusts have confirmed that they do not offer any contractual incentives to GP fundholders.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which procedures are used by Ayrshire and Arran health board to make the NHS trusts within the health board aware of long-term service needs.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: Ayrshire and Arran health board's revised local health strategy, published in October 1993, sets out its strategy for the promotion of health and purchasing of health services for its residents over the next 10 years. The three NHS trusts within the board area were specifically consulted about the board's plans prior to publication.

  Contracting Procedures
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions the NHS management executive has ordered a tendering process for NHS contracts to be rerun; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: There has been only one occasion on which the NHS management executive felt that the tendering process for an NHS contract should be re-run.

  Ministerial Instructions
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the occasions since 1979 when Ministers have issued written instructions to override his Department's accounting officer's objections.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 February 1994]: An extensive search of departmental records and inquiries of past and serving officials has identified no such occasion.

  Family Mediation Scotland
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funding has been awarded to Family Mediation Scotland for the next three years in relation to grant applications under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 25 February 1994]: Family Mediation Scotland was awarded a grant of £56,000 per year for three years from 1992–93. The organisation is free to apply for a further grant after 1994–95.

  Mossend Freight Terminal
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of effect on the level of freight traffic over the Kingston bridge of the opening of the Mossend freight terminal.
  784
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 25 February 1994]: Issues relating to roads outwith the trunk network are the direct responsibility of the local roads authority, which in the case of the Kingston bridge and the M8 within Glasgow is Strathclyde regional council. My right hon. Friend has consequently undertaken no such assessment.

  European Ferry Link
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what feasibility study has been carried out on the effect on Scottish trade levels with eastern Europe of the introduction of a direct ferry link from Scotland to the mainland of Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 25 February 1994]: I understand that a study has been carried out on behalf of Scottish Enterprise with a view to establishing the feasibility and likely impact of a direct ferry service between Scotland and mainland Europe. The study team was not given a specific remit to consider the effect on trade levels with eastern Europe, but I understand that the direct impact of such a service alone would be likely to be minimal.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what feasibility study has been carried out into the effect of transport costs to Scottish industry if Rosyth was developed as a direct ferry link to Europe; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 25 February 1994]: I understand that a study has been carried out on behalf of Scottish Enterprise with a view to establishing the feasibility and likely impact of a direct ferry service between Scotland and mainland Europe. The study did not focus specifically on Rosyth; the choice of ports between which a service would operate would be for any potential operator to determine.

  The study concluded that the introduction of a direct ferry service would give only a minor direct cost advantage to transport operators. The major benefit to Scottish industry would be in terms of the increased flexibility which the availability of alternative routing would provide.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what feasibility study has been commissioned into developing ferry links from Rosyth to the continent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 25 February 1994]: I understand that a study has been carried out on behalf of Scottish Enterprise with a view to establishing the feasibility and likely impact of a direct ferry service between Scotland and mainland Europe. The study did not focus specifically on Rosyth; the choice of ports between which a service would operate would be for any potential operator to determine.

  The study highlighted difficulties which might arise from the seasonal nature of tourism traffic to Scotland, but concluded that such a service was potentially viable. Scottish Enterprise is currently exploring the possibility of attracting an operator.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the national health service management executive in Scotland monitors the financial terms of the
  785
  contracts awarded by national health service trusts to general practitioner fundholders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 February 1994]: No. Health boards are responsible for monitoring the terms of the contracts awarded by national health service trusts to general practitioner fundholders. For that purpose general practitioner fundholders are required to lodge copies of all their contracts with their health board.

DEFENCE

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding catering arrangements for British troops in Bosnia.

  Mr. Hanley
  Every effort is made to ensure that the standard of catering for British troops in Bosnia is as close as possible to the high standard they would receive at their parent locations. To ensure that this is so, sufficient fresh food for 30 days' rations is held in theatre and is resupplied weekly. All troops receive a standard British breakfast and a choice of dishes for lunch and dinner.

  The United Nations has recently indicated that it would like to bring the British force into the United Nations ration supply system. Tomislavgrad has been chosen as the site for a two-week trial beginning on 1 April. As a convoy staging area with constant fluctuations in the number of personnel requiring food, Tomislavgrad should present a thorough examination of the United Nation's ability to maintain the quantity and quality of rations demanded by the British contingent.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has of the number of low flying training exercises held since 1 October 1993 in airspace over,(a) Orkney and Shetland, (b) Edinburgh, Pentlands, (c) Thanet, South and (d) Huntingdon.

  Mr. Hanley
  Central records of all low flying exercises in the United Kingdom are not held. However, central records are held of major low flying exercises where advance notice has been given to Members of Parliament whose constituents may see a change in the pattern of air activity. Since 1 October 1993 one major exercise involving activity in the areas listed has been notified in this way. Exercise Northern Crusade is taking place between 1 and 13 March and involves Hercules aircraft flying in the Huntingdon area.

  EH101
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the export potential for the EH101 helicopter, following ministerial visits to the middle east.

  Mr. Aitken
  The EH101 helicopter has substantial export potential worldwide, including the middle east. The Defence Export Services Organisation is working closely with the manufacturer in identifying and pursuing opportunities.
  786

  Redundant Properties
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions his Department is making to ensure the future protection and maintenance of redundant historic buildings.

  Mr. Hanley
  Redundant historic buildings are secured in a wind and weathertight condition during the period when they are out of use pending the earliest possible disposal to new owners for suitable alternative use.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to mitigate the consequences on local economies of the programme of closure and disposal of redundant properties.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department's primary reason for disposing of redundant properties is to ensure that the most cost-effective use is made of available resources. When a site is, however, identified for disposal, local planning authorities are consulted to establish what other use might be made of the property in question. We do, of course, give as much assistance as possible to individual employees who might be affected by any closure.

  Dartmouth Royal Naval College
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the security review at Dartmouth Royal Naval college; who commissioned it; who tendered for it; when it was comissioned; how many staff were engaged in it; what was relevant experience; what were the principal recommendations; which recommendations have been implemented; and what was the actual cost to the Exchequer.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department commissioned an internal study in 1989 to review security arrangements at a number of establishments in the light of the terrorist threat. The study team consisted of five MOD security specialists and their principal recommendations affecting BRNC Dartmouth involved enhancement to security manpower, improvements in internal communications and a number of other physical security enhancements. All these recommendations have been implemented, at a total capital cost of approximately £140,000, plus extra running costs of approximately £960,000 per annum.

  RAF Training
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long it takes to train RAF skilled airframe and engine fitters; and how many years' experience is required before they reach the rank of sergeant and flight sergeant.

  Mr. Hanley
  The trades referred to are now known as engineering technician airframe and engineering technician propulsion. Trade training is by a combination of some 131 weeks of various technical courses and a period of one to two years of productive service.

  Promotion to sergeant and flight sergeant is by selection on merit to fill establishment vacancies. There is an intervening rank of chief technician for which promotion is also by selection on merit. The length of time taken to achieve promotion to these ranks varies from year to year depending on the number of establishment vacancies and the level of competition.
  787
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the number of RAF skilled people working in training and support roles who will be required immediately to join active duty squadrons in the event of a war.

  Mr. Hanley
  It would not be appropriate to comment on the detailed reinforcement capability of the armed forces.

  1969

  1979

  1989

  1994

  Aircraft

  Squadrons

  Aircraft

  Squadrons

  Aircraft

  Squadrons

  Aircraft

  Squadrons

  Lightning F3/F6

  60

  5

  24

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Phantom FG1

  —

  —

  22

  2

  29

  2

  —

  —

  Phantom FGR2

  —

  —

  30

  3

  16

  1

  —

  —

  Phantom F4J

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  1

  —

  —

  Tornado F3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35

  3

  80

  6

  Total

  60

  5

  76

  7

  90

  7

  80

  6

  Strike Duty
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft and squadrons were designated for strike duty in the years 1969, 1979, 1989 and 1994.

  1969

  1979

  1989

  1994

  Aircraft

  Squadrons

  Aircraft

  Squadrons

  Aircraft

  Squadrons

  Aircraft

  Squadrons

  Canberra B(I)6

  11

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Canberra B(I)8

  36

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buccaneer

  45

  3

  50

  4

  24

  2

  —

  —

  Vulcan B2

  64

  8

  48

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sea Harrier

  —

  —

  16

  2

  24

  3

  —

  —

  Jaguar GRl/la

  —

  —

  60

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tornado GRl/la/lb

  —

  —

  —

  —

  114

  10

  96

  8

  Total

  156

  15

  174

  16

  162

  15

  96

  8

  A decision was taken in 1992 to withdraw the capability of Sea Harriers to deploy tactical nuclear weapons.

  One-stop Shop
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider setting up a one-stop shop to deal with all ex-service people and veterans.
  788

  UK Airspace (Defence)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft and squadrons were designated for the air defence of United Kingdom airspace in the years 1969, 1979, 1989 and 1994.

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of RAF aircraft and squadrons, excluding in-use reserves or those on operational conversion units, based in the United Kingdom for the air defence of United Kingdom airspace were:

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of aircraft and squadrons, excluding in-use reserves or those on operational conversion units, designated for strategic and sub-strategic nuclear use against land and surface maritime targets were:

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department has no plans to establish such a service as we believe that it would only add an unnecessary layer of administration and would not result in a better service than is already available to ex-service people and veterans through the health and social security services.

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

Buckingham Palace: Traffic and Pedestrians
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What traffic flow studies and other consultations are to be undertaken prior to consideration of any scheme to pedestrianise the area in front of Buckingham Palace.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, consultants working on behalf of the Royal Parks Agency have carried out extensive studies of the effects of the proposal on surrounding roads and on reducing accidents in the area in front of the palace. The agency is also consulting extensively with interested parties, including Westminster City Council.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that 800 vehicles per hour use those roads? Is she aware also that, for example, the AA has not been consulted about this matter? Will she assure the House that the traffic implications will be taken fully into account? Can my noble friend tell me who will make the final decision about this issue?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the last part of my noble friend's question. We shall not proceed with any scheme without first consulting all interested parties. We should be happy to take into account the views of the AA and the RAC if they would like to comment. We are working closely with Westminster City Council, the traffic director for London, the Royal Fine Art Commission, English Heritage, the police and the Army.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, one of the steps that could be taken would be to give a longer time for pedestrians at the crossing between Green Park and Buckingham Palace. At present you have to sprint to get across when the green man is showing.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have never as yet observed the noble Lord sprinting, "says Alice".
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, where can members of the public see details of the plans? Are they to be given an opportunity to comment on them?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I said, we shall not proceed with any scheme without consulting interested parties. The plans are not finalised as yet. Westminster City Council will have them before it in its future discussions at its next meeting.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, if the scheme comes into effect, will it be possible for Members and staff of your Lordships' House and another place to have access through that area, perhaps by the use of special badges on their cars? I ask that because I regularly use the area around Buckingham Palace when driving to and from the Palace of Westminster.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it will not affect those who wish to reach this Palace.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, does the Minister understand that the scheme cannot be put into effect without major alterations to the standing orders of both Houses?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for that information. I should add, as I have not felt that the atmosphere is tremendously friendly, that Dame Jennifer Jenkins described the front of Buckingham Palace as a national disgrace.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, to pedestrians and drivers the area is something of a nightmare. But pedestrian precincts are not always an environmental paradise, as we know. They often become playgrounds for drug pedlars, alcoholics, beggars of various pedigrees and so on. Will the Minister assure the House that the aesthetic attractiveness of any design will be given the highest scrutiny? Will local residents be consulted? Will the opinions of the Prince of Wales be sought?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have kept the palace informed of progress on the proposed scheme. I should remind your Lordships that there have been a great number of accidents; namely,60 reported accidents involving personal injuries in the past three years. Therefore, it is time that something was done. I hope that attractiveness will feature largely in the final scheme.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, will my noble friend include in those who are to be consulted the cyclists public affairs group? Is she aware that at present it is one of the most dangerous and unpleasant places to try to navigate on a bicycle?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is estimated that the proposed improvements will reduce accidents in the area by half. That will benefit cyclists in particular, who have suffered the greatest number of accidents in the area.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, the Minister referred to the studies extending to surrounding routes. Is Horse Guards Road likely to be included in the plan?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the recommendation in the Jenkins review to close Horse Guards Road to traffic is being considered separately. We have made no decision as yet about whether to proceed with it. That decision will be made by the Secretary of State. I assure your Lordships that any decision will be made only after

979
consulting interested parties and conducting studies into the effects that it may have on traffic movements in the surrounding area.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper refers to the pedestrianisation of the area in front of Buckingham Palace. The Minister said that it is hoped that the proposed plan will cut the accident rate by half. Does that lead us to believe that half of the current accidents are caused by pedestrians banging into each other?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if the noble Lord reads what I said in Hansard, he will see that I never said that we would cut such accidents by half; I said that it would greatly improve safety for the likes of the noble Lord.
Lord Fraser of Kilmorack: My Lords, in her consideration of such matters, will my noble friend the Minister take into account the fact that at present the great advantage of the situation is that no one can sit down in the area? Has that thought been taken into account? If the area becomes a pedestrian precinct, I can imagine that it will be covered with people sitting down.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am rather pushed for an answer to that question. However, I do not think that people will be able to sit down while the changing of the guard is in process, "says Alice".
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the introduction of a couple of so-called "thinking pelican crossings"—that is, the new type where you press the button and it operates only if the pedestrian is still waiting—would prevent many of those accidents happening to tourists?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the roads in the park are an integral part of the Royal Parks for the use of people visiting them. They are not the responsibility of either the Department of Transport or the local authority. However, I am sure that, whatever is planned, all aspects and interests will be taken into account and dealt with as carefully as possible.

Voluntary Youth Organisations: Funding
2.45 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the current funding arrangements for voluntary youth organisations in London.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, support for local and regional voluntary youth groups is primarily a matter for the London boroughs, as it is for any other local education authorities. It is also open to the boroughs to provide support to voluntary organisations through the London Boroughs Grants Committee. At national level, the Department for Education makes grants to voluntary organisations in London and the present cycle comes to an end in March 1996.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the noble Viscount acknowledge the fact that diminishing funding from the Department for Education, combined with increasing pressure on the finances of London boroughs, is seriously affecting the services that can be offered to young people in London? As the Government have expressed their growing concern over youth crime and truancy, will they give urgent reconsideration to their policy of reducing spending on services that can provide positive alternatives to disruptive and criminal behaviour on the part of young people?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, grants paid to the 18 London-wide education voluntary organisations under the DFE-LBGC partnership scheme will end in March 1996. That was announced at the onset of the scheme. Thereafter, the voluntary organisations funded under the scheme should look to the LBGC and the boroughs for funding. All London boroughs are represented on the LBGC. It is for the boroughs themselves to decide on the allocation and distribution of the resources made available to them. The DFE schemes of grant which are national will be reviewed later this year. The department plans to consult voluntary organisations over that review.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say what co-operation there is among the ministries, the Department of Health, the Department for Education, the Home Office and the local authorities as regards finding a solution to the problem of juvenile delinquency? Would it not be better to spend money on prevention rather than cure as proposed in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, which will shortly come before your Lordships' House, under which it is proposed to spend £ 30 million on 200 children? Would it not be better if the ministries and the local authorities co-operated in an overall policy to deal with the matter?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my noble friend's question is a little wide of that on the Order Paper.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in view of the vital contribution made by the youth service in combating drug abuse, delinquency and crime—especially at a time when we have 1 million unemployed youngsters—is there not a need for an absolutely clear assurance from central government to the service that it has the strategic and financial backing of central government? What consultations have the Government had with the youth service? Further, what was the number of youth service workers in 1979 and what is the number today?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, it is a matter for the local boroughs to determine the amount of money that they spend on the youth service. The Government make a grant through the SSAs. It is for the local authorities to distribute the money according to their own priorities.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I recognise that the Government do not apparently have any direct responsibility in the matter. However, is the noble Viscount aware that London's division of MENCAP's Gateway Clubs provides 120 clubs for 3,600-plus young people with learning disabilities and that it is in receipt of a grant of £ 5,000 a year; that is, £ 1.38 per person?

981
Does not the noble Viscount consider that to be a derisory sum? Surely central government should take some interest in the amount of money which is being given by local authorities to such services.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I can only repeat that it is for local authorities and for LEAs to determine their priorities. The Government make vast sums of money available through the SSAs and it is for local authorities to distribute it according to their own priorities.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I must declare an interest in this matter as my husband serves on the London boroughs committee that we are discussing. The London boroughs simply do not have money to give to these youth organisations. The London boroughs fully recognise the need to fund youth organisations in London, but they are themselves under increasing financial pressure and they are desperately short of funds to distribute.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, Question Time in your Lordships' House brings with it many pleas for additional funding for a wide range of good causes and what could be a better cause than the youth service, be it the statutory youth service or the voluntary youth service? However, we have to remember that the public purse is finite and that difficult choices have to be made.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that all his answers have been totally complacent and uncaring? Youth Matters, the London Council for the Voluntary Youth Service, and the British Youth Council are all extremely anxious about what is going to happen. They reckon they will lose as much as half a million pounds in the period up to 1996. The Government complain about the behaviour of young people and the crime rate and therefore I think they should mind a little more about these organisations.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that the Government do mind about this matter.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, on rethinking his answer, that her question was wholly relevant to this issue because it is for central government to decide the priorities in public expenditure? If central government get it wrong, it is not surprising that local government get it wrong, too.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as I have said before, this is a matter for LEAs and local authorities to distribute the resources given to them by central government.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, is not the run-down in government funding for the youth services in London at any rate in part a reflection of the Government's new-found preference for locking up young offenders rather than diverting them from further crime by community action? Is it not a fact that with relatively few exceptions—I accept there are exceptions—locking up young people in prison does not deter them from
982
further offending? At great public expense prison prepares the great majority of them for committing more and more serious offences in the future whereas constructive community programmes have a remarkably good success rate in diverting young offenders from committing further offences. Is that not where the Government's priorities should lie?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I was not sure whether I was listening to a question or a lecture, but the Government certainly do not encourage any system whereby young people are placed in prison.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with respect, I ask my noble friend whether this is right. As your Lordships know, I have been concerned with introducing legislation—now accepted by government—which seeks to get the legal position right for children with special educational needs. If, frankly, the position is that the local authorities do not have enough funds to do anything about this, apart from the sum of about £ 1.1p per child received in grant, is it not really a matter for government? What is the use of passing legislation if no money is available from any source to implement it? I suggest to my noble friend that something has gone wrong.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I cannot relate the Question on the Order Paper pertaining to youth organisations and youth services to special needs.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, what do the Government intend to do if local authorities cease to provide any funding to the youth services and, as a result, those youth services close down? Are the Government prepared at least to ring-fence some of the funding which they are passing to local authorities so that they can make a more reasoned decision?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the statutory provision for youth services in local authorities is covered by law.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that two of his replies were quite insulting to those noble Lords who had asked serious questions? Further, his other replies lead one to conclude that it is about time there was a London authority instead of this matter being dependent on London boroughs.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Department for Education has shown evidence of its concern by contributing £ 1.5 million up to 1992–93 through the interim grants scheme. It has also responded positively to an initiative by the LBGC and it is providing additional support for the years 1995–96 through the partnership scheme. The department values and supports the work of voluntary organisations. Its grants to national voluntary youth organisations amount to £ 8.6 million over three years. Some £ 1.2 million has also been made available over three years for youth work development grants administered by the National Youth Agency.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, your Lordships have indicated that we shall probably want to return to this matter, but perhaps today we should move on.

Crime Survey
2.56 p.m.
Lord Erroll of Hale Lord Erroll of Hale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the estimated cost of the British Crime Survey recently commissioned by the Home Office; the number of interviews to be carried out; the definition of "crime" to be used; and whether the findings of the survey will be published.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the costs of the 1994 British Crime Survey will be £ 690,000. The 1994 survey will cover a nationally representative sample of 15,000 adults, and a further sample of 2,500 from ethnic minorities. The crimes which are covered by the survey are those against householders and their property. The findings of the survey will be published. First results will be available in the autumn.
Lord Erroll of Hale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. What steps are being taken to include certain excluded classes whose views and representations would be well worth having such as members of the armed forces, university students and young couples living, for example, in rented accommodation?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I have indicated, there will be a survey across some 15,000 people. If the noble Lord feels those particular groups he has mentioned might be included, I shall certainly pass that suggestion on to those who are responsible for establishing the basis on which this survey is undertaken. It is indeed intended to give as accurate a representation of crime levels in Britain as is possible. We certainly would not want any particular group to be excluded.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister accept my assurance as a former chairman of the Market Research Society that the British Crime Survey is held in great esteem by survey researchers and criminologists alike? Does the Minister agree that the current design of the new British Crime Survey gives an opportunity for government to assess the extent of racial attacks? That information is not available from recorded crime statistics as the Home Secretary refuses to recognise racial crime as a particular category within the statistics.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the approval he has given to the British Crime Survey. He will become aware in the autumn—if he is not aware already—that the techniques to be used in the survey this year will be even more sophisticated than in the past. I am happy to confirm that part of this survey will seek to secure the views of some
984
2,500 people from ethnic minorities. As the survey is meant to consider specifically crimes against householders and their properties, I hope that just the information which the noble Lord considers to be desirable will be revealed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend say whether the large number of undetected crimes will enter into the consideration of those holding the crime survey?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, one of the purposes of the British Crime Survey is to discover to what extent the level of crime is not reflected by crimes which are recorded by the police. Some trends emerged from the surveys in the 1980s. One is that police statistics on crime increases have tended to overstate the figure; but generally speaking the level of crime is higher than that recorded by the police.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord assure us that the Home Secretary will demonstrate his complete consistency in these matters by seeing to it that the results of the survey are totally ignored?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the Home Secretary will show the same consistency as that displayed by previous Home Secretaries. The figures in the British Crime Survey will all be published; and much of the detail will be further elaborated on in other survey papers and, as has been the case in the past, in academic journals.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord referred to previous Home Secretaries. Will the crime survey explain that great conundrum—why it is that crime in every respect has gone up and up since there was last a Labour Home Secretary?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, in a number of respects crime figures have not risen as much as the noble Lord wishes to indicate. The British Crime Survey reveals that in one area of crime—vandalism—the figures have remained more or less constant, which is surprising. However, I am afraid that so far as concerns acquisitive crime, there has been a sharp rise. It may however be of some reassurance to the noble Lord that crimes of violence have not increased as sharply as recorded crime would indicate.

British Rail: Privatisation Subsidies
3 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the cost of subsidies to franchisees or to Railtrack which will be payable to secure access to the rail network following privatisation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the size of the grant payable to support passenger services and external finance limits

985
for Railtrack and British Rail will be announced in the transport report to be published later this month. Taken together, they will be consistent with the overall provision for railway expenditure in 1994– 95 of £ 1,262 million announced in the unified Budget.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister indicate whether that is in excess of the figure originally contemplated by the Government or below that originally contemplated? In the absence of that knowledge, and without any proper study or consultation having been undertaken in order to prepare the country for this situation, how could the Government with any degree of seriousness go ahead with their utterly fallacious proposals in relation to rail privatisation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, a great deal of work has gone into the financial provisions which will be made available for British Rail and Railtrack. I can confirm that the external funding level announced in the Budget of £ 1,262 million will be the one that will emerge when the figures are produced concerning the total amount of subsidy to be provided to the Franchising Director.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that when the information becomes available it will be announced by means of a separate Statement in both Houses, and will not be issued in an Answer to a Written Question put down for answer on a Friday afternoon?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord is sitting on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I wonder whether that represents a shift in the direction of Europe. As the noble Lord knows, his question is a matter for the usual channels who deal with Statements and the like.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he should not be surprised at my noble friend being on the Liberal Democrat Benches? After all, when all is said and done he might have ended up there himself in his earlier days in Scottish politics.
Does the delay in relation to the Scotrail franchise for the east coast route in Scotland have anything to do with the external finance which is at present under discussion, or is there some other problem which the Government are withholding from your Lordships' House? What is the problem which is being kept secret? Surely we are entitled to know.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, there is no problem which is being kept secret. The question of the franchising of Scotrail will be considered within the timetable which ha:; already been laid out. Clearly one of the important factors will be the announcement in the transport report of the amount of money available for supporting passenger services. I can assure the noble Lord that there is nothing to be suspicious about. I am sure that, when privatised, Scotrail will be a huge success and will be shown to be a step in the right direction, just as I believe that my own step many years ago was also a step in the right direction.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that those industries which have been privatised have been of great benefit to the taxpayers of this country? Is it not the case that, instead of paying subsidies to the old nationalised industries, the Exchequer is now receiving corporation tax from the profits that those industries are now making? Does he also agree that in many cases the privatised industries are charging lower prices in real terms than the nationalised industries?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Over the past 15 years the privatisation programme in this country has been hugely successful. It has been followed by many countries all around the world. So far as I can tell, in successive pledges made by the party opposite over the years, the one pledge which has always been missing is the pledge to renationalise the last successful privatisation.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, can the Minister let us know how the franchise application process is going? Are lots of applications being received?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that question is a good deal wide of the original Question. I do not have the answer to hand.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, if the Minister's estimate of the cost of the subsidy turns out to be too low, will the shortfall come out of the much reduced contingency reserve or will he reduce access to the rail network following privatisation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we do not believe that the figure will be too low. A great deal of work has gone into the calculations which are necessary in order to come to a conclusion not only about the financing limit announced in the Budget but also about the subsidy which will be announced in the transport report later this month.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, even taking into account the Minister's somewhat convoluted thinking, does he not accept that this will almost certainly be one privatisation too far? More specifically, can he explain what will be the cost in terms of public expenditure of setting Railtrack's initial rate of return at 5 per cent. for the next couple of years instead of 8 per cent.? Will he also indicate what is the likelihood of increases in the price of rail fares, because he ignored that question when it was posed earlier?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not recall that the question of the price of rail fares was posed earlier. The calculations on return on asset base have been agreed. The calculations which we have undertaken in respect of the external financing limit and the announcement to come are based on that 5.6 per cent. return on asset base. I noticed that the noble Lord thought that this might be a privatisation too far. Dare I suggest to him that that suggests that he now agrees that previous privatisations were not?

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.8 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Beaumont of Whitley set down for this day shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Redesdale set down for this day to two-and-a-half hours.—(Lord Wakeham.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Leader of the House to clear up two points in relation to this Motion.
First, in the unlikely event of my mathematics being right, it appears that five-and-a-half hours are being allotted to these two debates instead of the five hours which used to be the case. Is that a deliberate improvement? Is it a step which will lead to even longer periods being made available for debates? If that is the case, many of us may welcome it. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say on the subject.
Secondly, the Motion is being taken on the day on which the debates concerned are to take place. That means that those noble Lords who have put down their names to speak to either of the Motions did not know that they would be time limited when they put their names down. Is it not a rather strange procedure to put down time limits on the very day on which the debates are to take place? Is that an accident in this case or is it deliberate policy on the part of the usual channels?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, some time ago the Procedure Committee recommended changes in the time limits so that there could be time limits of three hours and two-and-a-half hours as in this Motion. The Procedure Committee met recently. Its report, which recommends further changes, has not yet been approved by the House. It would probably be better to debate the up-to-date position in the very near future when the agreed report is published. It recommends,
"that on Wednesdays when there are two debates, both debates should always be time-limited; and that the sum of the two time limits should not exceed six hours".
That is the latest report. It has not yet been approved by the House.
On the question of timing, the Motion is put down at the request of the party which initiates the debate as soon as it has agreed the appropriate time. Therefore the Motion cannot be tabled until we receive a request from the party which initiates the debates as to what it considers in the best convenience of the House the most appropriate way to deal with the issue. That is why the Motion is put forward today. I realise that in some ways it would be more convenient if the Motion were tabled at an earlier date. On the other hand, if it were tabled at an earlier date, the speakers in the debate might not be known, or the party might make a wrong decision as to the best way to timetable the debate. Of course I shall listen carefully to anything that my noble friend has to say in view of his great experience in these matters.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does it follow—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with that point. Does it follow from what my noble friend said that if the party organising the debate does not ask for a time limit to be imposed, the Government will not impose it?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, as I say, your Lordships have not yet had a chance to discuss the report of the Procedure Committee. The recommendation of the Procedure Committee is that where there are two debates they should automatically be timetabled. I am not absolutely certain of the answer when there is just one debate. As I understand the position, the debate does not have to be timetabled.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may plead guilty to causing the delay in the Motion coming before your Lordships' House. I apologise for that. We were faced with the difficulty that by Thursday last hardly anyone had put his name down to speak on either of the Motions. By last night it was clear that many people wished to speak. We had originally expected to have two two-and-a-half hour debates. However, that would have reduced the speaking time, frankly, to ludicrous proportions. I know that noble Lords from all parts of the House have become worried about the brevity of some of the speeches that they are forced to make.
I did not feel it right to take total advantage of the six hour limit which the Procedure Committee had suggested until your Lordships' House had had a chance to debate that recommendation. Nevertheless, in the sense that we would not delay the Unstarred Question for more than half an hour beyond the time at which it might have been expected to begin, I considered that we could compromise and take three hours for the first debate, and two-and-a-half hours for the second. In practice, it might have been better if we had been able to have three hours on each debate. I hope noble Lords will have some sympathy for us. I hope, too, that in future noble Lords will please put their names down at an earlier stage, whether the debates are in the names of my noble friends or initiated from any other part of the House. It is difficult to programme such events. Indeed one name was added only this morning. Fortunately, one other name was taken off so that addition did not affect the situation.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene but I am a little concerned that reference has been made to a report by the Procedure Committee which is not yet before your Lordships' House, far less approved by it. I hope that that practice will not be repeated. Can the noble Lord the Leader of the House advise the Chamber on whether the arrangements for today's debates are in order? I am sure that the House would like clarification that the arrangements for today's debates are in keeping with the procedures of this House which have already been agreed.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the debate and the Motion which I have moved today are entirely in accordance with the current procedure of the House. I agree with the noble Lord that it is not wise to have discussion on a report which has not been seen by many noble Lords, although I understand that the new report

989
is currently available in the Printed Paper Office. That was why I indicated that it was probably better not to have a long discussion. The new report is available. I believed that the House would wish to discuss it when noble Lords had had a chance to read the report. I do not believe that there is any difference between us.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sustainable Development
3.15 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley rose to call attention to the measures needed to meet the commitment relating to sustainable development made by Her Majesty's Government at the Earth Summit in Rio in June 1992; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. At the Rio conference, the nations of the world, including the UK, recognised the need for a switch of their economies from their traditional aim of eternal growth to the attainment of sustainable development, defined as being that development which,
"meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
That this goal has been so widely recognised as essential itself marks a great step forward from the thinking of, say,30 years ago and those of us who campaign on this issue must not only praise those who have led this thinking but also those who have started effecting the revolution which has been necessary in our political parties.
And the revolution has borne fruit. Your Lordships are setting up a special committee to study the matter. The Labour Party has effective and sympathetic champions such as Chris Smith in another place, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in this House—and we are sorry that she cannot be with us today. My own party is preparing a major policy document on the subject, on the draft of which I shall be drawing freely, and it would be churlish not to recognise in John Gummer a Minister who understands what the subject is all about and who is committed to it. I pay that tribute wholeheartedly before I embark on an analysis which will imply and sometimes contain a thorough criticism of us all.
In addition to drawing on my own party's work, I hope to look at the Government's responses to Rio and at the most recent issue of that essential magazine, Resurgence, which I hope is even now to be found in your Lordships' Library and which contains important articles by the leading green economist Herman Daly and by Sir Crispin Tickell, wholly fortuitously Warden of Green College, Oxford. In passing, perhaps I may point out that this Government would add to their green laurels if they were to elevate Sir Crispin to this House, where he would illuminate your Lordships' counsels.
With the adoption of the aim of sustainable economy by the nations, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that we find ourselves on the cusp of a paradigm shift—a not very comfortable place to be sitting. The change in world economies and economics will be as revolutionary as was the coming of capitalism.
990
Both John Stuart Mill and Maynard Keynes foretold in oft-quoted passages the inevitable coming of a steady state economy, but, alas, there have been and still are too many lesser economists who have thought that we could go on and on for ever in the same old way relying on technical fixes which often, if not always, create at least as many problems as they solve and factor substitutions, the successes of which disguise the real losses which have occurred in the mere fact that they have become necessary. There has been too much dependence on Ricardian economics which, among other things, presupposes that capital is as non-transferable internationally as labour—something which long ago ceased to happen.
I know that noble Lords who have put their names to the debate will bring much experience to bear on those individual facets of the problem which are most familiar to your Lordships; and there are some speeches to which we particularly look forward. Perhaps I may mention the maiden speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Temple of Stowe, and the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon. I was born and brought up in a house which was built by the ancestors of the noble Earl, Lord Temple, as their second Buckinghamshire home. It was an exact copy of Buckingham Palace before the present facade was put on, so his family has had to travel some way before they can argue convincingly, as I hope he will, that small is beautiful; and the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, will probably be grateful to me for refraining from facetiousness about the importance of forests.
It seems to me that my job in opening the debate is to outline some of the main themes which will have to be tackled. If, in doing so, your Lordships and even some Members of my own Benches think that I am going too far, it is because I think that we shall go nowhere unless we realise both the attainability of many of the goals in the short term and the revolutionary nature of those of the long term.
I can concentrate on those major themes the more readily, knowing that my noble friend Lord Ezra, who was primarily responsible for us putting forward the subject today, will be fielding at long stop as well as discussing a number of subjects on which I shall not touch, as will the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, who will deal with transport. It may well be that there are those like my noble friend Lord McNair who will think that I have not gone far enough.
The first topic I should like to mention, if only because it is too often left aside, is population growth. If the population growth of the world continues as it is, we are all doomed, or rather our grandchildren are. It may well be that the growing resistance to antibiotics, together with other phenomena such as the spread of AIDS, will bring a population collapse on a global scale similar to the continental collapse of the Black Death. But clearly that is neither to be welcomed nor to be counted on. What will be needed is a switch from our present thinking on solutions to the problem, which tend to depend at least partly on economic growth, to a rather more simple solution which has recently raised its rather beautiful head.
At the moment we are relying on the education of women and the availability of contraceptive methods to

991
bring about a stable population. Both those are supremely worth while in their own right and have been shown to be effective in many countries. But by no means in all. Professor Virginia Abernethy, editor of the US journal Population and the Environment, has come up with a different overall solution based on studies of parts of the world where population growth is already stable.
The core of the argument being propounded by her and her colleagues is that population growth explodes when people's expectations of rapid economic growth and/or emigration to areas which they see as economically desirable is high and that it levels off when people see that resources are not expanding and that their children are unlikely to become rich. In other words, they adapt to the carrying capacity of what they see as their territory. An interesting example where the population growth is just about zero is St. Helena, which your Lordships debated recently, where the people can see the limits of their resources (being a small island helps with that) and do not foresee any alternative futures for their children.
If the first topic is population, the second topic is GATT. Here I draw your Lordships' attention to the well-attested phenomena of the swing-back of the pendulum once one has reached an extreme, as also to the well-known tendency of businesses to start declining almost as soon as they move into new and palatial accommodation.
The doctrine of free trade has just, first, reached a near absolute and, secondly, fitted itself up in a virtually brand new apparatus in GATT. Therefore, it will surprise no observer of human phenomena if we see a reversal of fortunes. We are now already working on a so-called improvement of GATT which, by taking environmental matters into account, is in fact a move into reverse of the pendulum.
One of the more interesting and redeeming features of GATT is its exclusion of goods produced by prison labour. I suggest that the next steps are the exclusion of goods produced from non-renewable resources or by unchecked pollution. For we must come to the conclusion that, contrary to the beliefs of some economists, trade is not, unlike truth and beauty, an absolute good. Transport uses non-renewable resources and creates pollution. When large quantities of sugar cookies are exported from Denmark to the USA and large quantities of sugar cookies are exported from the USA to Denmark, one cannot help thinking that a mutual faxing of recipes might be a less wasteful method of international commerce.
That brings me to another facet of free trade. At the same time as we are freeing trade in goods we are busy creating protection in intellectual and natural property. The long-term patenting of seeds, for instance, is a scandal. We must in a sustainable world economy devise a method of spreading knowledge freely, while acknowledging the need to protect a modest livelihood for breeders and inventors. At the moment, any person tempted to conspiracy theories (and I am not) might regard what is happening in this field as a carefully planned bonanza for transnational corporations.
992
That brings me to the third of my strands: the need for the community of the world to harness transnational corporations for the common good. This will not be easy and we are not at the moment in the middle of a period of credulity about the effectiveness of the UN and its various offspring. But I would suggest to noble Lords that this is the only way forward and, that being so, we must not stand around complaining about the muddiness of the path, the smelliness of our fellow travellers and the likelihood of our being mugged along the way but strike out like Pilgrim along the road to the Holy City.
On the international front we need desperately to see that the Commission for Sustainable Development is given teeth and resources and that other bodies such as the World Bank are accountable to it. There are right levels for every form of action and while I and my colleagues on these Benches are tireless campaigners for devolution, if you are going to solve global problems you have to have a global authority.
On the national or general Western level, I must point out that though many of the first steps are easy we are going to have to do what has been regarded on the Left as impossible since the days of Anthony Crosland and on the Right as unthinkable. That is, to strive towards equality, more of which is going to be necessary both on a national and on an international level, in a period when there is unlikely to be economic growth as conventionally measured. Indeed, I suggest that it is likely that real economic growth of the traditional kind has already topped out for good and that when Mr. Macmillan said in that famous phrase of the Sixties that people "had never had it so good" he might well have added "and never will again".
What is to be done? Mr. Gummer has suggested that we need individual action and indeed we do. But Robert Worcester of Mori has shown in a recent paper delivered to the Green Alliance that a great deal is being done individually in this country. No doubt most of your Lordships take your bottles to the bottle bank, try out long-life bulbs and employ tiger worms to make your compost.
But action by Government is also needed and although education can do a lot and fiscal measures can do much there will be areas where regulation will be necessary. In particular, we need to be very careful in the coming months as to what we deregulate.
While we need energy taxation (by which I mean a well thought out tax designed to reduce energy use, with proper safeguards for the poor and not a one-off money-raising exercise) we also need comprehensive compulsory informative labelling of energy-eating machines with tobacco-style warnings: "This product is highly likely to damage your grandchildren's health, if by then there are any grandchildren to have health! "
In the field of biodiversity we need to set targets both within and without existing environmental schemes and I would ask the Government to tell us what they are intending to do in this field and how they are going to reverse the trends highlighted in the Government's own Countryside Survey.
From a world when there appeared to be little need for, or prospects of, limits to growth and catastrophes were things to be taken in one's stride, we have moved

993
to a world where the precautionary principle must rule. We cannot afford to go on playing "last across the road". We must now play safe instead—with climate change, conservation of species and in many other areas.
Finally, I have a specific question to ask the Government; and the reason that I do not have more than one is that I know that other noble Lords will ask them. My question is fairly obvious so I did not think it necessary to give notice of it. We are told that we are to have a panel of five wise persons who will advise the Government on strategic issues in this field. That is a good idea so long as the process is transparent. Are they to publish regular reports; or are they merely to give advice the nature of which will never be revealed if the Secretary of State so chooses? I must warn the Government that the latter course would be completely unacceptable.
We live in exciting times and, unlike the Chinese proverb maker, I would not have it otherwise. I regard it as a great privilege to have been able to put this case to the House this afternoon. I look forward to gleaning much from the knowledge and experience of noble Lords. I beg to move for Papers.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for allowing us to debate this important subject. The publication of the Government's papers on subsidiarity represented a very significant moment in the development of British environmental policy and a considerable achievement by those responsible for their production. The importance of the step that has been taken should not be underestimated. It is easy enough to find fault and to identify omissions or the lack of firm targets. But some of us at least who took part in the consultative process and heard the vast range of contradictory views, are impressed by the way in which order has been created out of chaos and a foundation has been established on which to build.
Environmental policy-making involves the reconciliation of very different views. Economists refer to "weak" and "strong" sustainability. I suppose that we may speak, on the one hand, of the free market point of view and on the other of "ultra-green" environmentalists. Governments and regulators are bound to seek a position in between, using a combination of regulation and economic instruments.
The Prime Minister was right on the occasion of the launch to point out that there are no easy options; that you get nothing for nought; and that a price has to be paid. That price is not just a financial one. Difficult choices have to be made between different environmental options. Perhaps I may give two examples.
I was involved in the original decisions to retro-fit desulphurisation plant to power stations. I must say that I was pretty shaken when I recently visited one of those power stations on the Trent to find that the plant occupied more than the original space of the power station and its coal storage areas. I heard of the vast quantities of limestone that had to be extracted, probably from close to a national park, and conveyed by road and rail; and about the amounts that had to be put
994
back into landfill at the end of the process. I hope that the balance of advantage was there. At least there were contending pressures. Another example is that of wind power. Initial enthusiasm is being tempered by the knowledge that it often involves the advance of a great army of iron creatures across beautiful and previously unspoiled countryside.
The important point about the publication of these papers is that they provide a firm starting point for action. It is helpful that so much has been set down about the condition of the environment. The fact that so many desirable objectives have been identified means that the pressure will mount to turn objectives into achievements. However, it is only a start. We have to move forward to identify qualitative objectives and firm timetables. That will happen only if the will exists, if political leadership is given and if political pressure is exerted. Probably the best way to ensure that that happens is to establish the will of the public: to find out what opinion is on these issues, both inside Parliament and outside. Even when Ministers are clear-minded, determined and impatient, it takes an alarmingly long time—except, apparently, in time of war—to implement even those policies which are agreed and are on the statute book. That being so, we should bear in mind that it is of equal importance that the Government should continually give the right signals; that the general public should exert pressure; and that we should make use of the influence of economic forces.
Business has to look ahead. Therefore clear indications of the way in which policy is developing and the likely progress of legislation frequently lead to major changes in the planning, investment decisions and business practice of industrial companies. Most leaders of industry do not like to find themselves criticised for being bad environmentalists. Many of them are increasingly seeing the commercial advantages of being good environmentalists.
I believe that in this situation one of the key factors to success is openness. It is absolutely essential for an effective environmental policy based on the principle of sustainability. We must put the facts in the public arena—if we are to understand the competing environmental arguments; if we are to be able to balance the costs of taking action against the costs of not taking action; and if we are to exert an influence against the inevitable pressures of the lobbying organisations and the inherent tendency of government to delay. It has been deeply disappointing in the field for which I have some responsibility—the water environment—that it has taken so long to move to the introduction of statutory water quality objectives which provide us with an almost ideal mechanism. They were introduced in the 1989 Act for establishing the costs and benefits, debating them in public and then putting down firm, enforceable standards.
Perhaps Parliament should establish a system rather akin to post-project management whereby we look at the way in which legislation has actually been implemented. We tend to pay attention to putting it on the statute book and never come back to see whether it has been implemented effectively.

995
I am confronted by another example of where openness can break down. The initial phase of the Ofwat examination which will lead to decisions about the water industry's environmental programmes for the next five years was admirably open. We had a vigorous debate. Some of us were concerned that the original estimates that were put into the arena by Ofwat were exaggerated. However, they were challenged; they were in the open. I had to warn the Secretary of State at a meeting only this week of my concerns on discovering that apparently we cannot now continue that open debate because the figures that are now emerging, and which are very different, are price sensitive—or are asserted to be price sensitive. I am bound to say that that is a very startling discovery. It will lead us into extreme difficulties. Indeed, it led my noble friend Lord St. Davids into giving, I believe quite inadvertently, a somewhat misleading Answer in this House only yesterday afternoon when answering the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, about the cost of the urban waste water treatment directive. The difficulty is that neither he nor I can refer at the present moment, indeed until a solution is found to this problem, to the real figures that are emerging.
The point that I want to make is simply that it is an essential feature of any successful environmental policy and its implementation that it is totally open and that all the facts are continually available to those who wish to involve themselves in the debate.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for giving us this opportunity to debate such an important topic. We also look forward to the two maiden speeches this afternoon.
First, I must say that the phrase "sustainable development" is not operationally precise enough to be able to state that such and such policies promote sustainable development and other policies do not. It is a somewhat vague notion. Other people have said that it is growth which does not cheat our children or that it is growth which we can have without depriving our children of their opportunity. Those kinds of notions are very difficult to make precise.
In the short time that I have available, I should like to highlight the difficulties of sustainable development and policy making rather than criticise what has been done, which I welcome. The problem is that there is no precise connection between the rate of economic growth, as we normally measure it in terms of GDP, and pollution. It is not true to say that rapid growth as measured in GDP causes pollution, and slow growth does not cause pollution. Stagnation and depression are just as bad at causing pollution as growth can be. In fact, it is not the rate of growth that matters; and it is not basically the level of income as growth rate. It is the composition of the income, the processes and products which are consumed and produced, which determine the amount of pollution that we suffer.
So one can have a sustainable development with either a high rate of growth or a very low rate of growth, depending upon the proper incentives that we give to producers and consumers to choose those processes and
996
products which are less polluting rather than high polluting. That is very important to remember. The old debate about whether the environment was a middle-class luxury or whether growth was causing the problem is completely misleading. If we are to take the public with us for a programme of sustainable development, we have to emphasise that the sacrifices that will be required are not so much in the level of consumption as in the kind of products that we consume and the processes that are used to produce them.
For example, it would make a great difference to pollution if we could find a better form of transport than the motor car as it is currently constructed. If that could be done, we could have as many cars as we wished with much less pollution. So that is the first point to bear in mind.
Secondly, the problem of sustainable development is very different for the rich countries compared with the poor ones. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, mentioned the problem of equality. But it is important to remember that the rich countries which have a very low population growth pollute more because of the amounts that they consume and the kind of consumption in which they indulge. So population growth is not at the heart of the problem.
The poor countries have a very different problem. Their problem does not so much concern air quality or global warming. Their problem is lack of clean water,"desertification" and deforestation. The people are so poor that they do not have the room to preserve the environment. They have to encroach on the environment just for daily living. The environment is a problem of the quality of life for the rich countries; it is a problem of life and death in the poor countries. That must be remembered. Unless there can be a vision which is not only long-sighted but global, we shall not be able to arrive at the correct policies that we would wish to have for sustainable development.
While population growth may seem like a problem, that is not where the problem lies. The real problem is poverty. We shall not have sustainable development if we preserve the current inequalities of wealth across the world. One sure way to ensure that we shall continue to have a problem will be to perpetuate the current distribution of resources. We must devise policies, either through trade or aid, and perhaps more through trade—I have not given up on trade as much as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has done—which would allow the poorer countries of the world that little bit of extra room which will make them care more for the environment than they are able to do at present. I do not believe that it is possible or even politically sound for us to say to China or India, "Please do not go down the way that we have gone because if you do you will ruin the environment." That is not possible.
Suppose we were able to give licences to pollute on a global basis in proportion to population or size of area. Then let countries trade those pollution licences. The rich countries pollute more than the poor countries. It has been calculated that if we had pollution licences which were tradable, it would take something in the order of 5 per cent. of the GDP of the rich countries to be transferred to the poor countries to be able to buy all

997
the pollution licences needed to do what we are doing today. Five per cent. of GDP is about seven times the total aid which has been given by all the rich countries to all the poor ones. We barely manage to give 0.7 per cent. of GDP in aid. The UK does not manage it—but most countries do not manage it. Five per cent. of GDP would be a tremendously large amount of money.
That brings ho me simultaneously the problem of equity across the globe and how much the rich countries with limited populations but lots of resources are presuming upon the global environment to sustain the levels of consumption that they are enjoying. I am not anti-consumption or anti-growth. But those costs right now are not being borne clearly because there are no property rights in the environment. I am perfectly happy to go along the market road. Going along the market road. if there were property rights in the environment we should be paying the correct price for it. But right now we do not have the proper markets; and in other areas we preach the free market doctrine and perhaps worsen the situation.
It is very important to remember that while individual actions are necessary, there has to be both a long-distance vision, much longer than the year 2000 or 2010, as mentioned in the paper, and it has to be a global vision. That al one will achieve sustainable development.
3.47 p.m.
Earl Temple of Stowe: My Lords, I am deeply sensible of the honour of being given this opportunity to make my maiden speech, and in particular to have the way so kindly opened for me, so to speak, by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley.
As some of your Lordships may be aware, this maiden speech has been some time in the making. When I first sat in your Lordships' House, I was given wise advice on the making of such a speech."Speak on your subject," they said."What is your subject?" Rather diffidently, I said that it was antique furniture, more particularly of the 17th and 18th centuries."Ah," they said,"Have you another subject?" Even more diffidently, I mentioned Samuel Pepys, his life and his diary. No great enthusiasm was generated, and as time passed I saw that there was indeed little chance of a debate arising to which I could contribute on either subject.
The problem was made no easier by the fact that my forebear, the Earl of Chatham, was renowned, I believe, among other things, for the length and depth of his speeches. However, in my researches I was cheered to find that his sister had said to Lord Macaulay,"Pitt knows nothing accurately except Spenser's Faerie Queene." So far as I know, that subject was never touched on in your Lordships' House.
However, I am extremely concerned about the environment and our use or misuse of it. As I live for part of the year in Orkney, which I think can claim more of its fair share of that invigorating factor the wind, I am very glad of the opportunity today to speak on wind power as an alternative source of energy.
In our daily lives, most of us can give only momentary thought to our dependence on oil and other
998
fossil fuels to provide light, heat and power for all our many needs. But, while supplies of those fuels are sufficient now, it is probable that they will not be so in 25 years' time, and in 50 years' time their shortage may well be acute. We will have, by then, to find alternative sources of renewable energy.
Nuclear power, at present the greatest source of alternative energy, requires an enormous amount of capital for its production. It can also be extremely dangerous, as experience from Russia has shown. There is no lack of wind around our coasts and on higher ground. We have a great deal of knowledge and experience of aerodynamics from our aircraft industry which we can call upon, and in these difficult times of recession there must be many who would be willing to take advantage of employment and who would bring with them technical expertise and skills.
I understand that wind power could eventually provide us with between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the energy we need. The areas best placed to take advantage of the prevailing winds would be Scotland, Wales, the North-West and South-West of England. Research is, of course, vital if wind energy is to make a significant contribution to Britain's needs. More aid than that given in the past is needed in this field, perhaps by government funding of those university faculties studying wind energy. Industry concerned with wind power should have, if not direct aid, plenty of incentives for practical research.
Now that we are more than ever integrated with the countries of the EC, the exchange of information on wind power conversion should flow more easily between member states. Denmark, in particular, ought to be an ally for consultation, since she leads Europe in the wind conversion industry. She has over 3,000 machines which produce 2 per cent. of heir electricity needs. The Danish plan is to raise that to 10 per cent. by the year 2000.
Perhaps the most ambiguous aspect of the wind energy programme, and one that concerns us all, is its effect on the environment. There has been considerable comment in the press recently about wind farms: their intrusion on the landscape and the noise they generate. There is cause for concern on both those counts. But the present dissipation of the earth's resources would seem to leave us with little alternative but to make what use we can of sources of renewable energy such as wind power.
There are, I believe,10 wind farms currently operating in Britain and much success has been reported in those areas. I am thinking in particular of farms in Wales and Cornwall, where individual enterprise has reaped its reward. There are, I understand, a further 60 wind farms under construction or awaiting planning permission. In relation to visual intrusion, I have seen the 10 windmills at Britain's first wind farm, at Delabole in Cornwall, referred to with appreciation as being "impressively statuesque". However, for the future of our environment, we must ensure that there is the fullest co-operation between government departments. local authorities, industry and conservationists when decisions are taken on the siting of wind generators and, in particular, wind farms.

999
In conclusion I should like to suggest that to explore new ways of working with the elements, rather than against them, may need a shift in perception. We might do well to remember what the playwright Fletcher so wisely said,
"He that will use all winds, Must shift his sail".
3.56 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, your Lordships are doubly fortunate this afternoon. First, the debate before us was opened so eloquently and thoughtfully by my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley; that, however, was compounded by the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Temple of Stowe, which was as amusing and as well thought out and reasoned a maiden speech as I have ever heard in the time in which I have been in your Lordships' House. He is greatly to be congratulated on that.
I should say that that does not come as a great surprise when I hear that he is interested in antiques, of whatever century, and also that he used to be a neighbour of my late lamented noble friend Lord Grimond and his equally lamented wife, Laura. Anybody who lives in Orkney must have a different perspective on life and know, as he suggested in his closing words, how necessary it is to go along with the grain rather then against it. I hope that he finds other subjects on which he is prepared to come and talk to us because I am sure that he has many other shots in his locker.
As my noble friend said earlier, I want to say a few words in regard to transport this afternoon because transport is a real problem in relation to the environment. The problem is that cars, buses, motor cycles and lorries in this country emit something like 30 million tonnes of CO2, let alone other gases, into the world atmosphere from the UK per annum. The other half of the problem is the attitude of government. Figures show that in this country car users doubled over the past 10 years and, we are told, will do so again. Listening to Mr. McGregor on the radio last night, it was clear that his response is that we must cope with that by building more roads. We are told that people must be free to choose. Indeed they should. But if the Government agree that emissions must be reduced, then we cannot start from the proposition that the market alone can decide. The market alone will not stop people exercising their free choice in a way which will reduce the predicted extra 25 million cars on our roads by the end of the century.
In making their commitment to Rio, the Government signed up to Agenda 21 in Chapters 9.13 and subsequent. It said under the heading, "BASIS FOR ACTION",
"there is need for a review of existing transport systems and for more effective design and management of traffic and transport systems … The basic objective of this programme area is to develop and promote cost-effective policies or programmes, as appropriate, to limit, reduce or control, as appropriate, harmful emissions into the atmosphere and other adverse environmental effects of the transport sector".
The chapter continues,
1000
"Governments at the appropriate level, with the co-operation of the relevant United Nations bodies and, as appropriate, inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations, and the private sector, should:
"Develop and promote, as appropriate, cost-effective, more efficient, less polluting and safer transport systems, particularly integrated"—
I stress the word "integrated"; it is a word the Government hate
"rural and urban mass transit".
The document further states that the Government should,
"promote cost-effective policies or programmes, including administrative, social and economic measures, in order to encourage use of transportation modes that minimize adverse impacts on the atmosphere; develop or enhance, as appropriate, mechanisms to integrate"—
again that word—
"transport planning strategies and urban and regional settlement planning strategies, with a view to reducing the environmental impacts of transport".
If the Government are serious about reducing emissions by the year 2000 to the level they were at in 1990, it is about time they started. We must have a two-pronged attack. First, we have to try to reduce harmful emissions. To a certain extent that is happening with the fitting of catalytic converters to motor cars. Secondly, we have to encourage people to use cleaner fuels. That is easier said than done because of the range of cleaner fuels available—all have drawbacks.
Bio fuels look attractive—this is a renewable source from rape seed, maize or sugar—until one realises that the CO2 they absorb during their growth is also pushed out into the atmosphere when one uses them as a fuel. Natural gas reduces the production of CO2 and carbon monoxide by 70 per cent., but the problem with natural gas is that it is a fossil fuel and is not renewable. Electricity is a nice clean fuel except that the technology is not yet developed enough to have motor cars, lorries and trucks doing all the things that we want them to do. In addition, the sources of the electricity are, on the whole, polluting. Indeed, what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, was saying earlier is relevant to that. Even with a clean power station, one is using up non-renewable resources at quite a high rate.
Although there is at the moment the catalytic converter, and although there is a shift from gasoline to diesel, people are now beginning to doubt whether diesel is all that clean a fuel because of the particulate exhausts that come from it.
There has to be a two-pronged attack. We have to do everything we can to find cleaner sources of energy for our transport. But at the same time we have to try to shift people from the undoubted freedom of their motor car and encourage them, help them and if necessary penalise them so that they go on to public transport. Here I fear that the Government have not really helped. The truth is that bus privatisation has been a disaster in terms of moving people from private cars onto buses. All the statistics indicate that that is the case. Now, from 1st April, privatisation of the railways will do the same thing.
I am sure that the Government have the resources, if they will only use them in the right direction, to improve the situation. There is an interesting article in The Times

1001
this morning by Simon Jenkins. The article relates to the situation in Malaysia but is relevant to this question. It states that,
"the Thatcher Government did not believe in subsidising British industry. In 1988 the Prime Minister was fiercely denying public support for the Channel tunnel high-speed link, in which many of the companies fighting for Malaysian contracts might have had a hand. Bluntly, the taxpayer built a dam in northern Malaysia rather than a railway southern Britain because railways do not sell arms".
That seems to be a perfect criticism of the Government's attitude to public transport in this country.
4 p.m.
Earl Kitchener: My Lords, the Sustainable Development document of this year is a welcome account of the Government's actions and plans; and it sets a good example by telling the reader that not only is the paper recycled, but the varnish on the front cover can be recycled once more. I am told that telephone directories cannot be recycled because of their solidity but that efforts, which I hope the Government are encouraging, are being made to remedy that. On the subject of paper, it can often be saved by the use of both sides of the sheet, and the three lists of speakers for today are an example.
The terms "environmentally friendly farming" and "organic farming" are roughly equivalent. Both are developments of the system used for thousands of years and so are known to be sustainable, an avowed target of the Government. Why then does so much less of the taxpayers' money go to it than to set-aside and to acreage payments? The latter generate much paperwork for farmers and need policing by a number—I am tempted to say an army—of civil servants. But there is a regulatory body, the UKROFS, which supervises other organisations which check farms for compliance with the organic rules at no cost to the taxpayer. Non-governmental organisations are well-liked by the Government, and of them I can only say that some in this field consider that good projects are being turned down.
Help for environmentally sensitive areas is most welcome; but in many ways the whole country fits that description. In the short term, organic farming might well cause, in addition to its environmental benefits, an increase in prices to the consumer; but I hope that the Government, nowadays largely by their influence on the CAP, will give it enough support to enable us to learn its long-term effects.
The clear and interesting maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Temple of Stowe, gives me an opportunity to mention a point about wind power. Its detractors accuse it of damaging flora and fauna to a degree which its supporters deny. Only an investigation sponsored by the Government is likely to be accepted as impartial.
4.7 p.m.
The Earl of Huntingdon: My Lords, I too should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for giving me the chance to speak in your Lordships' House for the first time on such an important topic. I am glad he did not dwell too long on the connection with
1002
Sherwood Forest. I am afraid that the tie to Robin Hood is firmly based in fiction, not fact. I hope to be brief and unprovocative.
Both sides of my family have strong ties with racing and politics. My maternal grandmother was a Stanley in the era of Hyperion; and my mother's father, Malcolm Bullock, represented Crosby in Lancashire for the Conservatives. My paternal grandfather is the only person to have both ridden and trained a Grand National winner, Ascetic Silver. His nephew, the 15th Earl, was a noted mural artist and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in the Attlee Government. These bloodlines have produced a flat racehorse trainer who sits on the Cross-Benches. I am afraid that I am no expert on 17th or 18th century furniture, or Samuel Pepys; but perhaps during Ascot week I may be of some help to your Lordships !
I am very lucky to be training in a small Berkshire village just to the south of the Ridgeway, one of the longest ancient stock routes. Much of the Berkshire Downs used to be sheep country; and East Ilsley, the next village, held the largest sheep fair outside London. Now much of the non-arable down land is only preserved in its open state as racehorse gallops in the area. On our summer down it is possible to ride in country that has been unchanged for generations. At this time of the year in early morning we hear the high-pitched calls of the curlews making their way north to their Scottish breeding grounds.
However, the reverse of this idyllic scene is all too close at hand and the contrast draws attention to the need for the resolutions adopted at Rio in June 1992 to be adhered to and steps taken to lead the way in environmental commitment. Article 4 of the Rio Declaration states:
"In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from, it".
The call of the curlew is quickly drowned by the frequent passing of Transatlantic jets and the occasional Concorde. The green calm of the Ridgeway is in strong contrast to the extremely busy and noisy A.34 which bisects it. The view to the north is dominated by the smoking stacks of Didcot power station, at present not equipped with sulphur cleansing processes, and the slightly less obvious building at Harwell which is a daily reminder of the difficulties posed by dealing with, and disposing of, nuclear fuel.
As many of your Lordships are aware, the individual does now have a reasonable chance of living to sustainable green standards. It is much easier now to find bottle banks and paper recycling points. It is easy to buy rechargeable batteries and longlife electric bulbs which use very little energy in the form of heat and last 10 times as long. As we have been told, green petrol and catalytic converters have improved the emission from far more cars. Recycling standards have risen, and writing paper and envelopes no longer stand out because of their obvious poor quality; you have to search for their green logo. Soon we shall be able to buy biodegradable containers made from oilseed rape.
But however hard individuals try, it is only government leadership that can achieve significant

1003
results in the main areas of energy saving, air pollution control, quality fresh water supply and safe waste disposal. Some European countries seem to be moving faster than we are. Bicyclists are much better looked after in Germany; and Cambridge even restricts cycle use now. Both the Netherlands and Germany have plans for a major reduction in carbon dioxide emissions significantly beyond the year 2000. Even the Americans who, under the last administration seemed to be dragging their feet at Rio, now have a vice-president in Al Gore who argued a strong case, when a senator, in his book, Earth in Balance, for,
"joint action to save our seriously threatened climate, our water, our soil, our diversity of plant and animal life and our entire living space".
People who have lived closer to the earth, the Indian tribes and the Aboriginals in Australia, have always recognised that the earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth. One small way that we might be able to help correct the balance in a practical and symbolic way, is to plant more broadleaf woodland. Perhaps if we could do this on long-term set-aside and encourage local schools to participate in the plans and perhaps adopt a wood, then we would be acting in a practical way to correct the loss of native trees and a new generation of school children will be given a very worthwhile natural history lesson. Some carbon dioxide would be removed, many more sites would be provided for native flora and fauna and in future the import levels of 80 per cent. of wood could be reduced.
If global warming is to be countered, if the biodiversity action plan is to be effective and if the sustainable development strategy is to be positive, we must lead from the front and set an example in our high standards of commitment to the principles behind the Rio Earth Summit. We might then both benefit from the huge international market in environmental services and products and be in a better position to influence developing countries on global environment which is under increasing threat from a world population that could nearly double in the next 40 years.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I believe that most of us found it a joy to listen to that maiden speech, which was almost lyrical. It certainly was a sign of commitment and deep principle and of the background from which the noble Earl comes. It is a notable political background. The fact that he is now sitting on the Cross-Benches does not mean that in future he cannot be extremely controversial. He has a budding opportunity for controversy in the depth of feeling which he showed. For most of us who are getting on a little bit it is lovely to welcome a young new Peer.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for enabling us to have this debate. For me it seems a long time since I was at the Earth Summit in Rio in June 1992. I was there representing the United Nations Association which, before and since, is playing a very important role with other non-governmental organisations and also in co-operation with the Government. I was pleased to be an NGO representative
1004
on the UK delegation. I do not believe that I was alone in thinking at Rio that at last the world leaders had begun to set us on the path towards sustainable development. I shall go on thinking that.
As the Prime Minister said in the Observer on 12th January,
"The challenges to us in protecting our children's inheritance are immense and they must be tackled globally and with a political will".
I want to review the extent of that political will. In terms of funding the signs are not good. At Rio the Prime Minister, John Major, pledged that Britain would provide "new and additional resources" for the global environmental facility, which is the financial facility created to assist developing countries in meeting their obligations under the international convention signed in Rio.
I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but in fact the resources for the global environmental facility will be increasingly transferred from the existing budget, and since it is a declining budget that spells ill for other parts of our overseas development programme. It is simply not good enough.
The general commitments which the Government agreed to at the Earth Summit were the ratification of the two conventions plus support for the setting up of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, which reviews countries' implementation of the very important Agenda 21—a kind of blueprint for sustainable development.
Today's debate is timely. The United Kingdom Government committed themselves at the Earth Summit to the ratification of the climate convention in December and I congratulate them on doing so and for publishing their climate action plan.
Later this year will see the publication of the second assessment report of the UN Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change. No doubt that will have a significant influence on the Government's preparations and specific policy commitments for the first meeting of the conference of the parties to the convention on climate change in 1995. That will be an historic event.
Sources close to the secretariat indicate to me that the report will emphasise the scale of the problems involved and the urgency for governments to plan for CO2 reduction well into the next century. While the UK Government strategy document identifies the year 2012 as the basis for their long-term planning, it is notable that programmes for greenhouse gas emission reductions are not provided for at all past the year 2000. I urge Her Majesty's Government to bring to the House their ideas on how they intend to reduce CO2 at the earliest possible date. I hope to hear about that from the Minister when he replies.
Her Majesty's Government also committed themselves to the ratification of the Biodiversity Convention at the Earth Summit. I am concerned that so far the Government have not yet ratified that convention. I want to know why that is. The position, as stated in the Government's biodiversity plan is that,
"The UK intends to ratify the Biodiversity Convention, given satisfactory progress towards securing safeguards regarding our concerns on the financial provisions of the Convention".

1005
Is that good enough? It is not. It has certainly not prevented the other members of the European Union—and, for that matter, Japan, Norway or even China—from ratifying the convention. I hope that the Minister will expand on the reasons for this reluctance to fulfil an original commitment. The United Kingdom Government are seen by some to be dragging their feet on vital environmental protection.
On this side of the House we support the immediate ratification of the Biodiversity Convention. As a minimum commitment I ask the Minister to confirm that ratification will follow any agreement at the forthcoming global environment facility meeting which will address funding mechanisms for the convention.
At the first meeting of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), the United States Vice-President, Al Gore, who was present at Rio and who has already been referred to, including in the maiden speech which I have already welcomed, said:
"I say to citizens of the developed world: we have a disproportionate impact on the global environment. We"—
that is, the developed world—
"have less than a quarter of the world's population—but we use three quarters of the world's raw material and create three quarters of the world's solid waste".
I met Mr. Gore during my stay in Rio and was much impressed by his commitment to the subject. I think that he will play an important part in the years to come.
Agreement was reached at the CSD last autumn to review again Agenda 21, breaking it down to be reviewed over a three-year period. At this year's CSD, governments have been asked to report on progress on the following Agenda 21 chapters: Human Settlement; Health, and Fresh Water, which has already been referred to; Hazardous Waste and Toxic Chemicals. Because of my interest in health, I am the chairman of the Health Round Table. There is a great deal of interest among the voluntary organisations and, indeed, in the Government on that subject. I understand that later this week the Government will submit their report to the commission on progress towards objectives in that area. However, it seems drat there is very little parliamentary involvement in and scrutiny of that process. I understand that although there was wide consultation with relevant bodies outside government for the UK strategy document, there has been very little for the national report. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will use the mechanism set up by stakeholders themselves. The United Nations Environment and Development UK Committee includes representatives from local government, business, trade unions and the voluntary sector. Its primary purpose is to promote discussion on Agenda 21 and to make the process of reporting to the CSD as public as possible. That will ensure that the review of Agenda 21 implementation is not a low key exercise carried out by overworked civil servants, but is a high profile assessment, involving the input and prospectives of society as a whole. These are vital issues which should concern the public as well as organisations.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, like others, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for initiating the debate and giving us the opportunity to hear two excellent maiden speeches.
My interest in this subject stems from the fact that when I was a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, I chaired the reports on the greenhouse effect and on nature conservancy. I was also a member of the sub-committees which studied innovation in surface transport and research into civil and nuclear power. Those four subjects are closely connected to sustainable development.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I think that the paper on UK strategy towards sustainable development is splendid. It is an excellent analysis, setting out all the factors clearly. If I have one criticism of it, it is that it is a bit short on decisions about action. However, if it does nothing else, it makes extremely clear the immense range of subjects and issues that relate to sustainable development, their complexity and their relationships with each other.
One theme runs through the strategy, appearing in chapter after chapter. I refer to the Government's clear policy of wishing to reduce dependence on regulations and to maximise the achievement of their aims through economic measures. I fully support that view. The trouble with regulations is that the first thing that people try to do is to get round them. The object of economic measures is to provide people with incentives to do the right thing, but that does not mean simply leaving it to the market to solve everything and sitting back and doing nothing, as was made extremely clear in the excellent paper which the Department of the Environment issued in November, entitled Making Markets Work for the Environment. If your Lordships have not read it, I strongly recommend it.
That paper set out a number of different ways in which markets could be encouraged, by fiscal and other measures, to move in the direction which is good for sustainable development. I should like to draw attention to a favourite of mine, tradeable permits. The paper sets out extremely clearly both the advantages and disadvantages of tradeable permits. It also makes clear the fact that one solution is not applicable to all problems—for instance, tradeable permits are not applicable to transport, in my opinion—but that there are different solutions, which are all dependent on each other. Efficient regulation depends on providing incentives. Therefore, I am disappointed that the only mention of tradeable permits comes in Chapter 33, with the suggestion that they might be considered for water pollution, water abstraction and sulphur emissions. I believe that they should be much more widely considered, particularly for all greenhouse gas emissions.
I turn now to the three other subjects of concern to me. The first is nature conservancy. I welcome the fact that the Government are now considering the merger of the Countryside Commission and English Nature which we recommended in our report and which already exists in Scotland and Wales. I remind the Government that

1007
one of our recommendations was that the remit of the joint consultative committee should be extended from nature conservancy also to cover countryside and landscape conservation. I believe that to be very important. I should also like to be assured by the Minister that he is satisfied that the joint consultative committee is functioning as it was intended to function and that, as we recommended in our report, it will drive forward nature conservancy on a national basis.
I turn next to transport. I fully share the concerns that were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. In our report, Innovation in Surface Transport, we recommended that the Government should develop and publish a strategy for transport as an aid to forward planning by transport industries. I detect some little signs that the Government may be going a bit further than the extremely negative response that they gave to our report when they stated:
"the Government does not consider that a comprehensive strategy mapped out today will be as good a guide to future opportunities as the market research and analysis which the various components of the transport system can and should do on their own account. It is much better that those responsible for particular decisions should take their own view on their best judgment than that all should be invited to conform to a Whitehall-devised scenario".
As the Government are considering road-pricing in certain areas and have committed themselves to a progressive increase in the tax on vehicle fuels, I hope that the Minister can assure us that the Government are now considering moving towards a transport strategy.
I turn now to nuclear power. The situation is extremely serious. One of our report's recommendations stated:
"There is no adequate alternative to fossil fuels other than nuclear energy. The United Kingdom must therefore retain the capability to develop and expand its nuclear power industry, in the most cost-effective way, taking full account of public concern over the impact of the nuclear programme on health and on the environment, where possible in collaboration with agencies in other countries".
But what do we get in the enormous document on sustainable development? This is the only mention:
"The Government is committed to maintaining the nuclear option for the future, provided that it can prove economic and maintains high standards of safety and environmental protection. The Government is considering options for the scope and format of a review of the future prospects for nuclear power in the UK".
How on earth can anybody expect nuclear power to be economic if we do not have the faintest idea of the Government's policy—indeed, if the Government's only policy is to consider "options" for a future review? It is an absurd situation. It is work which cannot lead to the development of nuclear capability in this country. They should go ahead now with encouraging nuclear electricity at Sizewell C. If they do not, the only nuclear capability available in the future would be one borrowed from France.
Another point I should like to make is that these documents—which are excellent and which point the way to what this country should do—concern only what should happen within this country. On this subject, above all, a policy for one country is quite insufficient. We must consider the situation in Europe and in a wider field. Very little has been said about that in the documents.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for opening this important debate. I am delighted that it gives me the opportunity to bang the drum once again on the subject of organic farming. I am afraid that your Lordships will be suffering a double whammy today as I am following my noble friend Lord Kitchener who also raised the matter.
In the document Sustainable Development I have looked in vain for any mention of organic farming. I make no apology for introducing the subject as it is undoubtedly one of the best methods of sustainable development of the environment. The reason why it is not, to the best of my knowledge, mentioned in the document—if my noble friend can tell me that it is mentioned, I hope that he will say where—is that it is perhaps not considered very important by the Government, as evidenced by the fact that their support for converting farmers to organic farming is to the tune of £ 1 million while their support for modern intensive farming—I shall not call it conventional—is to the tune of £ 1.2 billion. That is a ridiculous disparity, reflecting the Government's view on the matter, and it should be reformed.
The subject of sustainable development of the environment is clearly covered in the document. There are some seven paragraphs referring to pollution, fresh water control, contamination, agricultural and industrial, water pollution and energy supply. Those are all subjects which can be covered on the basis of waste management. We do not pay enough attention to waste management. Waste is rather more permanent than the wind power to which the noble Earl, Lord Temple of Stowe, referred in his entertaining and interesting maiden speech. The waste is human, agricultural, industrial and permanent and in even greater supply than the wind. We do not make enough use of it.
There are systems in existence. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who is unfortunately not in his seat, will know of the considerable effort being made with a new system by Biotechna using a Biocoil system at the Severn Trent Water Board's Stoke Bardolph effluent plant. That has been extremely successful and the by-products from it make it a self-supporting system. If we could use such self-supporting systems to a greater extent throughout the country we should go a long way towards obtaining the necessary amount of continuous production of power, which is a by-product of the system.
The document fails to mention either the Graessar or Biocoil principles, which are common knowledge in biotechnology. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Carver, will have researched the subject, but the application seems to be escaping the Government's attention. It is a photosynthesis programme using algae. It consists of feeding algae into a tower and pumping it through with the effect of photosynthesis, delivering at the end a feed product that can be fed to animals. The Biocoil towers form a complex photosynthesis plant, presently working in an integrated sludge conversion unit at Stoke. If your Lordships will allow me to be

1009
technical for a moment, the micro algae chlorella is intensively cultivated in the coils and reacts with the nutrient graded effluents which are then separated. The absorbed nutrients are biochemically incorporated into proteins and extracted. The excess chlorella biomass can be removed for drying and used as animal feed—a completely recycled system.
In another form the algal product is extremely combustible, and after milling it can be used to drive a diesel generator. This is yet another process of power generation with zero CO2 emission. We all know of the gas man Sid. This is another Syd, the symbiotic diesel. The symbiotic diesel is powered entirely by the highly combustible algal product which is milled. I should like to ask my noble friend whether the Government plan any further use of the photosynthesis process.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, the subject of the debate is a very large one, and time is limited. I shall therefore address only one aspect which I believe lies close to the heart of our concern. In the end, it may be the most important of all the issues raised at the Rio conference. I speak of the need to win public support throughout this country for the Rio agreements, for the steps we are taking to implement them and, more important, for the tougher policies which will surely follow in their wake over the next decade and in the next century.
To put the issue in a simplified and dramatic form, the stakes are rising as each environmental conference takes place. The first conference in Stockholm 20 years ago was the curtain raiser. There was much talk, some argument, and agreement was reached to set up a new United Nations agency, UNEP. At Montreal we agreed to phase out CFCs, which we could readily do without anyway. At Rio perhaps the most significant agreement was that setting limits on carbon dioxide emissions. It so happens that we can hope to meet that target by abandoning most of our coal mines. Of course, that was not the reason why we shrank the coal industry; rather, we should have little chance of meeting the Rio target if we had not done so, in the absence of other policies for the purpose.
What will the next environmental conference require us to do? I do not know, but I suppose we shall be obliged to make further undertakings to meet stricter pollution targets. Car emissions is one obvious possibility. This will create great difficulty for us. To limit personal transport and restrict car use will be extremely hard. We are used to that way of life and all that it represents. It gives us freedom and mobility, and enlarges our personal lives. But I believe that the moment of restriction is bound to come. It is in that context that we need to look at the Rio conference. Is our implementation of the Rio agreements sufficient not only to meet the obligations they prescribe but also to prepare the nation for the next more difficult phases?
I suggest that there are three broad ways in which a tough environment al programme can be delivered: first, by statute law—in a word, enforcement—perhaps by schemes of rationing; secondly, by fiscal means—measures such as the carbon tax to limit consumption; and thirdly, by persuasion. We may need to employ all
1010
three methods but I believe that persuasion is much the best. If the population of this country believes that our style of life is indeed endangering the stability of the planet, it will become accustomed to that notion and, finally, will want to do something about it. The whole problem then becomes transformed. Citizens will be more ready to accept radical changes in our pattern of living, earning, spending and travelling.
I have looked at the Government's strategy to implement the Rio accords from that angle. What is being done to inform the nation and to win its active support? At the end of the book on sustainable development there is a chapter called "Working Together". It is the last chapter, chapter 38. There are some good things in it and it records initiatives taken by the Government and by non-official bodies. There is also, encouragingly, reference to a new proposal called a citizens' environment initiative. It seems that that idea is still at the embryonic stage but the emphasis is on promoting a national debate to coincide with World Environment Day which is due to take place in this country in June of this year.
I have nothing to say against those proposals but I urge the Government to give much higher priority to the whole issue of publicity and information. It is perhaps not wholly by chance that the subject appears in the very last chapter of the book and that part of the citizens' environment initiative seems to be to pass the initiative to the citizens. I hope that I am wrong about that.
The environmental problem is becoming more serious with every passing year. It no longer seems an exaggeration to regard the problem as one of the gravest threats to our future. If we are to win the support of the citizens of this country for some of the draconian solutions now being canvassed, it will require a more ambitious programme of public information than is now contemplated. That cannot be left to the nongovernmental organisations, invaluable though they are. I believe that we shall need an extensive programme of work in schools in particular and on television which is now much the best medium through which to reach the public at large and is the ideal medium for publicity on this subject. It is with reluctance that I conclude that that will require a high profile government-financed body, perhaps on the lines of the Health Education Authority which has done so much to promote knowledge about disease and how to prevent it in the past few years.
We may have succeeded in meeting the obligations imposed by the Rio conference by the means described in the Government's publication. But it does not require much foresight to see far graver problems ahead. We should use this moment—the execution of the Rio programme—to set up a serious public information campaign. Only in that way will our commitment to the Rio policies serve as a proper preparation for the greater difficulties which lie ahead.
4.44 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, both because each day's business in your Lordships' House begins with Prayers and because your Lordships may expect something of a Sermon from this Bench, I hope noble Lords will understand if I go behind the

1011
practicalities which have been highlighted so far in the debate, and some in the two excellent maiden speeches, to the reasons why sustainable development is so crucial and urgent for the present as well as the future of this world.
It was the great Archbishop Temple who said that Christianity is the most materialistic of all religions because matter matters. It matters not only because in Christian theology God manifested himself in the full human life of Jesus Christ, but also because the universe, and this world within it, belongs to the One believed by the three monotheistic world religions to be its creator. As the Psalmist says:
"The earth is the Lord's, and all the fulness thereof".
That is a psalm that I used at the beginning of today's proceedings.
Yet the Christian tradition, which has had such a formative influence on Western thought, has not been unambiguous in its attitude towards the natural order of creation and the use of its resources. But perhaps the dominant view in the West, certainly since Francis Bacon in the 16th century and until recently, has been one of domination and exploitation by the human race.
That was given Biblical respectability by the first of the creation accounts in Genesis in which the man and the woman were given:
"dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth".
With such a mandate, it is not surprising that many have taken a view of the world as a resource for us to use and exploit as we wish.
For example, Thomas Aquinas said that animals are:
"by divine providence … intended for man's use in the natural order of things. Hence it is not wrong for man to make use of them either by killing or in any other way whatever".
In Tudor times, such thinking was used by some to sanction cock-fighting and bear-baiting. Some of Calvin's more extreme followers believed that because the sin of Adam had perverted the whole order of nature in earth and heaven, the natural world was devoid of God and therefore worthless, except for ruthless exploitation.
That exploitation has taken many forms over the years and, not without some justification, Christianity has been blamed for our current ecological crisis. The historian Lynn White, for example, has argued that the Christian doctrine of creation is unabashedly anthropocentric, giving humans leave to use the earth as they see fit and:
"to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects".
More pointedly, Theodore Roszack links the view of nature engendered by the Christian tradition with exploitative capitalism. He says:
"And has this not become our predominant way of viewing the world: as so much raw material, there but to manure the growth of economies? Today when 'realistic' people look at nature around them—mountains, forests, lakes, rivers—what is it they see? Not divine epiphanies, but cash values, investments, potential contributions to the GNP, great glowing heaps of money".
It may be—and I hope it does—that that overstates the situation but there is sufficient truth in it to make me, for one, feel uncomfortable and to believe that
1012
repentance should be part of our response to the crisis which has occasioned the meeting of the earth summit in Rio.
Yet there is another strand in the Christian tradition which accords fully with the concerns of environmentalists, ecologists and those who describe themselves as "green". It would endorse the Brundtland Report's statement that:
"there are … moral, ethical, cultural, aesthetic and purely scientific reasons for conserving wild beings".
And it recognises that some of our thinking has, in the past, tended to concentrate on the salvation of human beings to the exclusion of much anxiety about the rest of creation. In that it has been untrue to the overall Biblical view of creation which suggests that it exists not simply for human use but has intrinsic value and delights God Himself so that He makes flowers flourish where people never tread, He cares even for sparrows, and created the trees of the wood to sing for joy.
If Aquinas represents the utilitarian view of creation, then it is Francis of Assisi who reminds us of the need for wonder and reverence: reverence for brother sun and sister moon and all the works of creation, because not only do they belong to God but also they reflect something of His character and providence.
Moreover, as Paul suggests, inasmuch as the natural order has been affected by human selfishness—and do we need any proof of that?—it is God's purpose to restore all creation, together with humanity, to the harmony and fulfilment for which it was brought into being.
That vision is one that is finding increasing support in the Churches and green theology is an accepted part of our academic endeavours. It seeks to restore the balance between the exploitation of and a sense of wonder for the works of nature and talks in terms of stewardship rather than of domination. The stewardship, with its demand for responsibility for this world and its resources, is the proper description of the role of human beings to be derived from scripture and the mainstream Christian tradition.
There is also our responsibility for the poor and the disadvantaged in today's world, as well as for the generations who will follow us. They, too, belong to God as well as to us and economic policies must always be guided by moral considerations. We are our brothers' and sisters' keepers whether we like it or not. We are confronted with an issue of justice.
I warmly support the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in expressing his concern and thank him for doing so. Further, I believe that I speak for many of those with religious faith in pledging our support for those who seek to implement the decisions of that summit. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, I am mindful that no amount of legislation (or taxation) alone will effect the changes which we need and need quickly. There has also to be the convincing and the converting of the population of our country as a whole—the winning of their hearts as well as their minds into accepting the need for whatever changes of lifestyle may be required.
Because we face a crisis which is not only ecological, economic and social but also moral and spiritual, I am

1013
happy to support all who seek to bring the changes which are needed for the future of this world. I believe that the Churches are already engaged in seeking to make our world a more beautiful as well as a more equitable place in which to live for God's sake as well as for our own.
4.52 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for introducing this timely and vital debate. I must say that the views that I am about to express are entirely my own though I anticipate that people of all parties, and of none, will come to see the sense and the necessity of resource economics which I am sure is our best guarantee of sustainable economic development.
First, though, I should like to look at the serious implications of the commitments made by the Government when they signed the Rio Declaration. Currently, the USA consumes two-fifths of the total energy consumed in the world. The USA, the territories covered by the former Soviet Union, western Europe and Japan between them use twelve-and-a-half times as much energy as that consumed by the rest of the world put together. Yet they—or, perhaps, I should say, we—contain only 16 per cent. of the world's population.
The intention to encourage the rest of the world to achieve our present standard of resource consumption may be politically correct; but it is scientifically untenable; it is a mathematical impossibility. Economic development on the scale presently envisaged is incompatible with the planned reduction or stabilisation of levels of pollution, leaving aside completely the question of resource depletion. We simply cannot ourselves go on using energy at the present level.
We need to harmonise the profit motive and the conservation motive and steer our economic life in the direction of good planetary housekeeping. Our best chance of achieving an economy that is globally attainable and sustainable and in balance with the forces of nature is to adopt the resource economics proposition as the operating basis for our economic life.
At present, economics is based on money; and money, according to the definition I like best, is an idea backed by confidence. In other words, money is an abstraction. On the other hand, resource economics is based on the physical reality of internationally recognised units of energy.
To explain the basic idea, I quote from an article written in 1986 by one of the main contributors to the resource economics proposition, Farel Bradbury:
"Resource economics … form a 'natural' economic structure for human societies. The physical value of all activity in nature is measured in units of energy and obeys inviolate laws of thermodynamics. All animal and plant species use energy in the natural economies of their own environment to achieve a balance; a dynamic equilibrium. Man, uniquely, has perceptions of 'value' outside these natural constraints and uses money (currency) to express this value for the purposes of exchange of goods and services. Under present economic methods, money value is unrelated to physical value and so we have a poor linkage with the natural environment. Consequently, there is little constraint either on the exploitation of natural resources or on wastes returned to the environment. Apart from changing"—
though here I would prefer the word "distorting"—
"our perceptions of the 'quality of life' on this planet, these unbalanced incentives, are now known to be limiting on
1014
mankind's future development and well-being. [Resource economics] links money value with physical (energy) value to achieve natural balances in a human 'dynamic economy'".
We have economics based on the abstract foundation of money and a commerce that co-exists somewhat uneasily with a strong environmental awareness, especially with respect to economic competitiveness. So how do we integrate good environmental practice into the mainstream of economic life? How do we harmonise the profit motive and the conservation motive? The answer to both those questions and to many more is to implement the resource economics proposition. That is a totally integrated and complete economic strategy which has the following five elements. First, any government for any defined geographical area—for example, the United Kingdom or the European union—can adopt resource economics by applying a tax on all primary energy consumed in that area.
Secondly, this tax is applied to all sources of primary energy such as coal, oil, gas, hydro-electric power, nuclear power, timber and any others which become significant. It is applied at the point where the primary energy source first enters the economic chain or system. It is applied at a uniform rate in units of currency for a defined energy value, regardless of the form of primary energy. A suggested unit of energy for that purpose is the gigajoule, which is equivalent to having the traditional one-bar electric fire on continuously for 13 days and nights. Political decisions would be required on a number of issues, including whether to treat renewables differently from non-renewables.
Thirdly, the tax is also applied on the statutory primary energy content of all imports to, and rebated on all exports from, the defined area. The statutory primary energy content would be calculated for each group of products and would appear as an additional column in the UK integrated tariff. Rebating the tax on the statutory primary energy content of exports and charging it on that of imports eliminates any disadvantage which a country or group of countries would experience vis-à-vis those where resource economics was not being used.
Fourthly, this energy tax replaces all other taxes except possibly certain excise duties which are imposed for social reasons like tobacco and alcohol duties. At present there are 88 taxes of various kinds to which we are subject. The new tax replaces all of them so ending all taxation on wages, salaries, dividends and business profits of individuals and corporations.
Political decisions would be necessary to determine the order in which taxes were replaced. My personal preference would be to start with VAT. For this purpose, the tax rate would be set to raise the same amount of revenue that now accrues from VAT, and the same proportion would be rendered unto Caesar in Brussels as at present with VAT.
Fifthly, the rate of the new tax is set high enough to enable a basic income to be paid to every citizen, thus, when fully implemented, abolishing all existing social security benefits. That is clearly another area where

1015
political decisions would be paramount. However, I see the basic income as an integral part of the resource economics proposition.
The new energy tax is in fact a unit tax because it is levied on a unit of energy but it replaces virtually all existing taxes and so it has become known as UNITAX, which is also an acronym made up of Unified National Indirect Taxation.
One obvious and major effect of this change would be to alter the economic balance between people and machines. Wages and salaries would most likely fall by the amount of the basic income. People would also be cheaper to employ because, when UNITAX is fully implemented, the additional costs of employment such as national insurance and PAYE will have been eliminated.
Reducing the cost of employing people while increasing the cost of consuming energy, leads to more employment. It would also raise the priority that business managers gave to energy conservation. This would, I am sure, go far to redressing the present imbalance between intensive, high input agriculture with its reliance on relatively cheap energy, and more labour intensive low input agriculture. The pressure for change to more sustainable agriculture producing more wholesome food would have the support of market forces and so would occur—dare I use the word?—naturally.
One further major benefit of the basic income is the "flywheel" effect on the economy. Paying people to consume makes it impossible for economic activity to reduce beyond a certain level. Used as the operating basis for our economic life, resource economics will bring about the changes that I am sure most people, including the noble Earl who will reply to this debate, do, in their heart of hearts, hope to achieve. These changes would be phased in over a period of, say,20 years. They represent, in the words of the Prime Minister, a hard-headed approach to sustainability based on good science and robust economics.
5.1 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I, too, wish to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for introducing the debate and for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important matter. I wish to express my appreciation of the contributions of our two maiden speakers, both of whom I am glad to see are, like myself, on the Cross Benches.
I declare an interest in that I am a farmer and landowner and also a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I wish to put in a plea for those who are at the sharp end of working the land and who in many cases regard themselves as being very much in the front row of Pharaoh's army because there has been much play on the role of sustainable agriculture and the grant aid and government schemes put in place to achieve it. In reality, the situation on the ground is a good deal more pedestrian, I fear.
For 40 years and more farmers and landowners were encouraged to maximise production and to make two blades of grass grow where one grew before. They were
1016
given grants to plough up moorland, grub up hedges, drain wetlands and so on. A great deal of public money was expended and there was also a great deal of private financial commitment. However, that process created an economic momentum and resulted in an expectation in some of our poorer areas of a reasonable living among those who had had a low-grade economic existence previously.
Among the myriad of environmental agencies that are now involved, the same department that gave us those grants now has a generous range of awkward, complicated schemes seemingly designed to pay out as little as possible and to control land use to the maximum degree. It was far easier to get paid for doing acts which are now regarded as desecration than it is to get paid for doing things which are now regarded as desirable environmental objectives. I feel that that is wrong. I shall illustrate my point by referring to two instances from my own landholding.
My first example relates to a small five-acre area of grassland which is protected statutorily for nature conservation. It is remote from other grazing and was last ploughed in the 1960s. Recently, following its designation, half of it was ploughed with permission but subsequently that did not prove satisfactory and I applied to plough the other half. I was refused that consent and it was suggested that I manage half of a five-acre field—it is not sub-divided by any fence and it has to be seen in the context of 400 other acres—for a standstill mode that to me is neither cost effective nor practical in the context of farm management. I can only conclude that this is a precautionary policy because the biodiversity of the habitat may be important. The conservation agency concerned has certainly chosen well. It cannot force my co-operation to achieve the impractical and it is unable to fund its objectives to make them worthwhile. It has failed to convince me that its scheme will work or that the overriding conservation interest is even present. I am prevented from upgrading the pasture to make it economic. A management agreement would, I am afraid, simply add to the bureaucratic muddle already existing and impose new obligations upon me.
I turn to my second example. During the course of last year I applied to remove a particularly prominent and unsightly block of sitka spruce from an area adjacent to a public highway and replant it somewhere less intrusive. As usual the matter went through the glorious rigmarole known as consultation. However, none of the agencies seemed able to agree. One did not want conifers at any price while another did not want trees at any price. One wanted no change at all while another wanted to preserve the silvicultural mass that was already there. The consultation process took months. Again, I do not feel that that is a satisfactory way of dealing with the issue of sustainability in the countryside.
Where government and conservation agencies pitch their interpretations of policy in direct confrontation with socio-economic activity using non-recourse powers, and to my mind failing to pay a great deal more than lip service to the concept of involving landowners and farmers in discussions at the earliest stage, there can

1017
be no good forward and committed on-site management for the agencies' purposes and objectives. Indeed, I believe there is an increasing disillusionment today—I am sorry to record this—with environmental schemes. They simply demand too much and offer too little. What is more to the point, they circumscribe entrepreneurial activity.
If sustainability of environmental goods for the future is to be achieved, the co-operation of those at the sharp end is necessary. As regards agricultural activity and land management in our rural areas, we simply cannot turn the clock back. Those in the rural areas have to compete for goods and services in the general economic market at large and, more to the point, the countryside has an important role to play in responding to the demands of an increasingly mobile and largely urban society. I do not mean that in any pejorative sense.
On this small island we have to deal with the socio-economics of people, not the imposition of ideologies. Public: opinion is easily swayed and manipulated by those whose business is environmental public relations. If we do not achieve proper resource management, all the hypotheses, all the policies and a great deal of money will be wasted and, what is much more important, the environment with it. That will not happen through lack of knowledge but through bad handling. I conclude by saying that sustainability of good, committed land management is also a finite resource.
5.8 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for asking us to focus our attention on sustainable development. For my part I wish to concentrate on biodiversity problems that lie at the root of the United Kingdom's, and indeed the Earth's, questionable sustainability. Where agriculture is concerned, the crux of the issue of sustainability lies in man's balance of the elements of sun, air, soil and water. Any gardener knows that management inputs to conserve and nurture his soil and to maintain its structure create an in-built productivity. On a world scale the productivity of soil is falling fast.
The once famous and fertile plains of the Russian fanning belts are swiftly being depleted and drained of their nutrients, their fibres, their life blood, and because of that, even their worms. Therefore, the country with over 60 per cent. of the world's arable land will be looking to other countries to balance its agricultural production targets in the future. Those problems must not be allowed to develop here. We need a more substantial, lasting framework for resolving the policy failures of EC agriculture. There are many organisations that have come together under one umbrella, so to speak, called the Safe Alliance; namely, Sustainable Agriculture Food and Environment. Those member organisations are proof of the recognition that many issues of public interest and concern are intimately interrelated and many members of such organisations are farmers. Mary of their concerns are justified, especially when we look at the vast payments being made to high input farmers in the form of subsidies both for over-production and under-production. On the one
1018
hand they are paid because too much of one commodity is grown, while on the other they are paid for growing nothing at all. Where is the balance in that: action? Just as the position of the fulcrum is paramount to the balance of a set of scales, so must production be in balance with nature.
Biodiversity objectives should be integrated into all policies that drive agriculture, forestry and land use issues generally. Unlike some countries, the UK is well placed to take urgent and effective conservation action and could set the standards for other nations to follow. In this country we have the scientific knowledge of our wildlife and the administrative structures, such as statutory conservation bodies, to deliver biodiversity objectives. But farmers must be included in the dialogue.
An example of the targets for species is the breeding population of the stone curlew, a farmland bird currently declining through changes in land use to a level of approximately 160 breeding pairs. Here I refer to the excellent maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon. I raise the point because, in the Government's sustainable development document, which I commend, the stone curlew is highlighted as an example of the role government departments might play in biodiversity action. A clear cut target is given of increasing the breeding population to 200 pairs by the year 2000. We need more such specific targets for the whole range of UK species and habitats, backed by action plans for their attainment and clear monitoring and review arrangements.
The local communities in the Brecklands of East Anglia are closely involved in the plight of the stone curlew. More than 25 farmers are involved in helping the stone curlew to improve its breeding success by protecting its nesting sites. Farmers and others are keen to help once the problem is properly discussed and an action plan agreed. This is an excellent example of species conservation, and the same is possible for the stone curlew's habitat, such as grass heaths.
Whichever way one looks at it, the arable set aside scheme will allow large areas of Breckland to provide nesting sites for the stone curlew. All that is required are clear targets to identify the hectares required, backed by generic conservation actions, such as the farm and conservation grant scheme, provided by the Government. That poses the question whether the Government will set targets and objectives for all vulnerable species and habitats in the United Kingdom for the year 2000. Will the Government ensure that the farm and conservation grant schemes and other agricultural schemes have those targets as their guide in assessing the application and the scope of the schemes?
We eagerly await the Government's planning policy guidance note on nature conservation, which we hope will reaffirm their objectives of conserving the abundance and diversity of British wildlife and its habitats. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Temple of Stowe, will be asked to plant a hardwood tree on the set aside of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, which may one day become period furniture for the great grandchildren of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon. That would be seen as sustainable.

1019
Almost 77 per cent. of the United Kingdom's land surface is in farming use. Within that area there is a great diversity of farming types—and I do not mean only the farmers. There is a variety of climate, geology, soil and local traditions. That diversity in itself can represent a managed biodiversity in which we can nurture and look after our earth, whether by improving livestock management to minimise pollution from wastes or through improved crop management to reduce the need for fertilisers and agrochemicals such as pesticides. There are many examples.
Free technical advice is made available to farmers on pollution and conservation issues. There are codes of practice, for example, on good upland management and good agricultural practice for the protection of water, of air, and, shortly, of soil.
Much of the countryside in the UK is of great beauty and a focus for recreation and tourism. Our national parks receive more than 100 million visits each year. That must represent our enjoyment of biodiversity and its importance for recreation and tourism. Here the countryside ranger can play a vital role in interpreting biodiversity for visitors, including school and community groups, and in holiday play and adventure schemes. Countryside rangers are to be encouraged.
In the light of the Government's recent documents on sustainable development strategy and the biodiversity action plan, I question whether the objectives of that plan measure up to the signed commitments agreed in May 1992—the so-called agri-environment regulation, which was the "green" part bolted on to the CAP reforms. I refer to the regulation under which the Government intend to introduce their organic aid scheme, which sadly seems to be wholly under-funded, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Kitchener. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government will use their power under the regulation to implement other schemes to preserve biodiversity in the field.
I trust that the Government will not confine their commitments under the EC agri-environment pro-gramme, the biodiversity convention and agenda 21 to hedgerows, set aside land and environmentally sensitive areas. Many of the technical and economic difficulties in growing our food in more biologically diverse ways are no longer insurmountable. This is not the first time that I have mentioned the use of genetic engineering, especially when it can liberate food processing and manufacturing from specifications that force farmers into unsustainable and harmful farming practices. There is now an opportunity for the Government to integrate crop management and environmental protection into a single policy that can reach in from the hedgerows to the centre of every field in the land.
There are powerful interests vested in the status quo to keep farming the way it is—blinkered from reality yet eager to accept EC cash handouts. But we can get off the high input fertiliser and agrochemical syndrome yet still meet our food needs and the needs of future generations. The central organising principle for the development of that new harmony, the holistic approach between agriculture and the environment, is planned biodiversity in every field.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for giving us an opportunity to debate this very important and timely question.
"Sustainable development" seems to me to be an unsatisfactory term because its meaning is not entirely clear. In his foreword to the Government's document on sustainable development, the Prime Minister said:
"Sustainable development is difficult to define. But the goal of sustainable development can guide future policy".
A policy based on a concept that cannot easily be defined may be subject to confusion.
I know that others have been worried about that aspect. The Secretary of State for the Environment has suggested a definition to the effect that our policies are
"not cheating on our children".
I sympathise with that approach. We need to get away from jargon. For example, in Chapter 9 of the sustainability document relating to the sea, on page 66 it is stated:
"Inputs to the sea from anthropogenic sources are generally declining".
Some of those outside the circle of professional scientists may not immediately recognise what anthropogenic sources are.
We need to focus the widespread public concern on these matters. I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Bridges said about the matter, which was very important. I suggest that the use of plain English in defining the problem is very important.
The issue we are debating is how to ensure a good level of necessary economic activity and development while making certain that such activity is monitored and controlled so that it does not damage or destroy the things which all of us value—our heritage, our countryside, our wildlife, our rivers and lakes and, not least, our health and that of our children. I hope that some of the more imaginative of your Lordships can think of better terms in which to describe the problems and the solutions. I prefer a term such as "civilised development".
On the substance of the issue, we can all see what happens when development is allowed to take place without proper regard for the values we all respect. There are startling examples in Russia and Eastern Europe where the authorities pressed on with development and ignored environmental considerations, with damaging results not merely for wildlife and the environment but also serious consequences for people. In the North Sea we have grave problems of over-fishing and of industrial fishing. That may well be the reason that so many birds which have died from starvation are being washed up on the beaches of Scotland and Northern England at present. The RSPB believes that the number may be as many as 100,000. The problems were addressed in your Lordships' sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. There are grave problems in the North Sea. For instance, over a year after the disaster of the "Braer", oil tankers are still able to go wherever they wish. It has been

1021
estimated that 72 per cent. of the oil in the world seas is the result of deliberate dumping by ships. That is a serious problem.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, raised the question of transport. Roads are important. Some time ago in your Lordships' House I raised the question of the battlefield of Naseby which was threatened by a link road. Every one of your Lordships who spoke, except the Minister who responded, shared my concerns. But that road is now being built. The road will be sustainable; the battlefield will not.
We must get away from the policy of simply building more motorways. You can see what happens to a beautiful part of the world if you go to Hampshire. There are roads all over the place and what was beautiful countryside 30 years ago has been severely damaged in many places. We desperately need a proper transport policy with the promotion of good alternatives to the motor car.
I understand that there will be a speech tomorrow in another place by the Secretary of State for Wales. If reports are correct, it will be encouraging because it seems as though he will introduce policies for roads in Wales which will take account of environmental considerations. If that is true, I shall welcome such a policy—and it wi11 be a case once more of Wales showing the way.
Another problern relates to superquarries in Scotland. Wonderful aspects of the coast are being threatened. Scottish Natural Heritage has stated that inappropriately sited superquarries could gravely damage Scotland's outstanding coastal and marine environments. I am sure that that is true.
Of course we have made progress. We have the Clean Air Acts. There is the excellent work of the NRA under the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. After much effort we have had success in including environmental responsibilities in agriculture and fisheries. But much more needs to be done. The recently published government documents were valuable but disappointing on targets and specific policies.
Perhaps I may say a brief word about biodiversity—another awful word. An admiral research paper on biodiversity was produced last year by the Library of another place. I commend it to your Lordships. It contains some startling information. The paper states:
"It has been estimated that 140 plant and animal species are becoming extinct in tropical rain forests every day and that perhaps half of all existing species will become extinct in the next 50 to 100 years".
It states that such rates of extinction may be about 1 million times faster than the rate of speciation; and that forests are being felled at the rate of about 4,500 acres every hour. It points out that loss of species is irreversible. The paper is worth studying. The main problem is in tropical countries where the bulk of the species are. But we have problems in this country too. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has just referred to stone curlews, but there are problems too with corncrakes, both species of shrikes, partridges, skylarks and corn buntings, and now with song thrushes, and even sparrows and starlings. Those species have all declined, some of them very dramatically. The reasons
1022
for those declines are complex. However, it seems important that we should have much more vigorous research into the causes and then firm action.
I am glad that with regard to biodiversity the Government acknowledge the need for targets. The joint agencies can lead the way. It is important, too, that we fulfil our obligations in CITES, that we stop damage to SSSIs and that we implement fully the species and habitats directive.
I wish to ask the Minister one question. I have given him notice of it. What is the position regarding the exceptions that have been sought by Norway to the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species, and the habitats directive? Norway has asked for exemption for several species of fish, terrestrial mammals, seals and whales. I understand that its application to join the Community was adjourned! yesterday. What is the position about that?
In summary, there is a need for balance but, as stated in Article 4 of the Rio Declaration,
"In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it".
I believe that that concept is vital and we must remember it all the time.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I, too, should like to add to the congratulations which all noble Lords have extended to my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley on the wide ranging and impactive way in which he introduced the thoughtful debate we have had today. I wish also to say how impressed we all were with the two maiden speeches. I much admired the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Temple of Stowe, but for personal reasons I would have been very interested to have heard hi. m make his speech on Samuel Pepys. For one moment II thought that he might do so. It brings back early memories for me. In the distant period before the war, I was an undergraduate at Magdalene College, Cambridge, which has Pepys associations. It is where his library is housed. Every year on his birthday there was a feast. That was convenient for me because it happens also to be my birthday. It was the habit of the college, indicating the fact that they had read the Diary, to quote from it after each course. On one occasion, one of the courses was, rather unimaginatively, salmon and cucumber. The quotation was,
"This day Sir Wm. Batten died of eating concombers".
That was one occasion when green was not particularly helpful.
There is no doubt about the timeliness of the debate. However, I was struck by some remarks by the right reverend Prelate. He reminded us that it is relatively recently that there has been a concern in philosophic and religious thinking about the environment and the animal kingdom. With the notable exception of St. Francis of Assisi, most thinking has been in the other direction. In fact, it has been a matter of only a few decades since we began thinking seriously about the environment. Now the subject is rooted in our minds. One of the reasons for

1023
the virtual disappearance of green parties is that all parties have now become green; and there is no specific role for a party totally devoted to that concept.
The Government are to be congratulated on the response that they have made to that move, and in many cases for the lead that they have given to it. They actively participated at the Rio conference. They produced the documents which they were committed to produce. They are responding promptly to the situation.
It is an issue which will obviously live with us. It has many major and various economic and social implications. Indeed, that was demonstrated by the contribution made by my noble friend Lord McNair when he deduced from the environmental issue that we might change the whole system of taxation—an interesting proposition which I am sure we would all like to read about and ponder on.
One of the most important aspects of the whole environmental issue is the threat of global warming. It is on that aspect that I wish to concentrate my remarks. The Government's aim, as we well know, is to ensure that the CO, emissions which are largely responsible for global warming will be no greater in the year 2000 than in 1990. They have deployed in some detail how that is to be achieved. What they have set out to do is to show that there can be savings of 10 million tonnes of carbon emissions because their calculations suggest that, starting with 158 million tonnes of carbon emissions in 1990, we would reach the level of 168 million tonnes if corrective action were not taken.
I wish to look at the various measures the Government propose and consider whether they are likely to lead to the desired results. Quite clearly, carbon emissions are directly related to levels of energy consumption on the one hand, and to the energy mix on the other, to which noble Lords have referred. That leads one immediately to the question of electricity generation because it is the single largest contributor to carbon emissions and it involves a mix of primary fuels which are converted into electrical energy, which is vital to our way of life.
If we consider the primary fuels which go into electricity generation, on the one hand there is coal which, used in the traditional and existing manner, contributes most to environmental pollution; and, on the other hand, nuclear which contributes least. However, nuclear has its own environmental problems which will no doubt be addressed when we receive the long awaited document on nuclear policy.
Having had some connection with the industry, what I feel about coal is that it is unfortunate that we have not tried harder to preserve the role of coal in electricity generation. That could have been done, had more resource been devoted to the development of clean coal technologies. Those technologies are perfectly capable of enabling coal to be used in such a way as to reduce harmful emissions. What surprises me is the number of other countries, including Holland—which, for years, has had no coal industry—who have gone much further into the area than we have here, with our massive coal reserves and great knowledge of coal mining which is being so rapidly dissipated.
1024
Thus, I hope that even at this late stage we might think again about putting more resource into clean coal technology. One important way of improving the efficiency with which primary energy is converted in power stations is to develop combined heat and power. I am glad that the Government have paid much attention to that. Our present level of combined heat and power generation is in the order of 2,000 megawatts, which is a relatively small proportion of the approximately 50,000 megawatts generated in the whole country. The Government expect CHP to rise to about 5,000 megawatts by the year 2000. The Government themselves say—I believe rightly—that they have encouraged the use of CHP methods in the public sector. I suggest that they publicise what they have done much more. What they say about CHP is in general terms and I think it would make a much greater impact if they were to publicise in detail what they have achieved and what energy and cost savings have been made as a result.
A good deal of attention is devoted, in the document on climate warming to which I refer, to the use of energy in the home. There, the Government claim that a number of measures have been taken which can achieve reductions. The document mentions VAT on domestic fuel, which has been a controversial measure. I personally do not believe that it will achieve the energy savings which the Government say will be achieved. I believe that the consumption of energy in the home is relatively inelastic. People need to use a certain amount of energy to get warmth, heating and to cook meals. I do not believe that there is much elasticity there. Where I think the real saving could be made is if there were much more encouragement for higher standards of insulation. The Government have helped by providing more resource for the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, which enables the homes of those on low incomes, particularly elderly people, to be provided with insulation. However, that only affects a small segment of the population and there ought to be much wider schemes to stimulate insulation.
The Government believe that much saving could come from the operations of the Energy Saving Trust, but that depends on the trust being adequately resourced. The original intention was that it should be resourced out of part of the proceeds of the sale of electricity and gas. The famous E-factor was to be used for that purpose. However, there have been recent suggestions in the press that the new director-general of Ofgas is very much opposed to that system. If the trust is to be starved of resource to do what it was set up to do, how will it work?
There are many other ways in which the Government indicate that they wish to save on energy in the home. The energy rating of appliances is another method and I am glad that the Government are going along with the Commission's proposals in that regard. I should like to see more done in the energy rating of houses. There is an effective scheme which has been developed by the National Energy Foundation, whose chairman is Dr. Mary Archer. I feel that we could do more of that. There have been many other proposals on energy in the business and public sectors, and transport has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Tordoff.

1025
My conclusion is that, as concerns the period up to the year 2000, the Government have deployed a number of proposals, some of which may not have the effect anticipated. But because of other factors—namely, the rundown in the coal industry and the recession from which we have suffered in recent years—the targets set may be achieved. What is really worrying, however, is what will happen after the year 2000 when, as my noble friend Lord Tordoff said, the car population will double and we could get very much higher levels of emissions, going by the Government's own studies. While the Government have identified the problems, like many other noble Lords, I am worried that many of the solutions still need to be proposed.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, first I must declare an interest as President of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Temple of Stowe, will understand that I sympathise rather more with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, than with him on his conclusion to an extremely agreeabl and entertaining speech about wind farms.
We must again thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for introducing the debate about sustainable development. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, had difficulty with the definition and I suggest that the Brundtland Commission got it about right. I quote from its definition:
"development which meets the needs of current generations without compromising: the ability of future generations to meet their needs".
That sums up what sustainable development is all about.
I wish to make two preliminary remarks. The first is that sustainable development is not just about environmental protection. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Desai and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. It is also cross-departmental, multi-disciplined, and, above all, it requires social justice in the world between rich and poor. Although we think about sustainable development in our own country, we must also think about the balance between our country and the developed world and the under-developed world.
My second preliminary remark is that thinking about the environment must be at the centre of all thinking about policy. It is no good putting the environment in a pigeon-hole and saying,"That's there, and all other policies can carry on regardless of that particular pigeon-hole". There must be an environmental aspect in everything that we seek to do. That is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, the Labour Party has set up a commission on the environment which is cross-departmental. It involves people from our transport, energy, Treasury, environment and employment teams, local authorities and the chairman of the European Parliament Environment Committee. We take the view that environment must be right at the centre of all our policy thinking.
Since the summit at Rio there have been some welcome policy developments. The United Nations has set up the Commission for Sustainable Development to
1026
review progress on Agenda 21. Two consultative bodies have been set up by the present United Kingdom Government to plan the future for sustainable development in our own country. And the Government have produced what I can only describe as four rather hefty documents which, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, contain a great deal of very useful information about the state of play as it is at the moment. I am bound to say, with other noble Lords, that I did not see much of an action plan in any of the documents. But no doubt that will come as we move along. It seemed to me that they were more a rehash of existing policies than a plan of action for this country.
What is needed is not simply words or analysis—though analysis is important. We need deeds. Again,1[am bound to say that, when it comes to deeds, the Government do not have a terribly good record. As my noble friend Lord Ennals pointed out, we have not yet ratified the biodiversity convention. The hedgerows Bill was talked out. Between 1984 and 1990 we lost 130,000 kilometres of hedgerows—that is 23 per cent. of the total. These were important wildlife habitats, and the Government simply allowed the Bill to be talked out. We have not yet put the habitats directive into UK law. It is still in consultation. We have as yet done nothing about legislation on national parks. We have clone nothing about legislation on common land. All those measures were promised by the Government. At the moment it does not look as though the Government place the environmental issue very high on their political agenda. We would like to see them do what they can and have promised to do. And we would like to see them do it now. When they do it, they will gain a certain amount of credibility in our eyes in regard to the rest of the plan, however grandiose it may seem at the moment.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, quite rightly pointed out, many issues come under the umbrella of sustainable development. I cannot possibly cover them all. I agree entirely with what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Moran, about transport. It is quite absurd that the Government are still considering widening the M.25, building masses of roads and doubling the car population when we know that such a plan will end up polluting the atmosphere, landing us all in the most tremendous traffic jams, and in the end destroying the planet. It makes no sense whatsoever. If we cannot get down to a proper integrated transport policy which places much more emphasis on public transport and much less on cars and roads, then I am afraid that everything else that we do environmentally will fail. That will be the crucial test of political will.
On CO2 emissions, again, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said about the need to set targets beyond the year 2000, and indeed to try even at this late stage to make sure that we put more funds into clean coal technology. That seems to me to be straight common sense. It is after all the DTI that is forecasting that after the year 2000 CO2 emissions will climb very steeply, and we have to do something about that.
On biodiversity, I see no coherent plan to prevent a new Twyford Down situation. There is nothing in the

1027
plans that the Government have put forward to prevent that happening again. I see no real action plan for wildlife habitats. The best plan that I have seen was produced by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and others. They produced a perfectly well-argued and well-documented action plan with which I was most impressed. I was sorry to see that it did not come from the Government. In the whole of the Government's so-called action plan there is no mention of hedgerows. There is not a word about this important wildlife habitat.
I turn to the question of forestry. I think everybody would agree that forestry provides a wildlife habitat of great importance. What do the Government do? They privatise it. If ever there were a case for keeping the Forestry Commission—which is now starting to develop policies on planting which are environmentally sensible—that case is established by sustainable development. Privatisation will destroy that sensible policy.
The final point that I particularly wish to mention is that we were promised an environment protection agency to enforce all these matters. Do we have an environmental protection agency? No, we do not. I very much hope that we shall soon have one. There is much to be done. We are by no means satisfied that the Government have credibility in this particular matter. They have produced documents which give us a great deal of information. It is time for action.
How do we go about it? Clearly, the Government have to take the lead. But in my view there also has to be action at local level. Much can be done at local level by voluntary organisations—wildlife trusts, for instance—if they are given some encouragement from the Government. At the moment, core funding from government is being taken away from such trusts. It is being taken away by the Welsh Office from CPRW. We are expected to go out to private companies to run voluntary organisations. That is not good enough. Voluntary organisations, particularly at local level, will have a vital role to play in sustainable development. It is known as primary environmental care. It is a well-established principle. Most environmentalists believe that it is an important contributor to sustainable development.
Lastly, I take up one of the most important points that was made this afternoon. It was made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. The real problem that we all face if we are not to "cheat our children", in the words of Mr. Gummer, and if we are to exercise proper stewardship, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth put it, is that we have not yet engaged upon a wide programme of public education. I honestly believe that most people in this country are simply not yet aware that serious sacrifices will have to be made if the planet is to be protected. Environment is what I would call a middle-class issue. It is discussed among the middle class. We must be absolutely certain that all of us, of all creeds and classes, understand what is required if we are to preserve the planet on which we live. We shall no longer have unlimited and inexpensive freedom to drive wherever we want in our own cars. We shall no longer enjoy an unlimited ability to waste energy when and
1028
where we will, or pursue profit regardless of the effect on the countryside or on the air. That is a massive educational task, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, pointed out. It is one of the depressing facets of what has become, if I may say so, a very depressing Government, that not only have they failed to provide action where action would have been easy, but they have failed to prepare the public for the sacrifices that we all know will have to be made.
5.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, many of your Lordships this afternoon have said that this is a huge subject. It is indeed. It is an absolutely immense subject. I ask for your Lordships' sympathy if I am not able to mention every single speaker this afternoon. Were Ito do so, it would be well into the evening before I had finished.
As many noble Lords said, this is a very timely and important debate. Certainly, I am delighted that two maiden speeches have been made. I am glad that the inclination of the noble Earl, Lord Temple of Stowe, to 18th century furniture eventually gave way to wind power. I shall refer later to the extremely interesting comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon.
Throughout the whole of this evening we have been talking about issues which will have a significant impact not only on our lives but on those of future generations. The four documents, to which so many noble Lords have referred, on sustainable development, climate change, biodiversity and forestry, that were launched on 25th January by the Prime Minister, are the Government's response to the Earth Summit in Rio in June 1992. For the next few minutes that are available to me, it is my intention to show to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, precisely the action that the Government have taken and are taking.
The United Kingdom is one of the first countries to have produced a sustainable development strategy after the Earth Summit. It is the first country to produce a climate change programme. The four documents chart the way forward for the United Kingdom into the next century. Certainly I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his general welcome of the part that the Government have played.
Noble Lords must not imagine that we regard the publication of those documents, however worthy, as sufficient in itself. They are the basis for actions at all levels; international, regional, national and local. In that context, I am pleased to report to your Lordships that I had the privilege of representing the United Kingdom last week at an important informal meeting of Environment Ministers held at the invitation of the Indian Minister of the Environment in Agra.
This was a very important and, I believe, successful meeting, which brought together Ministers from both developed and developing countries. It is an example of the extent to which the follow-up to the Earth Summit is stimulating new levels of international co-operation on our shared problem of delivering sustainable development.

1029
The meeting, which took place over several days, agreed to send a strong political message to the negotiators, who will be meeting in Geneva on 14th to 16th March to discuss the global environmental facility, that agreement must be reached. That was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. The Ministers present also agreed that the Indo-British forestry initiative should play a key role in the preparations for the discussion on forestry at the 1995 session of the Commission on Sustainable Development. The next important step in that initiative will be an international workshop on the implementation of the Rio forest principles which will be held in Delhi in July.
Other useful discussions took place on the forthcoming session of the Commission on Sustainable Development scheduled for May of this year and on the increasingly important issue of trade and the environment. I am particularly pleased to report that the discussions, though frank, were animated throughout by a very positive and co-operative dialogue between North and South and marked a further development of the increasingly close relations between India and Britain in the pursuit of sustainable development.
The noble Lords, Lord Beaumont and Lord Desai, inferred that trade was not an absolute good. But trade is a very effective way of spreading know-how, stimulating wealth and raising standards in developing countries. Poverty is one of the greatest threats to the world's environment. We must not turn our backs on trade. But the Government and the European Union which lead for us in trade matters support the establishment of a permanent trade and environment committee of a new world trade organisation which will be set up to succeed GATT.
We must not lose sight of the European dimension. Indeed, the Prime Minister on his return from Rio in June 1992, persuaded his fellow EC Heads of Government to sign up to a common plan to keep up the momentum. The Community's energetic programme of environmental legislation has enabled us to make significant advances which have brought measurable improvements in the state of the environment in this country; for example, the water environment, air, and the handling of waste.
But let me now return to our documents and the principles on which they are based. Sustainable development is not an easy concept to understand. However, I find helpful the Brundtland Commission definition, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred—and I hope that this might help the noble Lord, Lord Moran—that sustainable development is:
"development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
This emphasises that sustainable development is not anti-growth. Indeed it cannot be achieved except through growth and the maintenance of a prosperous economy. That certainly was recognised by many of your Lordships. There are many ways in which the right kind of economic activity can protect or enhance the environment; for example, energy efficiency measures,
1030
waste minimisation and environmentally friendly farming practices. Many of those subjects have been referred to by noble Lords.
The sustainable development strategy is not, of course, wholly new. It builds directly on the 1990 White Paper, This Common Inheritance. That White Paper report was a milestone; it provided a first comprehensive survey of all aspects of environmental concern and, through its annual updates, it has established a system of environmental auditing of which we can be proud.
But the strategy takes things further. It sets out, by environmental resource and by economic sector, the United Kingdom's position today and projections of where we might be in the year 2012,20 years on from the Earth Summit, on current policies. It looks at the principles of sustainable development; at the problems and opportunities which we face in the United Kingdom and internationally, and at the processes we have, or which we could develop, for implementing those principles and processes.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell stressed the importance of discussion being open. But the sustainable development strategy was prepared in a very open way. There was a consultation paper last summer to which we received over 500 replies. Many meetings were held during the summer to discuss issues raised in the strategy. We shall shortly be setting up a national round table, to which I shall refer later and which will expose issues to public discussion.
I have to say that some people have been disappointed at the lack of specific targets in the strategy. That document did not set out to prepare targets; that was not its purpose. But the United Kingdom does have targets. I can tell the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, that the nuclear review is planned to take place this year. The climate change programme promises to return greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000; 35,000 hectares of new nitrate sensitive areas will be designated in 1994; and renewable energy is due to increase to 1,500 megawatts by the year 2000.
My noble friend Lord Clanwilliam stressed quite rightly the importance of developing all potential forms of energy. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Temple of Stowe, in his maiden speech made mention of the need to encourage wind farms. Certainly we are encouraging renewable energy through economic incentives such as the non-fossil fuel obligation and investment in considerable resources in research into their potential. Also, on the subject of renewable energy, your Lordships may be interested to learn of a potentially formidable initiative which I saw for myself during my time in Northern Ireland. At Enniskillen Agricultural College, the Department of Agriculture has set up an experimental combined heat and power plant. That uses willow biomass to produce both heat and energy and is the first modern small-scale installation specifically designed to use energy coppice as a fuel. Indications are that the plant will prove effective in practice.
This is one specific example of the way in which we will be responding to strategy targets. New targets will follow. Three new measures will be put in place to promote sustainable development: the Government's

1031
panel on sustainable development, a UK round table on sustainable development and a citizens' environment initiative.
The panel has already been established and had its first meeting. Sir Crispin Tickell—although the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, would wish him to be ennobled—is the panel's convener; my noble friends Lord Alexander of Weedon and Lord Selborne are members. The other members are Sir John Houghton and Dr. Anne McLaren. So, in the panel, we have a formidable body of very eminent individuals, independent of government and charged to monitor progress on sustainable development.
The noble Lords, Lord Moran and Lord Beaumont, asked whether the panel will be making public any reports or advice it may give. I can say that it is quite likely that the panel will wish to make public what it does. But it will be a matter for the panel to decide when and in what way it will do so.
Secondly, there is the round table on sustainable development. That will take a little longer to set up because it must involve representatives from all sectors—from business and industry, from agriculture, from local government, from environmental groups and voluntary bodies, from the academic world and from the countryside agencies. And it must include representatives from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. My department will soon be issuing a consultation paper inviting views on the membership of the round table and on the way in which it might work.
Thirdly, there is the citizens' initiative. The Secretary of State will be appointing a national committee or task force that can create a programme of activities to interest and involve individuals and households. That may be a campaign lasting about a year. It will need some months to plan properly and we shall be seeking views on how it can best be run. I welcome the message from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on his support of the Churches for necessary changes in lifestyle.
Those three new bodies—the panel, the round table, and the citizens' initiative—provide three new independent centres outside government from which performance can be monitored; from which new initiatives can be taken; from which the challenge can be carried to all sectors of the economy, to all groups and to individuals throughout the country. And it is a challenge that we must all meet. The action to take this country forward on a sustainable path will only partly be required of government. We shall certainly do our part. We shall give it teeth and resources, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, stressed. But some of the initiative must come from other bodies, including local authorities, business, the voluntary sector and, above all, from individuals.
Sustainable development depends on changes in individual lifestyles. We need to use the car less, to recycle more, to save energy. It is those individual changes which people make in their everyday lives which together will determine how successful we are in following a sustainable path. Which is why the Government announced the new citizens' initiative
1032
which will promote the vital messages of sustainable development in clear unambiguous language. It will provide people with information which can influence the choices they make and it will show them how their actions can make a difference.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, stressed the importance of gaining public support. He is quite right. We are doing much to encourage and enthuse the public on a voluntary basis.
I shall now turn briefly to each of the other three documents. The Climate Change Programme sets out the measures we are taking to meet the Climate Change Convention commitment signed at Rio. That means reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The fastest and cheapest way of curbing emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is by improving energy efficiency. The UK economy has grown by about 25 per cent. since 1979, but it still uses roughly the same amount of energy. With further cost-effective improvements—such as home and energy efficiency schemes, and others carefully outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—some 20 per cent. of current energy demand can be cut. The Climate Change Programme is based on a partnership approach. The Government provided the right framework to stimulate the introduction of energy efficiency measures. We are also helping by providing advice and information on actions to achieve savings.
Nearly half of the savings we are looking for in the carbon dioxide programme are expected to come from reducing energy consumption in the home. The business and transport sectors are both expected to contribute a quarter of the savings; and one-tenth of the savings are expected to come from the public sector. So it is up to households, businesses and public sector bodies throughout the country to take the actions that will lead to lower emissions.
I now turn to the Biodiversity Action Plan, which brings together for the first time all the relevant policies and programmes into an overall strategy to promote nature conservation within the United Kingdom. The plan is based upon three principles: sound science, partnership and common sense.
Sound science must underpin all environmental policy. When it is established that species are endangered or vulnerable, as well as providing protection under legislation such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act, we are promoting specific action. The Species Recovery Programme, launched by English Nature to assist endangered native plants and animals, is already enjoying some success. Indeed, that was a theme strongly supported by my noble friend Lord Addison.
Common sense is also important when balancing the need for sustainable development with wildlife conservation. We believe that the best balance for development and conservation is achieved through voluntary management agreements. The Government have therefore been developing important initiatives such as the Wildlife Enhancement Programme for SSSIs and more widely in the countryside the programme of environmentally sensitive areas, other agri-environmental measures and countryside stewardship.

1033
All of those engage landowners and occupiers in management that contributes towards the conservation of our natural heritage.
My noble friend Lord Kitchener referred to the benefits of organic farming. We support organic farming and encourage more extensive livestock farming in selected areas. That is one of the action points in the biodiversity action plan. That plan was prepared through consultation and partnership with many people both inside and outside government. It enabled a general consensus on the way forward. The theme of partnership will continue through the new steering group, which will be chaired by my department with members drawn from central and local government, the nature conservation agencies, scientific and academic institutions and voluntary bodies. The group will have the important task of delivering the 59 progress points contained in the plan, and of developing specific costed targets for species and habitats for publication in European Nature Conservation Year in 1995. I can say to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that we believe that farming and landowning interests should be represented in that group.
Turning to forestry, I am not sure from where the noble Lord, Lord Williams, obtained his idea of privatisation. The document on the forestry review group has not yet been published and therefore, as far as I know, there is no truth in what he says. Just over 10 per cent. of the UK land area is now covered by forests. The Forestry Programme sets out our policies to promote the further expansion of forest cover; to protect and prevent the decline and loss of woodlands; to enhance their economic value; and to enhance the social and environmental benefits of our forest resources. Over the past five years we have encouraged the creation of more than 100,000 hectares of new woodlands and forests through the Woodland Grant Scheme and Farm Woodlands Premium Scheme.
Those four documents—to which I regret I have only scantily referred but time prevents me from doing more—provide the framework within which we in government must work. We shall be pursuing the theme of sustainable development in all policy areas. Within my department we have kept careful track of the problems and opportunities flagged up for action. They also provide a framework for everyone else. The Government provided a lead. Now we must look to each and every one of us—in business, farming, local authorities, voluntary organisations—to people in their everyday lives, to play their parts. Sustainable development is not a giant leap to a known destination. It is a series of incremental steps which take us forward in the right direction, and we must take those steps together. We must all act responsibly to make sustainable development a reality for the United Kingdom.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has well justified the initiative of my noble friend Lord Ezra and myself in bringing it forward, and my colleagues on these Benches in backing it. We have had a notable
1034
series of speeches and two maiden speeches. Maiden speeches are often neither distinctive nor memorable, although they are always worthy. The two speeches were distinctive and memorable; and as long as the two people who made them continue to speak in your Lordships' House, as I hope they now will, their maiden speeches will be recalled. They were very splendid! occasions.
I am particularly grateful to the right reverend Prelate for underlining the theology of the debate. It is only if we understand the concept of stewardship of property that we are able to sustain our development and look after what we all share in common and what is both the human and the global inheritance. Perhaps I may pick out two speeches. I was especially pleased that at the very beginning the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, talked firmly about the need for openness of debate and for wideness of discussion. That point has been picked up again and again, not least, at the end of the debate, by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for underlining that it will not be all that easy and that some very tough decisions will have to be made. I was pleased to receive the reply that we had from the Government. It showed that they take the matter seriously and it gave us some information that we did not know before.
Lord Williams of Elvel: About forestry.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Indeed, my Lords, about forestry, among other matters. If there was one thing said in the debate which showed the need to have had the debate it was when the Government talked about sustainable development going alongside growth. One can have sustainable development and save the planet. But there is no such thing as sustainable growth as such. There is such a thing as qualitative improvement—that is, sustainable development. But we must give up the idea that we can have sustainable development: and have the kind of economic growth that we have all talked about for the past 30 or 40 years. The enormous majority of noble Lords who joined in the debate understand that even if the Government do not.
My Lords, I thank you all very much. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Overseas Development Aid
6.13 p.m.
Lord Redesdalerose to call attention to the case for aid from the Overseas Development Administration budget being directed to "where it is most needed" as set out in the administration's annual review 1993; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to start the debate today by thanking all noble Lords who, at such short notice, have put down their names to speak, and by thanking the Minister in advance for her reply. I realise that she will be facing the questions of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee tomorrow morning.
The reason for calling the debate is to look at the use of Overseas Development Administration funds in the

1035
wider context. My noble friends will be looking at particular issues. My noble friend Lord Avebury will be speaking on East Timor and my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie will be looking at overpopulation. I, however, should like to focus my speech on the particular questions that the Pergau dam project have raised.
Perhaps at this point, considering the almost inevitable charges that will be levelled by the Minister, it is worth stating that we on these Benches are very concerned about exports and jobs. We are not hostile to the sale of arms to countries that need the arms for defence and which have no policy of repression against their own populations. Also, having close connections myself with the North-East, I am only too well aware how important the defence industry is to British jobs and exports.
However, I strongly believe that the present diplomatic difficulties that exist between Britain and Malaysia are due to fundamental problems that arose when in 1988 aid and arms became entangled, and the present questions arise due to the cavalier fashion in which the budget of the ODA was raided while the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Prime Minister, allegedly to secure a large arms contract.
The noble Lord, Lord Younger of Prestwick, is reported in the Economist, while discussing the Malaysian arms deal, as saying,
"a verbal undertaking was given by somebody—not myself—to link the aid to the defence contract".
Is it possible for the Minister to say who gave the verbal undertaking and by what authority?
In the Foreign Affairs Select Committee this morning, the Foreign Secretary gave details of the "brief entanglement" between aid and arms which took place in 1988. On 23rd March 1988, the then Defence Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Younger of Prestwick, signed a protocol with the Malaysian Government which contained an explicit link between aid and arms. The Foreign Secretary admitted that a figure of 20 per cent. was quoted, implying that aid would constitute 20 per cent. of the value of defence contracts, estimated at around £ 1 billion. The Foreign Secretary admitted that this was an MoD initiative and that the wording of the final protocol was not agreed with the FCO. When the noble Lord, Lord Younger, returned to Britain, the Government evidently realised the significance of this entanglement and sought to untie the linkage.
The way they did this was to write two letters on the same day,28th June 1988, which were delivered by the British High Commissioner to the Malaysian Finance Minister. The first letter said that the terms of the original protocol involving linkage contravened international guidelines and could not be pursued. The second letter, also delivered by the British High Commissioner, reconfirmed Britain's willingness to fund ATP projects up to the value of £ 200 million. While the Foreign Secretary claims that the effect of those two letters was to "de-link" aid and. arms, it is difficult to see how that is the case, given that both letters were delivered on the same day, and the £ 200 million mentioned in the second letter equates with an
1036
uncanny resemblance to the 20 per cent. figure in the original protocol, and indeed with the £ 234 million eventually spent on the Pergau dam. The close link in correspondence is further highlighted when, on 8th August 1988, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, wrote to the Malaysian Prime Minister and mentioned defence contracts and the aid package in consecutive paragraphs.
The Foreign Secretary claims that after the June exchange of letters, both policies were pursued independently and says that both were completely defensible. But in the case of the aid package which relates to the Pergau dam, is that really so? In aid terms, the ODA did not think it was defensible and the then Permanent Secretary, Sir Tim Lankester, described the project as "a bad one in economic terms" and "an abuse of the aid programme". I wish to return to that point.
A final point raised in the Select Committee this morning was that the Foreign Secretary admitted that the ODA, including the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, was overruled in February 1991 when he and the Prime Minister decided to go ahead with the Pergau project. While acknowledging Sir Timothy Lankester's opinion, the Foreign Secretary said that there were wider considerations at stake—political considerations.
The budget of the ODA was raided to finance the most expensive ATP project ever undertaken, a project that is costing the British taxpayer at least £ 234 million and will still be being paid for into the next millennium. That would not cause so many problems if this was a project that fulfilled the ODA's stated aims. However, Pergau dam was a bad buy.
If this was just an aid project, why did the Government support a project that was clearly so problematical, and back it so vehemently that the then Permanent Secretary to the ODA, Sir Timothy Lankester, had to be given special direction by the Foreign Secretary, to sign the cheques, so freeing himself from responsibility for this wasted money.
The National Audit Office reports do not normally grip me; but the report on the Pergau project is breathtaking stuff. It shows quite clearly that the aid budget has been abused, as Sir Timothy Lankester implied. This hydro-electric project is significantly more expensive than gas turbine generators, which the World Bank study of 1987, and other studies, favour. It is probable that if gas turbine plants were constructed, British companies would have won the contract for the plants. That would have created jobs in Britain that the dam failed to do, but not to the same extent.
As the Minister no doubt knows, the ODA study shows that the dam will cost the Malaysians £ 100 million more over its 35-year life than gas would. I realise that there is some debate whether a dam can have a 35-year life. It will probably even raise the price of electricity in Malaysia. The ODA further concluded that it would not be economic to commission the dam until 2005.
It seems extraordinary that this huge ODA grant is being paid not to the recipient government, as is normal, but rather to a private company, Tenaga Nasional Berhad—which is the Malaysian electricity company. That is a highly unusual arrangement, although I realise that it was a government body at the time.

1037
Apart from any other odious elements in this deal, is the Minister satisfied that the environmental dangers which the dam poses are being addressed in a satisfactory way? Many of the Green groups seem to have real anxieties.
I now look at the Aid and Trade Provision (ATP), which makes up about 6 per cent. of the aid budget. The ATP was established in 1977 with the aim of giving developing countries preferential deals if they bought British goods. It was intended as an aid for the poorest countries in buying the goods which they really needed to buy. It was not the intention that business should decide the direction of the aid budget.
The ATP is administered by the ODA and the DTI; but one should remember that it is part of the aid budget as a whole. The rules governing the ATP have been reviewed and revised in the light of the Pergau dam scandal. I understand that all ATP projects will undergo the same assessment which other ODA projects undergo. That is no doubt a good thing. However, having followed how the ODA was swept aside and ignored in the Malaysian case, I wonder if these safeguards are enough to protect the aid budget from interference? My anxiety has been heightened by hearing a recently retired Minister expressing disdain for the worth of guidelines.
Much has beer, said about the links which the companies who benefited most from the ATP have with the Conservative Party. I understand that because what has been called "constraints of the time-scale" in ATP operations, those companies who know the ropes benefited from the provision. I hope that the ATP will be administered in such a way in future that any bias in the allocation of contracts will be clear for all to see.
The revelations about British policy towards Malaysia have raised many questions. Perhaps the Minister could answer some further questions. Did the Government act as one would hope in the trial of Mr. Osman, former head in Hong Kong of the Malaysian state-owned bank? There have been allegations that the documents the Foreign Office refused to supply in that case—using Public Immunity Certificates as in the Matrix Churchill case—would have implicated Malaysian Ministers. Is it true that this was done to avoid jeopardising relations with Malaysia?
Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on allegations that in September 1988, as part of the aid and arms deal, the Malaysians demanded another landing slot at Heathrow and that the British Government paid British Airways £ 2.1 million out of public funds to relinquish a slot. If this is untrue I am sure that the Minister will want to make it quite clear in her speech.
That the ATP is not working well is shown by the list of projects that have been criticised by the National Audit office: the Karachi water scheme (£ 8 million from OD. A); the Malaysia rural water supply scheme (£ 62 million from ODA); Victoria dam (£ 117 million from ODA); a dam in Sri Lanka (£ 19 million from ODA); mini hydro-power stations in the Philippines (£ 5 million from the ODA). Three of these five were built by Balfour Beatty and on one other of these they were the consultants.
Speaking about the ATP, the Minister said:
1038
"it should not be seen as a subsidy to industry; it should be there to get economic regeneration in developing countries started as well. That is always something that we must have in the forefront of our minds".—[Official Report, 11/11/92; col.313.]
I sincerely hope that the new guidelines allow those al. the DTI to at least do that much, for there seems little doubt that the ATP, by its nature, is driven by the interest of British companies rather than the needs of the poorest nations. It is surely sensible to work towards a multilateral ban on ATP.
Turning away from the ATP to the ODA in general, I should like to propose further reforms which would introduce greater transparency and accountability to the workings of the ODA. Perhaps in future pipeline projects should be published; project documents, once approved, should be made available; and preparatory reports should be circulated.
The ODA' s aid framework paper, which is at present a secret document, should be made available when issues concerning aid are to be debated in Parliament so that the debates can take place in an informed manner. I realise that there will be difficulties in undertaking what I have proposed. However, it is only through greater transparency that the spectre of apparent shady deals will be banished. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Prior: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest at once. I am chairman of GEC; we hold a 30 per cent. share in the holding of GEC Malaysia and I believe that in 1987 we gave £ 50,000 to the Conservative Party. We did not contribute in 1992 and on a previous occasion we have also supported the Liberal Party. I do not know what one can make of that.
I wish to examine how we have got ourselves into this dreadful mess which is having such an effect on jobs, investment and political influence in South-East Asia. However, first I have something to say about the press. In the 1980s some sections of the press were extraordinarily sycophantic towards the Conservative Government. Frankly, on a number of occasions the press allowed the Thatcher Government to get away with murder. In the 1990s the worm has turned with a vengeance and now no innuendo, no rumour and no suggestion is too far fetched for the press to turn against the Government. It is little short of catastrophic that the jobs of many thousands have been lost as insult and injury designed to inflict damage on the British Government have drawn in the government and Ministers of a very important and friendly customer; namely, Malaysia.
On a visit to Japan last September with the Prime Minister I watched the reaction of the Japanese press as our Prime Minister was pilloried in Tokyo by our own press correspondents. The Japanese press simply stood there with their mouths open with amazement at the lack of respect and courtesy that was shown to a Prime Minister operating in a foreign country. I sometimes reflect on what a pity it is that everyone can understand, speak and read English. If all the talk had been in

1039
German, French or Spanish, no one would have been any the wiser. As everyone can understand English, perhaps our press should be more responsible than ever.
What are the facts? I shall try to give them as I see and know them. First, Malaysia indicated that it wished to place large defence orders with Britain of about £ 1 billion, which it would pay in cash. In fact, the orders have amounted to about £ 1.5 billion and the Malaysians have paid in cash. Quite understandably, Malaysia said at the same time,"If we place this order with you, will you aid us in a major project that we badly need?" It is not surprising that the Malaysians asked for that and it is not surprising that the British Government said,"Yes, we'll give you some aid". If there was a "tangle", to use the Foreign Secretary's word, about whether the two issues were contingent upon each other, it is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable cause for inquiry by the press and Opposition. I do not doubt that for one moment even though it was quickly sorted out, as the Government made clear in the House of Commons on 13th June 1989, reported in volume 154 of the Official Report at cols.397 and 398. They had earlier made it clear that the Secretary of State for Defence at the time had made a mistake, but had put it right in June 1988, as the noble Lord said.
So aid was granted to the Pergau hydro-electric scheme. Quite rightly, the Malaysians regarded the project as a means to increase power generation and to diversify their energy sources. Frankly, a great deal of nonsense is being talked about such a scheme being expensive. We all know that when one builds a dam which has a hydro-electric scheme, a lot of capital is involved, but over a long period of time the running costs are very low and the two things balance each other out. That is why, where they can, most countries opt for a mixed source of power, whether hydro-electric, nuclear, coal, gas, or whatever.
I am not certain that in this case the ODA made what was for it more than a cursory examination. I have seen reports—I am not certain about them—that the ODA had people out there for a couple of days. I am not certain whether that was long enough for them even to get to the site. They concluded that they did not like the scheme. They were overruled. It is quite clear why they were overruled. It was because we had already given our word as a nation that we would honour an aid programme to Malaysia.
I have to point out that the aid and trade provision is an aid and trade provision with emphasis on the "trade". It is about 5 per cent. of the aid budget—£ 100 million a year. In the latest report that we are considering tonight I think that the figure is £ 92 million. If it is going to lead to the sort of accusations that have been made in the past few days, I think that it would be much better to take ATP away from the ODA and to put it with the DTI. That would be resisted hotly by the ODA, but it seems to me that if we are to get into this sort of problem, it would be far better to do so.
Under OECD rules, one has to give 35 per cent. of the cost of a project. One cannot give less. Two recent grants by Germany (one to the Shanghai metro and one to the Guandjhou metro) have accounted respectively
1040
for 51 per cent. and 68 per cent. of the cost. Germany has only done that because it thinks that it will get further orders. On the whole, that is why British industry needs to have this help in large capital projects in which we have to compete with a great many other countries. The aid and trade provisions resulted in Britain being chosen for the new airport at Kuala Lumpur, for gas turbines providing more power, for hospitals and for universities. In fact, the Malaysians now say that we have lost between £ 3.5 billion and £ 4 billion of business.
There is another reason why this has been so disturbing. It is arrogant of people here to believe that they know better what the Malaysians require. It smacks of the colonialism of a bygone age and is deeply offensive to a very successful nation that is very proud of its achievements—and rightly so. We must respect Malaysia's sensitivities and culture if we wish to do business with that country. I applaud the way in which Malaysia has managed its community of mixed races, different religions, emergence from colonialism and internal conflict to become one of the leading countries of the Commonwealth and the so-called "developing world". The growth in its economy and standard of living will shortly take Malaysia above the limits of aid policy. Britain has played an honourable part in helping, including by ATP, one of the world's great success stories: a democracy with political stability and strong leadership, and growing prosperity for all the people.
To end, I ask: what next? We must now stop criticising each other, honour our friendships and get back to sensible trading relations in which the Government here have a major part to play. We must hope that our sense of national interest will enable the press, the Opposition, industry and government to recognise all the issues: the freedom of the press, the importance of industry and jobs here, and our friendship with Malaysia and other South-East Asian countries. We must recognise that all those issues are at stake and deal with them in a responsible manner.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for raising this issue. He could not have chosen a better time, or perhaps the time was chosen after his choice of subject. I do not know how it worked out, but it is good that the debate produced such a frank statement from the noble Lord, Lord Prior. I was interested in the various parties to which GEC has contributed. The noble Lord missed out the Labour Party for some reason or another and did not say whether he gave a contribution to the Conservative Party in 1993, but one cannot intervene to ask in debates such as this.
The only interest that I can declare is that I have been interested in overseas aid ever since the end of the war. I looked up the first little pamphlet that I produced on overseas aid, which was in 1947. It was published by the Council for Education in World Citizenship more recently than that—and the first time that I ever came close to power in this area—was when I became Parliamentary Private Secretary to Barbara Castle when in 1964 she became the first Minister of Overseas

1041
Development. I was very proud of that. I discussed this matter with my noble friend yesterday and have been looking through her White Paper. A number of phrases in it warmed me. One may well hear them from the Minister, but they are not apparent when one looks at the "dreadful mess" to quote the words of the noble Lord, Lord Prior, that we are now in.
Paragraph 8 of the introduction to that White Paper states:
`We give aid because in the widest sense we believe it to be in our interest to do so as a member of the world community. We recognise that it is in. he nature of aid that we should accept an economic sacrifice when giving it".
Your Lordships should take note of that. The paragraph continues:
"To describe as aid transactions which do not entail such sacrifices would incur risk of frustration and ill will".
The first sentence of paragraph 2 reads:
"The basis of the aid programme is … a moral one".
I suppose that most Ministers today and some former Ministers would say that that is a load of old nonsense. That is just what Alan Clark has been saying. We now seem to take it for granted that the aid programme has a real task to promote not just trade in the best sense of the word, but military trade and the arms trade. I find that quite disgusting. I feel that we are living in a very squalid time in politics. Putting the aid-arms picture within the framework of the Scott Inquiry, this is a sad time for British politics. There are a few clean people around, and one of them is sitting on the Government Front Bench and will have to answer this sad debate. It is sad in many different ways.
It is interesting that the public actually believe in aid. Politicians have always thought that aid really was not popular. Opinion polls show that over 70 per cent. of the public support the concept of aid. They also show that the public want British aid spent on basic needs: emergency relief, primary education and health, help in growing food and digging wells. I believe that to be true. The Government argue that Britain has one of the world's biggest aid programmes and that UK aid is well focused on the poor. That was absolutely true at one time. Critics respond that Britain is one of the meanest donors and that little help reaches those who need it most. What are the facts?
At £ 1.8 billion in 1992, Britain's aid to developing countries was the world's sixth largest, but it is going down. As a percentage of our gross national product we gave less than most, coming 15th out of 22 donors. Whether this makes Britain generous or mean depends on one's view. What is clear is that Britain is less generous than it was 15 years ago, and each year that goes by it becomes less generous still. The simple argument which is often used by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker,"But don't worry, it is so well administered" is beginning to crack at the seams.
Some real challenges must be made from this side of the House. The Government broke their own rules on aid and trade provisions by going ahead with the Pergau dam project when they knew that it failed to fulfil the requirements to be economically and financially viable and technically sound. Of course they knew because they were told by their experts. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Prior, that I find it difficult to believe that the
1042
ODA's examination which led to the conclusions by the Permanent Under-Secretary was based on a two-day visit. That is difficult to accept. If it is so, it is an absolute criticism of the ODA to which the Minister must respond. Secondly, she must also respond to the criticism that the Government linked the provision of aid for the Pergau project with commercial orders in other areas, specifically for defence equipment, in breach of their own declared policy that there should be no aid-arms link.
The Minister has always taken a very honest and principled position on this. She said on 20th December 1991:
"United Kingdom aid is provided in support of sustainable development and to alleviate poverty in developing countries. There is no question of linking aid and arms ' deals".—[Official Report, Commons,20/12/91; col.331.]
Then, on 24th November 1993, she said:
"Aid funds cannot be used for the purchase of arms."
Of course, that is right.
"All bilateral project proposals are subject to careful appraisal of economic, financial, institutional, social and environmental aspects before they can be approved".—[Official Report, 24/11/93; col.258.]
I was horrified to see, just reading the newspaper coverage of the inquiry today by the Select Committee, that the Foreign Secretary had to admit that the Foreign Office was not even informed at the time, in 1988, when the then Secretary of State for Defence, now Lord Younger, actually signed the agreement. That means that the ODA did not know what was being done in its name. I find that quite horrific, and the Minister must explain the position of the Foreign Office and the ODA at that time. The Minister is on the spot. Many of us here have great sympathy for her, but I have no sympathy for the argument that she is going to have to defend.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I hope the House will allow me to divert from the bashing of the ODA to a slightly different subject. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for encouraging me and perhaps others to read this year's ODA annual report rather more closely than we otherwise would have done. found the report highly readable, and it shows some of the excellent aspects of the ODA's work.
I should like to focus on one particular and most needed part of ODA work; namely, health and population. In terms of the Motion before us, population assistance is one of the most vital aspects of fostering sustainable and lasting development. I was very glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, was going to say something on this subject.
Perhaps I may first draw attention to one self-contained page of the ODA report, page 5, headed "CARE and ODA: a lasting partnership", CARE here being the name of the international development organisation which is the second largest recipient of ODA funds. An account is given here of an NGO making very effective use of both emergency and development aid supported by donations from the public. Organisations such as CARE are able to be particularly flexible and to be responsive to local needs as expressed from the ground up.

1043
Among NGOs which do not solely concentrate on population matters, CARE realises the full importance of integrated population programmes and is now placing an increasing amount of emphasis on population as part of its development programmes. The ODA could encourage further such trends more generally by increasing the amount of 100 per cent. funding for population projects. As the Minister may be aware, it is relatively difficult for NGOs to provide matching funds for such programmes.
I would not expect the Minister to give detailed answers now to my comments on this area of population, but I hope that she can give general positive indications, especially as the record of the ODA, and in particular the Minister herself on this subject, if I may say so, is so far so good.
I should say at this stage that I am not asking for new money for the ODA, but that within the department a greater proportion of the existing level of funds should be allocated to population activities. The Minister may not be surprised if I mention a figure of 4 per cent. which is basically becoming the target aim—as it is in other countries—for the element of population activities as a proportion of the overseas aid budget. In this country the relevant figure is currently below 2 per cent.
In assessing the global unmet need for family planning services, the figure of 300 million couples is now generally accepted as those who would like to use family planning but lack access to services. That need, even though it is dealing with longer-term issues, very much qualifies as the need referred to in the question before us.
The part of the ODA report, in the section on health and population, rightly recounts welcome success stories even in countries such as Bangladesh and Kenya. It is encouraging to read on page 10 of the report:
"So family planning, successful as it has been in helping to slow population growth, is a service which needs to be extended much further. Providing this form of aid has therefore been central to ODA's programme".
There is a momentum building up which has clearly been boosted by the change of administration in the United States and of policies in this field. There is a good prospect that the 10-yearly conference organised by the United Nations on population and development in Cairo this year will continue not only to increase global awareness of the connection of population and development, but will also provide some significant impetus to action. This will not happen automatically, and I know that the noble Baroness will be playing a leading part, as she tried to do in Rio.
Some noble Lords may have received a copy of a report on aid which was entitled "Population Summit of the World's Scientific Academies". That was a joint statement by 58 of the world's scientific academies following a conference in India last year. It was promoted partly by our own Royal Society. That was done as a message to the Cairo conference. It is encouraging that the scientific community—not just in this country—is being made aware of the population dimension of some of its activities.
I have been told by one distinguished, scientifically-inclined Member of the Cross Benches that it was his
1044
impression that, partly as a result of that conference, awareness, talk and scientific work on the population dimension had increased. Perhaps I may quote one conclusion agreed on behalf of the world's 58 scientific academies:
"The academies believe that ultimate success in dealing with global, social, economic and environmental problems cannot be achieved without a stable world population".
That is obviously long-term thinking, but they also accept the immediacy of the problem in their final sentences addressed to the Cairo conference which say:
"With each year's delay the problems become more acute. Let 1994 be remembered as the year when the people of the world decide to act together for the benefit of future generations".
Even though it may not be directly responsible for it, I hope that the ODA will encourage that awareness in the scientific community of this country.
Finally, I draw attention to the remarkable speech of Mrs. Brundtland, the Prime Minister of Norway, who was the chairman and author of the Brundtland Report in last year's lectures sponsored by the United Nations population fund in New York. I hope that the noble Baroness may find time to read that report if she has not already done so. In the past Mrs. Brundtland has always put her thoughts on population in the wider context, and she still does so. However, her voice has become much more urgent and committed and I know that she, like the Minister, intends to play a very full part in the Cairo conference.
In the printed introduction to the Salas lecture, the director of the UNFPA, Nafis Sadik, summarises what she calls the powerful message of the lecture delivered by Mrs. Brundtland:
"Unless we accept that rapid population growth is the most serious, predictable and intractable crisis facing us today, she warns, 'we shall not be able to avoid … the ultimate collapse of [the earth's] vital resource bases".
The Norwegian Government are almost alone in reaching the target of 4 per cent. of overseas aid being directed to population activities. I hope that the Minister can encourage the ODA in that direction.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Foreign Secretary has laid down three principles which should be considered in determining our aid programme: respect for human rights and the rule of law; movement towards democratic and accountable government and the rooting out of corruption; and the pursuit of sound social and economic policies. The annual review adds a fourth:
"Concern for the environment runs through the whole of Britain's aid activities, and each project … is assessed for its environmental impact".
In the case of Indonesia, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, has claimed that as a result of our aid there has been a reduction in absolute poverty levels; that we have retained our influence over Indonesia; and that by giving aid to projects which help British firms, we are influencing the government to improve the human rights of the Indonesian people dramatically.
The per capita income of Indonesians has been rising gradually, and they are now just below the threshold of 700 dollars, as the noble Lord, Lord Prior, reminded us, where they would cease to quality for ATP aid. That is not due to aid but to commercial exploitation of natural

1045
resources, including the Achehnese gas fields, which are the largest in the world. The people of Acheh are not enjoying respect for human rights and the rule of law, however. Amnesty says that,
"the pattern of gross human rights violations reported from Acheh since 1989 continues to warrant urgent international concern",
and that the fate of thousands of victims remained unresolved. The UN rapporteur on extrajudicial executions says that the pattern of killings and disappearances in Acheh was similar to that in East Timor, and there was no fundamental change in the conditions which allowed those phenomena to occur.
The rapporteur wrote to the Government of Indonesia asking to visit East Timor in accordance with the UN Human Rights Commission's resolution passed in Geneva last year. The Indonesians replied that having voted against the resolution, they did not feel compelled to abide by its provisions; but they now say he could visit East Timor in 1994. Will the Minister confirm that, and will she say whether the Government will press Jakarta to allow him to visit Acheh and West Papua as well?
The UN rapporteur on torture says he received information indicating that torture,
"has been used routinely in Acheh by military and police authorities since mid-1989".
He too has been denied admission either to Acheh or East Timor, as have the UN working groups on disappearances and unlawful detentions.
Amnesty's overall view is that the Indonesian Government,
"with minor exceptions, has failed to comply with the spirit or the substance of the Commission's recommendations".
The US State Department, says that,
"extra judicial arrests and detention, [and] torture of those in custody … continued in many areas of Indonesia. Legal safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention are frequently ignored. The armed forces continued to be responsible for the most serious human rights abuses".
Asia Watch has details of cases of harassment of union members in late 1993 and early 1994. Indonesia has eroded but not removed the law on military intervention in labour disputes because it wanted the US to continue the generalised system of preferences benefits for Indonesian exports. The review of the programme was postponed for six months in February while freedom of association is still restricted. Military oversight of labour negotiations, dismissals of workers and interference in strikes are still within the law and the Jakarta military commander has implied that the repeal of Decree 342 will make no practical difference. Reports of bonded labour continue.
In John Pilger's programme on East Timor last week, evidence was given of secondary killings after the Santa Cruz massacre. Two hundred and seven persons were listed as missing by UN agencies of whom eight have been accounted for by Jakarta. According to survivors, the wounded were stabbed and clubbed to death by the soldiers, and some were killed by poisoning.
Indonesia has been responsible for the deaths of a quarter of a million East Timorese since the illegal occupation of the territory began in December 1975. Yet it receives lavish aid from Britain. The World Development Movement says that over the decade 1980
1046
to 1990, UK bilateral aid to Indonesia rose by 111 per cent. It is the ninth largest recipient of UK aid, and the largest outside the Commonwealth. Indonesia has been second only to Malaysia as a beneficiary of ATP funding since 1989, and that money has gone largely to infrastructure projects which have very little impact on poverty.
One of the largest of our Indonesian ATP projects is the £ 65 million Samarinda power plant, the contract for which is about to be awarded to GEC Alsthom. The electricity from Samarinda will be used to expand mining and logging in the area; for example, at the huge Kelian gold mine. The environmental hazards of the operation were demonstrated when heavy rain swept 617 drums of poisonous waste into the river, allegedly causing toxic burns to 13 people.
The company is also in dispute with 440 families displaced by their operations. Those families; lost their homes and livelihoods and were paid 100 to 500 dollars in compensation. Some, who got nothing at all, are still camping on the sequestrated land. Now the company plans to alter the course of the river, thus harming the Dayak forest dwellers. Britain is not demonstrating much concern for the environment in East Kalimantan.
If Indonesia fails to qualify for British aid as a country which is not among the poorest and which has easy access to market capital; which shows little respect for its own environment; which fails to respect human rights and the rule of law; which is not tending towards pluralism but has a dictator now in his sixth unopposed term; and which persists with repressive policies, why should we, in the Foreign Secretary's words,
"support their folly with scarce aid resources which could be better used elsewhere".
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he can answer an extremely brief question. He referred to the John Pilger programme "Death of a Nation". The programme gave eye-witness evidence of British Hawk aircraft being used to bomb villages in East Timor. Can the noble Lord confirm—
Baroness Trumpington: Order, my Lords; this is a timed debate. The last two speakers went the full length of their time. We cannot have such interruptions.
7 p.m.
Viscount Weir: My Lords, I must first declare an interest as deputy chairman of BICC, whose subsidiary, Balfour Beatty is the lead contractor for the Pergau Dam. No doubt, therefore, noble Lords, with their customary good sense, will discount heavily most of what I am going to say.
However, in my turn I might perhaps start by discounting some of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, conveyed about the costs of power from Pergau. First, dams of that kind are built for a life of over 100 years and not 35 years. Their hydro-electric machinery is often rebuilt to "as new" condition after 30 years or more. Their costs should, therefore, be evaluated accordingly on a very long-term basis. As for cost comparisons with gas turbines, I am only delighted that either the noble Lord or the ODA can apparently predict gas prices so long ahead.

1047
Having said that, I must also confess to a certain unease about the wording of the Motion. The whole idea of directing aid,
"where it is most needed",
sounds admirable enough as a general concept, but there is, perhaps, just something about it which is a little reminiscent of the trustees of some well-endowed charity meeting to pick a list of the most deserving causes. That task always brings with it the inescapable pleasure of handing out other people's money and the difficulty of avoiding any small touch of condescension. As recent events have shown, even a suspicion of condescension understandably rankles in Malaysia.
I hope that noble Lords will not take those remarks as being either critical or unkind. They are certainly not so intended. It is impossible however to be as kindly disposed to some of the press. The editor of the Sunday Times was quoted as proudly taking criticism of the innuendo-laden article in his paper about an aluminium smelter that was, incidentally, never built as a "badge of courage". It was almost certainly that article which precipitated the fierce reaction of the Malaysian Government. Self-congratulation stinks and to congratulate yourself on an article where the transitory titillation of your readers results in massive economic losses for your country only shows how much lower the already low standards of press responsibility can sink if they are in the right hands.
The Observer of course—particularly now that it has escaped from the clutches of Mr. Rowland into the warm liberal bosom of the Guardian—is altogether a more up-market journal. It merely wrote about aid money being spent on a "luxury airport" in Malaysia. I suppose those concerned would have been happier if it had not been a luxury airport but just a normal uncomfortable one. At any rate, the Observer and its little band of readers can presumably now rest well contented and satisfied as British companies will apparently play no further part in building that highly prestigious £ 3 billion project.
Finally, there is one significant point that the press seems to have completely missed. Why was Malaysia chosen in the first place as a priority recipient for so much aid? Surely, that was only sensible in order to re-build and recover Britain's trading position in such an important market where our position had been so seriously eroded by the original trade boycott in the early 1980s. The Government were quite right to do it, even if their detailed implementation of the policy has, perhaps, left something to be desired.
The question we need to ask is how the present arrangements for aid can be improved. The starting point ought to be some simple economic considerations. I suggest the following four as being relevant. Our aid budget is puny compared to the problems of the less-developed world, and there is little chance of it being increased; our balance of trade is horrible; our unemployment is high and much of industry is working below capacity; and, finally, the competition for international business is fierce. Incidentally, noble Lords can see for themselves how fierce that competition is and its direct connection with
1048
government aid from the two examples of the Shanghai and the Guandjhou metros to which my noble friend Lord Prior referred.
Frankly, our economic circumstances today are such that, sadly, I believe we can only really afford such forms of economic aid as give our industry some measure of benefit in return. I would, therefore, make two suggestions. First, that a lot of our politicians and press give up the luxuries that they are currently enjoying so much of humbug and the public washing of dirty linen, and instead make a conscious effort to grasp the sometimes unattractive realities of competitive international business in which some of us have to trade. Secondly, that a much larger proportion of our overall aid budget is allocated to the aid and trade provision and that the whole responsibility for ATP is transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry, where it seems sensibly to belong.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on the Pergau Dam at all but on the subject set out on the Order Paper. However, having listened to the noble Viscount who has just spoken, I must say that I have not yet heard a more stringent critique of government policy. The noble Viscount seemed to be saying that the Government have reduced the British economy to such dire straits—for example, high unemployment and industries without orders—that, unless our foreign aid is used to give our industry orders, there is no other way that it can compete. I did not say it; but thank God it is there and we can use it some other time.
I should like, first, to speak in defence of economists. Various people have said that the kind of project evaluation that the ODA no doubt obtained was either ignorant of the situation in the long run or ignorant of the balance between initial fixed costs, running costs and so on. Economists have been doing such things for at least 50 years, if not longer. If people do not have the technical expertise to evaluate such reports, it is bad form to criticise those who cannot defend themselves. I imagine that the ODA received very good professional advice on the matter. It is an economically well-established subject, especially as regards cost-benefit analysis. I am sure that what was said initially—namely, that the project did not have a good cost-benefit ratio—was entirely correct. I would not expect anything less from the ODA. Just because the project has been mentioned, people have chosen to malign economists. I do not like that.
There is another rather curious aspect to the project. We are told that the initial evaluation by an Australian agency was £ 150 million. However, the project finally ended up costing £ 471 million. Indeed, aid is going where it is most needed—to British corporations. I do not know how anyone could inflate the value of the project three times in the course of two years. No doubt sound reasons were given. Nevertheless, I am sure that there was a lot of cost inflation going on.
I turn now to the topic at issue. The problem is not the Pergau Dam or anything like it. I believe that much of the aid given by the United Kingdom and many other countries is not going where it is most needed. If it is

1049
going to poor countries at all, it is not going to the poorest people within those countries. If it is going to those countries, it is not being used to further what I would call the human development of the poorest people. It is not being used to meet basic needs or in sufficient quantity in areas such as health, education or women's development. Less than 10 per cent. of all OECD aid is used to meet the basic needs of people. Far too much aid is given not to help the recipients but to help secure business for the country which is giving the aid. The noble Viscount said that the purpose of giving aid is to subsidise our industry. I believe it is wrong that 65 per cent. or more of British aid is tied.
If all that we achieve by giving aid is to help our own business community, why not just do that direct and call it something else? We should not call it aid and declare that the receiving countries are gaining from it. Such aid is a form of tariff. We are giving subsidies to our own businesses because without it they are too weak to go out and get orders. I believe that the aid system, not just of the UK Government but also of the OECD, must be radically re-thought. It is not a case of there not being sufficient money but rather of such money as there is not doing enough good. People have the impression that we are giving a lot of money away when we are giving very little. Perhaps more of our aid should be multilateral rather than bilateral and funnelled through NGOs whose staff know where the poor are to be found and who can carry out the kind of projects which help the poor.
We should ask ourselves the question: why do many people give money from their own pockets to NGOs? They do so because NGOs can demonstrate that the money that is given reaches the poor people and helps them. Few governments can show that happening with aid. That is my indictment of the aid system. I would prefer the British Government to shut down the ODA more or less and give all the aid money to NGOs. Let us have this purchaser/provider split. Let the ODA purchase development aid but not provide it. Let Oxfam and Save the Children provide the aid because they are much better at it. So much money is wasted in the provision of government-to-government aid. I am not merely criticising the UK Government in this regard; it is a general malaise. Aid is given for extremely dubious purposes, some of which concern defence contracts. It is also given for diplomatic reasons and such phenomena as, formerly, the cold war. I believe it is fraudulent to pretend that such aid is helping the poor.
Countries should state clearly that they are giving aid because that is part of their foreign policy and diplomacy and their policy of setting their friends against their enemies. The problem is that we say things we do not mean. If we want our businesses to secure overseas contracts we should leave that in the hands of the DTI and at least in that case any money that is spent in the process will not be called aid but something else. I am sure that eventually we will have to find a more radical way of giving aid that is much more effective and economical than the present system. At present there is not enough aid money available and what is available is not doing any good.
7.14 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, this Motion gives me an opportunity to share my views on a matter of great concern to me. I passionately believe that the greatest single problem facing the world today is an unchecked growth in population. Since 1950 the world population has doubled and it will increase by another billion during this decade. In the next century it could double or triple, and about 95 per cent. of that increase will occur in developing countries.
This Motion calls attention to aid being directed to,
"where it is most needed".
I would submit that it is most needed for family planning and in the connected area of the health of mothers and children.
My noble friend the Minister launched several new initiatives in 1991 to strengthen Britain's contribution to family planning and health in developing countries. These included strengthening health services, providing easier access to contraceptives and establishing health and development projects. On the occasion of the launch my noble friend said:
"British aid for population activities in developing countries must enable more women and men to decide the number of children they have by choice not chance".
She added:
"There are three guiding principles for population assistance. First, individuals, particularly women, must be able to choose when to have children. Second, clear family planning advice must be made available to all to exercise their decision freely and without coercion. Third, the quality and availability of family planning services must be improved if men and women are to feel confident that modern family planning is for them".
I have quoted the words of my noble friend the Minister because I could not have expressed them so clearly and concisely myself, and also because to me they make up the guiding principles which should never be lost sight of.
However, while the principles are right, the picture is not as rosy as I would wish. First, only 1.5 per cent. of UK aid is devoted to population activities. Secondly, there are still many charities which shy away from being involved in a concerted effort in this field. ODA and my noble friend have recognised that there is a great unmet need. One has to ask oneself whether this need can be met with the small amount of aid money which is being spent on it.
I am a woman whose roots lie in a developing country, a country which has continuously struggled with its population problem, sometimes quite disa-strously. I was visiting India when Mrs. Gandhi's son, Sanjay, tried to achieve quick results through enforcement. That step set India's family planning programme back by at least a decade. I believe that coercion is the grossest violation of human rights. The key lies in educating and helping women to take decisions about their own lives. By education I do not mean literacy—as some organisations have chosen to emphasise—I mean helping women to understand the choices which are open to them and helping them to take responsibility for making those choices.
I used to subscribe to the view that education in a more literal sense is the key. There is absolutely no doubt that that is so. In India the lowest birth rate and the highest standard of living are found in Kerala where the

1051
literacy rate is 87 per cent. The worst situation is found in Uttar Pradesh which has the lowest literacy rate. However, I now believe that we just cannot wait for there to be a dramatic increase in literacy. There are other successful ways of helping women who may not have access to education in a literal sense.
Women in rural areas are much more receptive to advice from women with whom they can identify. There has to be a cascade system of training for health workers reaching right down to training a village woman herself to give advice on family planning and health issues. Perhaps the biggest battle has to be fought with the men who often feel their traditional role is being threatened. On my recent visit to Calcutta I was encouraged to learn that 30 per cent. of places on village councils in West Bengal have been reserved for women and that one woman has been elected head of a council.
It is my firm belief that no outsider can come in and change things. Outside aid can only provide the means by which people can take charge of their own lives, set their own priorities and make their own choices. But I must say to my noble friend the Minister, money is of vital importance.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the whole House is grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, who has just spoken, because she has cut my speech at least by half. She made the point so much better than I could ever hope to. It is an enormously important subject. I have spoken about it before. I cited the Scandinavian countries, which give more money. The noble Baroness has replied that we do our best. It is a matter of vital importance. I shall say no more. It has all been said by the noble Baroness.
I shall move on to the particular. However, before doing so perhaps I may say that I think that my countryman, the noble Viscount, was a little hard on the press. We have a free press and if it makes a mistake we have to put up with it. One cannot moan about the press. I always thought that the great, competent industrialists of this country so organised their affairs that they produced goods which were of a quality and cheapness with which other lesser breeds were unable to compete. I thought that that was the basis for success rather than help from government in various ways, although government must not hinder.
Having said that, I shall move on to the point that I wish to make about deserving countries. The noble Baroness the Minister has been in Albania, which I visited in the autumn. It is a country in Europe of extreme poverty. Albania suffered for 40 years under a regime which made Russia, Poland and Hungary seem a liberal heaven in comparison. I was fascinated to see developments in my own field of agriculture. About 80 per cent. of the people live on the land. Such was the people's hatred of the previous regime that they seized the state farms, broke up the irrigation systems and tore out the vines to pasture their cows. The government had to back them.
The agricultural area was split into small farms. In this country after the First World War it was said that
1052
every returning soldier should have three acres of land and a cow. A farmer in Aberdeenshire said that he would take the three acres in front of his house and keep a bull. The Albanian families settled on their few acres, averaging just under two hectares. They are feeding themselves. It is uneconomic, but the families exist on their few acres. That holds them together.
Until Albania can encourage tourism and build up its horticulture to provide exports, and until some industry gets going again, those families will have to live in that way. I believe that help, mainly of a technical nature, to train those people—who were, in effect, serfs living on state farms—how to run a profitable small unit to feed their families would be of great value.
There are agricultural scientists in Albania and any help that we could provide to allow those scientists to spread their knowledge would be extremely useful. That would help a country inside Europe which is probably as poor as many of the developing countries in other parts of the world. It would also do us in Britain a great deal of good, perhaps not in terms of industry but certainly in terms of prestige and gratitude.
While Albania is building up means of employing her people in other ways she will depend on family farms in the countryside. Any money that we spend on education, on agriculture and generally helping to improve the fabric of the country would be very well spent. I hope that the Minister, who is good, kindly, and a proper person to do that, will help them.
7.25 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, was going to propose organic farming for those farms.
I had not intended to talk about the Pergau dam, but the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale—whom we must thank for introducing the debate—concentrated his speech upon it. It seemed to me that he was making great political advantage from that simple aid for trade activity. That is what it is, what it has been and what it will be. It may be a bad deal, and its value is disputed, but not by my noble friend Lord Prior and the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, whose words on that subject I accept in advance of those of anyone else in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, also raised the question of the arms industry. We have an arms industry in this country. We need one. How could we do anything in Bosnia if we did not have one? If one has an arms industry one has to export arms. Some people may not like it and find it objectionable, but it is head in the sand nonsense to imagine that that is not done and should not be done. It is done, it has been done for centuries and will continue to be done. We need to do it and I thoroughly support all the work that is done for it.
I, too, have read the overseas aid review and support entirely the Government's work with Horizon 2000 in its excellent work worldwide in health, education, poverty and distress. I should also like to point out in particular that I am grateful that we are now giving aid to South Africa, which is a great advance.
I recently participated in an IPU visit to the Czech and Slovak republics. We met representatives of the

1053
British Council in some 13 different establishments where they were running much welcomed and very successful English language teaching schools. They made a plea that the ODA should develop that work, especially in Slovakia where it is greatly appreciated and extremely successful.
The Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew runs a programme funding sustainable development in tropical ecosystems in St. Helena. That is supported by the Government and is very welcome. I have spoken to Professor Prance at the Royal Botanic Gardens who mentioned that Kew has for a long time been running a large project in the arid deserts in north east Brazil. He is anxious for mere funding for that project. It is a long-standing project and is of enormous value. It is in the arid north east region rather than in the tropical forests.
I have one further point concerning small villages in Africa and Asia which need a means of treatment for a combination of animal and human waste. It is possible for such treatment plants to be scaled down with an existing system, which I mentioned in the previous debate, to a size to accommodate some 50 households, which can be constructed, operated and maintained largely by local labour. It is called the Biotechna Graesser system. The Biotechna system is operating in this country at present.
Perhaps I may be technical. The simple anaerobic pits will not only destroy toxic bacteria and viruses but also parasitic ova. The consequent liquefied slurry from those pits can be used as a feedstock for the photosynthetic biocoils which will transform the slurry to high protein algae which is suitable for feed to cattle, pigs, poultry or fish. It also generates methane, which can be extracted. The extracted methane can then be used for heat and can help to drive the system. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether the Biotechna Graesser system is considered a suitable item for promotion by the ODA in African and other third world countries. It seems to be an extremely successful and self-supporting system. Single units of £ 100,000 for small villages are quite feasible.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, if I feel some diffidence in addressing your Lordships tonight, it is because I do not have available the official papers upon which the points I wish to make are based. I therefore have to rely on my memory.
About 1960, those of us who were serving in the Commonwealth Relations Office became increasingly concerned that our programme of overseas aid might become regarded by the countries of the New Commonwealth, not as a contribution to their social and economic well being, but as an attempt by Great Britain to maintain its political influence and to continue some form of economic hegemony.
We were well aware that the governments of those countries so recently emerged from being colonies to full independence, while needing Great Britain's help, were acutely sensitive to anything which seemed to be an attempt to continue their pre-independent status. That was, of course, at a time when our relations with the
1054
Commonwealth countries, great and small, were the subject of a certain amount of idealism; and before that ghastly phrase "value for money" became the overriding principle of government policy.
We were determined that the British taxpayers' money should not be wasted on grandiose and uneconomic projects, but we believed that aid should not be used primarily to grease the wheels of Foreign Office policy or as a sort of hidden export subsidy. Of course the goodwill which we believed the provision of aid would produce meant that the bread that we cast on the waters would bring a reward in due course.
At the same time we believed that aid administered without taking into account the sensitivities and suspicions of governments of the New Commonwealth might do more harm than good. Above all, we believed that the Commonwealth was of major importance to Britain's standing in the world and that the material help that we gave to strengthen their economies, to support social progress and consequently to maintain political stability in newly independent countries, was the real value we achieved from the money which our aid programme provided.
I happened to learn that the Canadian Government had set up a department independent of the Ministry of External Affairs to administer its aid. I therefore proposed to the Secretary of State, the late Lord Duncan Sandys, that we should do the same. He put the proposal to the Prime Minister, the late Lord Stockton, and to the Cabinet, who immediately agreed. Thus an independent Ministry of Overseas Aid and Development came into being, able to establish its own criteria for the granting of aid and without arousing in the minds of the governments of the New Commonwealth any suspicion of there being some sinister or ulterior motive.
Not long after that, the Commonwealth Relations Office was absorbed into the Foreign Office and soon after the administration of overseas aid went the same way. The present controversy over the Pergau Dam is exactly what we feared would happen and what we wished to prevent. The provision of a large slice of aid to a prosperous country for a utility which is uneconomic and a danger to the environment, and which is associated with an arms deal, is exactly what aid to the Commonwealth should not represent. That this should be accompanied by allegations of corruption and accusation of neo-colonialism is exactly the situation we were determined to avoid. Not only will it sour our relations with Malaysia, but it will sow suspicion in the minds of the Commonwealth governments and damage Britain's reputation in the world.
I am quite certain that if the Department of Overseas Aid had been independent, its Minister, with the strong advice of his or her permanent secretary, and despite pressure from other government departments and the misguided interference of a Prime Minister, would have had no hesitation in turning the Pergau Dam project down. Thus £ 234 million would have been available for countries where it was desperately needed and where British help would be appreciated, instead of, as in the case of Malaysia, ending in a quarrel which damages both British reputation and our overseas trade.

1055
The answer is quite simple. It is to take the Department of Overseas Aid out of the Foreign Office and to restore its independence as a department of state. My noble friend Lord Prior said,"Hand over aid to the Department of Trade and Industry". By all means allow the Department of Trade and Industry to give export subsidies for British exports to foreign markets, whether Commonwealth or others; but do not call that aid because it is a total misuse of the term and something which I believe does damage to our aid programme.
If your Lordships believe, as I do passionately, that our relations with Commonwealth countries great and small are vital to our nation's standing in the world, then it is high time that we recaptured some of the idealism of earlier days and measured the value for the money we give in aid to Commonwealth countries in their greater political stability, the improvements in standards of living and in continuing goodwill for Britain. That surely is better than using it to promote traffic in arms, which is already far too great for the security and peace of the world today.
7.39 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for directing our thoughts to the difficult subject of overseas aid and to where this important expenditure goes in order to benefit the most needy.
Overseas aid must be viewed in the context of the cultures of the countries to which it is given. The family of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, have exhibited much talent in being able to set in context and illuminate some of those foreign cultures. His noble ancestor the first Lord Redesdale even witnessed ritual hari-kiri following an uprising in Japan. I hope that the noble Lord is spared similar performances.
My own interest in the subject of overseas aid stems from the fact that I have spent the past 30 years of my life promoting the export of British manufactured goods all over the world and from the fact that I lived for 17 years in one of the furthest flung corners of the British Commonwealth—New Zealand. I hasten to add that New Zealand has not needed to be the beneficiary of United Kingdom aid at any time in my lifetime.
Many noble Lords have dwelt on what I might describe as some of the more topical issues concerning the recent spending of some parts of the ODA budget. Perhaps I may be allowed to underline the main thrust of the Motion which is concerned with applying the United Kingdom's overseas aid budget where it is most needed. As the wording of the Motion acknowledges, that objective was well spelt out in the 1993 annual report of the ODA. This is not a sad debate; it is one in which we can take pride.
It is possible to put some of the earlier contributions in context if one focuses on the ODA budget as a whole and sees just how it has been spent. The ODA is responsible to Parliament; an NGO is not. As we have heard, the ODA's budget represents just over 0.3 per cent. of our GNP and has grown in real terms by 10 per cent. since 1987–88. Perhaps 0.3 per cent. or just over £ 2 billion of taxpayers' money does not sound much to
1056
some noble Lords. However, as with spending on health care or other worthy social benefits, we must temper our enthusiasm with some sense of reality.
It is only realistic that our overseas aid budget should reflect our local economic circumstances and be balanced with the other pressing claims on our scarce national resources. Indeed, I suggest that my noble friend Lady Chalker, who has given a major slice of her career to the cause of overseas aid, should be congratulated on having maintained such a significant overseas aid budget in the face of so many other pressures on our overall public expenditure budget.
It is important to highlight not just the quantity but the quality of our overseas aid. It is pleasing to note that the OECD has singled out the United Kingdom for particular praise for the effectiveness of our aid, for its poverty focus and for the emphasis that we place on encouraging the private sector enterprises of the economies within which our aid is applied.
It is a cornerstone of British aid to promote good government, sound economic policies, democratic accountability and a respect for human rights. As the ODA 1993 annual report highlighted, in 1992–93 just over 55 per cent. of our aid was bilateral, with the balance of just under 45 per cent. being multilateral. That was channelled through the European Community. About 80 per cent. of our bilateral aid goes to the poorest countries, all new aid being in the form of grants rather than loans and increasing amounts being spent on the direct reduction of poverty.
An increasing percentage of our aid is committed for humanitarian purposes. Sixty six million pounds has been given directly to Iraqi civilians since 1991, deliberately bypassing the Iraqi Government, and £ 157 million of humanitarian aid has gone to the former Yugoslavia. The United Kingdom is a major contributor to the multinational aid agencies, not just via the EC. It is the fifth largest contributor to the International Development Agency and is a major contributor to the interest subsidy account of the IMF's enhanced structural adjustment facility.
The UK, via the ODA, has a strong record in helping to relieve the poorest and most indebted countries of the burden of debt. It has strongly supported the Paris Club in implementing modified Trinidad terms, based on proposals made by our present Prime Minister back in 1990.
Overall, the ODA has relieved developing countries of £ 1.1 billion of debt. Part of our overseas aid budget is rightly being spent also on environmental projects: 200 forestry projects costing £ 150 million; and energy efficiency and pollution control in India amounting to £ 60 million. The ODA is active too in health and population-related programmes, as we have heard, and is supplying economic assistance to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
Sustainable development requires that the conditions exist to attract a healthy flow of private investment to build up local infrastructures. In that area, the UK record in developing countries is particularly good. British private investment in developing countries was

1057
estimated in 1992 at £ 1.7 billion, which represented half of the EC total, exceeded only by the investments of the United States and Japan.
We have heard much about the aid and trade provision. There is no doubt that it is an essential part of our organised overseas negotiating relief. It is a means whereby we can compete with our partners in the EC. There was a time in this country when aid was spread to many areas without any consideration of what was purchased. Today, our aid is directed. No longer do people in Africa buy Chinese railways with British money.
My time has gone, but if we continue to suffer the problems with the press which have been highlighted in this debate, we need to remember the words which Lord Braclwell (Tom Driberg) attributed to Hannen Swaffer in his biography:
"Freedom of the press in Britain means freedom to print such of the proprietor's prejudices as the advertisers don't object to".
7.46 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on bringing forward this topic and also on his expertise in putting such topical Questions on the Order Paper. He seems to be acquiring quite a knack with it. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, I have examined and read the ODA report with interest. It is admirable. Sadly, there is no time to go into many of the projects that it describes, but there is no doubt that in this country we have a great number of dedicated people, both in the ODA and in the country as a whole. They are experts in the real problems of development.
In a recent statement, an OECD spokesman said that the UK had a unique concentration of talent and experience in development. It is a pity that that interest and expertise is not matched by funding on a suitably generous scale. On too many occasions in your Lordships' House we have debated the budget of the ODA and lamented that not only is it static overall, but the demands on funds for multilateral organisations are diminishing what i; left for bilateral aid, which is what we do best and which is our most effectively targeted aid.
Other noble Lords have focused on the dam problem so I shall not labour the point, except to say that it appears that in the end it is a case of the biter bit. But sadly. it looks as though British workers will be the ones to suffer rather than those who committed the misdemeanour. I am rather worried that £ 90 million a year will still be spent on ATP, though I am somewhat reassured that the rules will now be rather more strictly adhered to. I am glad that it will stay within the ODA and not go to the DTI. At least, if we listen to our officials, it will be spent on aid in the future.
The Pergau payments will represent an average of approximately £ 17 million a year over 14 years. It is worth comparing that with the £ 28 million which we spend on the much praised joint funding scheme which funds about 100 non-governmental organisations. As my noble friend Lord Desai and other noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, said, the money spent on overseas NGOs is particularly cost effective. If the Government had taken Sir Timothy
1058
Lankester's advice and not funded Pergau, the JFS budget could have been augmented by 60 per cent. every year for 14 years.
The annual review that was mentioned focuses on Uganda. In fact, it puts that country centre stage as a good example of effective aid. What it does not mention is that Uganda is effectively bankrupt and has no hope of becoming solvent for many years, even if it now has three judges, a rural water supply and other valuable institutions funded by the ODA. That country, which is one of the poorest in the world after emerging from 20 years of war-torn misery, has a debt of £ 2.5 billion. That is a very large sum compared to its small population. Fully servicing that debt will require 25 per cent. more foreign exchange than Uganda earns from all its exports—coffee prices having collapsed recently. That has led to an acute shortage of foreign exchange. All development, and even its structural adjustment programme, is in danger of collapsing. Uganda has derived little benefit from debt rescheduling efforts made under the enhanced Toronto terms, which do not include debts incurred after 1981, nor those to the World Bank or the IMF. As a result, the Ugandan economy will be drained of £ 2 billion annually for the next 20 years.
Many other countries in Africa face the same problem, as the noble Baroness knows well. Is it not more important to get Africa back into the world economy so that it can pay for its own imports—those which it needs for development—rather than patching up the worse deficiencies piecemeal? United Kingdom aid to Uganda was worth £ 35 million last year. But the Government of Uganda will have to pay £ 2 billion out in servicing its debt. That is more than 50 times as much as the United Kingdom aid is worth.
If one multiplies that figure over all the countries in Africa, one sees that the situation requires a major international shift in financial policy and a change in the nature of the Bretton Woods institutions, as was suggested by my right honourable friend John Smith in Geneva last week. The debt of most countries in Africa needs to be written off, just as the debts of an individual citizen are written off when he is declared insolvent. I would have no objection to all the assets found in Swiss banks belonging to citizens of bankrupt developing countries being tracked down and taken back in part payment.
Finance to kick-start the recovery could be provided by the issue of special drawing rights, as was recently suggested by the managing director of the International Monetary Fund. That is not a new idea. With world inflationary pressures at a low level this is an appropriate moment for that kind of action. It could bring the 400 million people of Africa, arid others in heavily indebted poor countries, back into the world economy, to both their and our lasting benefit.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, first I owe an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and to other speakers in that unfortunately I had a longstanding engagement at 6.30 which I had to attend. I was not therefore able to hear the whole speech of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Perhaps in my political inexperience I had

1059
assumed that the debate that the noble Lord had opened was to be on the subject as expressed in the Motion on the Order Paper. I am afraid that I must address my remarks to what I thought the debate was to be about. I understand that some noble Lords have addressed those problems.
The first point that struck me when I saw the Order Paper was whether ODA policy was directed to those areas which are most in need. That is a fundamental part of development aid. Just by chance I saw the UNICEF report The State of the World's Children 1993. Interestingly, Table 6 (on page 78), which deals with economic indicators, gives a long list of some 64 countries and their average GNP per capita. For the first group of 35 countries the figure of 355 US dollars for 1990 is shown. For the second group of countries the figure is 525 US dollars. It may interest noble Lords to know that, checking the statistical appendix produced by the ODA in its report, every single African country mentioned in that list is covered by the statistical appendix of the ODA. I believe that that shows both the intentions, the intelligence information and the determination of the ODA to fulfil its obligation to deal with those particular poor areas of the world. It is to be congratulated on that.
Interestingly also, on page 3 of the same report a table shows aid given for basic needs. Noble Lords will know the definition of "basic needs"; I do not have to go into that. The table shows the net bilateral ODA figures, together with the percentage allocated to basic needs. The United Kingdom comes seventh in that list. There are six north European countries above the United Kingdom, but the percentage allocated to basic needs of its net bilateral aid is 8.8 per cent. Below that figure comes every other country. If it is an indication of how the proportions change, the figure for Germany is 1.9 per cent. in the percentage allocated to basic needs. Again, that is evidence of the determination of the ODA to fulfil its obligations to those areas of the world which certainly suffer most.
Very little has so far been said about appreciation on the part of those countries which receive aid from the ODA. It is very easy to criticise; to say that not enough has been given, that more should be given, or that more should be done. But I have just arrived back today from an international conference which was attended by representatives from many parts of the world. The conference was not on the ODA. I can give three specific examples of people who came up to me and said,"How grateful we are for what Britain does for us". One was a young man who was in charge of an institute of human rights in Nepal. He praised the new highway that has been built there using British aid. He said that it is the best highway in the whole area and that it had brought considerable help to his country. The second was someone from Zimbabwe who praised the development by British NGOs in the whole area, including of course Mozambique, and said how grateful people were for the work that NGOs do on the ground.
As we know from the report—which I should say in parenthesis is clear, comprehensible, well presented and, above all, brief—about £ 33 million has been given
1060
to NGOs; they are the people on the ground who can contribute so much to improving the life of the poorest people in the world. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those members of NGOs who work in the most appalling conditions, and who are very often in danger of losing their own life. We cannot over-estimate the work that NGOs contribute and the ODA and other member states support them throughout the world.
I personally welcome the concentration on the four Commonwealth countries which have received sums of money. I appreciate what was said by the noble Lord who spoke before me on Uganda. The situation there is appalling. Having had to study the reports of what happened 20 years ago in Uganda, reading of the absolute outrages that were committed day after day upon vast numbers of innocent people among the population, I can but welcome that at least there is some improvement in the quality of living in that country. I accept the financial difficulties with which that country is faced; and I personally very much welcome, as I am sure did other noble Lords, the proposal of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister with regard to the Trinidad terms. I particularly welcome the fact that the report before us tonight stresses that money is being given in the form of grants. For so long we have seen the effect of loans burdening these countries with debt for longstanding outgoings. I noted specifically the mention that grants were now the policy of the Government in helping these countries. That is also to be welcomed.
Other aspects of the report are also to be welcomed. For instance, there is the new approach of giving and encouraging investment in small businesses, in India for example. That would have been unimaginable 10 or 20 years ago. It already shows a vast improvement. We want to see countries which will eventually move into a position in which they are economically independent. They do not want to be dependent. Regrettably there will be some which will remain dependent for all sorts of reasons. As we see countries moving towards economic independence, we should welcome it with the aid policy of this Government.
I should like to stress that the conference that I attended today related to international observer groups at democratic elections. Again, the support of the ODA for that activity was warmly welcomed. We all know that without a democratic system many of those countries will not reach a quality of life that we should like to see sustained throughout the world.
In conclusion, I thank my noble friend the Minister for all that she does. It is perhaps invidious for her to have to listen, but wherever I go I am always told that she is the only aid Minister who is any good anywhere. I say that off the cuff. That is what I heard in Tenerife this morning.
8 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords who have spoken in congratulating my noble friend Lord Redesdale on initiating the debate and giving us an excellent speech. As the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, pointed out, there have been two interlinked debates this evening—I hesitate to use the

1061
description "entangled debates". One has been on the ODA's annual report and various aspects of its operations, including interesting and important issues such as population control; the other related to the extraordinary story of this Government's behaviour over the Pergau Dam, the arms programme and the Malaysian Government's reaction to those events.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, paid tribute to the Minister who has the slightly difficult task of winding up the debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, also remarked on her experience and we all know of her concern about the issues of overseas aid. But to make some remarks on tie more general point of the ODA's report, I do not feel that any of us in this country can take much satisfaction in the scale of our aid budget over the years. For the Government to go on, as they did at the last general election, setting the famous figure of 0.7 per cent. as their target for overseas aid at a time when year by year that percentage appears to come down, is becoming almost an abuse of language. Perhaps the United Nations' target ought to be looked at and tackled. It makes no sense having that figure as a target when it comes down year on year.
It is sometimes said that one of the reasons for that is that there is a kind of aid fatigue around and the general body of voters are not very keen on taxpayers' money being spent in large sums on giving help to the poorer societies of our world. I believe that that is mistaken. One of the most hopeful pictures of the world in which we live is the number of voluntary organisations that have proliferated over recent years with dynamic and idealistic young people engaging in giving help to the poorest societies it the world.
If I were asked about my own priority in these matters, I would join with the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, in citing not only the very big issue of population control, which was also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie, but also the importance of education. I am not sure that we devote a big enough part of our aid budget to education and within that budget that we devote a big enough part of our educational aid budget to basic primary education, which is extremely important in creating decent societies in the poorer parts of the world.
Incidentally, perhaps I may say to the Minister that it is quite difficult, amidst all the pretty pictures, to extract from her report the figures for the separate expenditure on education. It occurs to me that if we had given a greater priority to an educational aid policy and interpreted it imaginatively we should not have put up the fees for foreign students coming for an education to this country in the early 1980s, which has caused so much of the trouble in Malaysia. In fact, the Government might have been able to avoid all the difficulties that we have been debating tonight.
I turn from those general matters to the aid and trade provision of the ODA. There was a fascinating brief exchange across the Floor of the House between the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai. So far as I could make out they agreed on one point: they both seemed to want to abolish the ODA. The noble Viscount wanted to hand over its funds to the DT'I for an export subsidy campaign, for which I think
1062
there is very little to be said; the noble Lord, Lord Desai, urged that the aid should go principally to the various multilateral agencies, for which in general principle there is a good deal to be said, provided the multilateral aid is well managed and well used. I know that the noble Baroness is vigilant on that point.
I turn to the Malaysian situation. Malaysia is a fellow Commonwealth country and a democracy. It is a country with which we ought to have friendly relations and give help to. There is no reason at all why we should not seek to sell arms to Malaysia. It is a much better recipient of our arms exports than, for example, Indonesia, which was described by my noble friend Lord Avebury. So that is not an issue between us. But the scale of aid involved for Malaysia in this particular affair is disproportionate to Malaysia's place in the totality of the need for aid.
The noble Lord, Lord Alport, made a very powerful speech. I well remember the part that he played in setting up the original Department of Technical Co-operation many years ago. He made the point extremely well. I must tell noble Lords that in your Lordships' committees Malaysia is not talked about as one of the poorer countries of the world. That does not mean that Malaysia does not deserve aid arid help. But Malaysia is spoken of as one of the new tigers of the Pacific Rim with which we will have to compete before very long in the higher technologies.
In the time available to me I do not wish to go into detail on the Pergau affair, as my noble friend Lord Redesdale did so extremely well. I say very seriously to your Lordships' House that in all my many years in Parliament and in my time as a Minister I cannot recall a case of a permanent secretary, as accounting officer for his department, telling his Secretary of State that a ministerial decision was "an abuse of the system" and refusing to sign the cheque without a written order from his Secretary of State.
Mr. Douglas Hurd, as Foreign Secretary, issued that instruction. One understands that he did it because not to have done so would have been, as he said,"a breach of faith" of a secret understanding between his Prime Minister (who is now the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher) and the Prime Minister of Malaysia. But there was indeed a worse situation. Mr. Hurd has since explained—he did so this morning in the other place with what I believe is praiseworthy frankness—that at an earlier stage the aid for the dam had been allowed to become "entangled" wholly improperly with a major sale of arms to Malaysia. Mr. Hurd, who is an upright and loyal person, not for the first time was loyally disentangling Mrs. Thatcher from the problems created by her imperious style of personal international diplomacy.
The trouble is that although the arms deal and the dam deal were then formally separated, as major deals they have each continued to be implemented. The strange tale of the two letters recounted by my noble friend means that the link, although formally abolished, is still casting a long shadow. It raises suspicions that in other cases, without any formal link, aid may be going to countries which would not receive it if they were not already buying British arms.

1063
The noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, spoke of the arms trade as being a legitimate trade. I have already made it clear from these Benches that we recognise that, with appropriate safeguards. But the aid and trade provision must in no sense become an aid and arms provision. There is a good deal of sense in the Daily Telegraph editorial today which says that we should be working to define other things to sell than arms now that the Cold War has ended.
Now that the truth is out in regard to the Government's breaches of their own policies, we are paying a high price in the overreaction of the Malaysians to what happened. It is childish—if I can say this seriously to the noble Viscount, Lord Weir—to blame the damage to British business and British workers' jobs on the press and the Opposition. That is about as sensible as complaining about the British climate. I know that time prevents me from saying much more. But we live in a democracy with a free press. It is the Government's blunders which created this situation. The Opposition in Parliament are simply doing their duty to expose those blunders and the noble Viscount's ire should be directed to the proper quarter.
My time is up and I end simply by saying that I hope some good may still come out of the Pergau Dam saga. It will serve a useful purpose if it induces a little more humility on the part of some Members of this Government when they come up against inconvenient constitutional conventions; when they feel that the law and the constitutional arrangements are only for little people. It will have done a great deal of good if it brings a proper end to any linkage between arms and aid and trade provision. In those circumstances the noble Baroness may, with a sigh of relief, get on with what I know she would like to do; that is, implement fully and properly, without that kind of interference, the philosophy set out in her annual report.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I fully endorse the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. This was an important and timely debate and we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for making it possible.
At Chatham House last October the Minister underlined the central aims of the aid programme as being to reduce poverty and to improve opportunities in the countries that we assist. However, what seemed sadly to be lacking in that message was the same degree of commitment to the conviction which she had previously expressed so strongly, again at Chatham House, in June 1991. She then heavily emphasised that in the cause of sustained human development,
"open government and a free press [were] vital safeguards to ensure that bad policies and failures are exposed and that governments respond to the needs of their citizens"—
something which I hope is taken seriously both here and overseas. Indeed, I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Prior, agrees with her.
For all engaged in the front line of the fight against poverty and the struggle to enable people to take control of their own lives, the Minister's earlier words were encouraging and desperately pertinent. Why then the
1064
muted call last autumn? What pressures had intervened? I hope that the Minister will reassert her wider vision when she replies tonight.
This debate is about the quality of aid. It is sobering to note that as recently as the end of the last decade UNICEF recorded that only 9.1 per cent. of Britain's bilateral aid programme was spent on basic needs such as primary health care, safe water and similar fundamental human requirements. In that context the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, were right to emphasise the population crisis. We all wait to hear the Minister's response to those points this evening.
Quality cannot be separated from quantity. There comes a point at which lack of quantity inevitably damages quality, and I believe that that point has come. For, while paying lip service to the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product, the Conservative Government consistently refused to set a timetable for achieving that. By contrast they have literally presided over the halving of the commitment. In 1979, when they came to office, aid had reached 0.51 per cent. of GNP and was one of the most steadily rising areas of public expenditure. By 1992 it was down to 0.32 per cent. and, based on their own figures, it is set to reach an all time low of 0.26 per cent. of gross national product in 1995. The latest OECD report underlined that sorry story.
What is more, in the 1993 budget round, for the first time the Government merged the budget lines for developing countries and for Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. I know that many noble Lords share my anxiety that combining the two budget lines is a way of disguising an increasing diversion of aid funds to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to the detriment of the third world. That is a far cry from the firm assurances of the past that aid to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union would on no account be at the expense of the third world; that it would be covered by additionality of funds.
The noble Lord, Lord Prior, powerfully spoke of the retaliatory measures of the Malaysian Government, upset as they have been at the implications of media reports about the Pergau Dam. Britain must not succumb to crude pressure of that sort. To do so would really make a mockery of expressed commitments—not least those of the Minister herself—to good government, freedom of the press and human rights. The Minister, like the noble Lord, may be tempted to blame those who spoke out about the deal. But if anybody is to blame it is surely those responsible for that shoddy backroom deal which, whatever its real purpose, had absolutely nothing to do with helping poor people and which has brought the whole ATP into disrepute. If it were not so grave, the story of two letters delivered on the same day by the same ambassador would have made a stunning scene for a Gilbert and Sullivan opera and is certainly a humiliating episode for Britain.
Nobody on these Benches is against British firms and workers benefiting from the aid programme. Such an attitude would be ludicrous. Indeed, I was a Minister in the Labour Government which introduced the aid and trade provision. However, the fundamental governing

1065
principle then and the one which should invariably remain was and is that any direct or indirect assistance to British firms must be economically, technically and developmentally sound. Without that firm condition the aid and trade provision would not only waste taxpayers' money, but also cynically undermine sound and effective self-generating development in the countries concerned. It is in that respect that the operation of ATP by the Government and their friends in industry has gone so badly wrong.
Responding to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee's criticism of ATP back in 1987, the Government then said that,
"in each case there must be a reasonable assurance of economic, financial and technical soundness. ATP funds represent a transfer of resources to the country concerned in the same way as other aid funds do".
That was an undertaking which is scarcely borne out by the grim realities as revealed by the National Audit Office, no less.
And ATP is not all. Quite apart from its specific endorsements of British firms, a large proportion of British bilateral aid remains tied. Yet in 1991 an OECD study concluded that,
"it is improbable that aid tying provides significant macroeconomic benefits to any donor's domestic employment or balance of payments aggregates".
As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, rammed home tonight, there is another sinister dimension to what appears to be influencing the Government's distribution of aid; that is, its relationship to the arms sales. Even if there is no explicit link, there appears to be, as they used to say about smoking and lung cancer, a direct correlation. Why the almost doubled aid to Oman between 1980 and 1992–93? Why aid at all to such a relatively prosperous country? Were the 367 million dollars worth of arms sales by Britain between 1988 and 1992 purely coincidental?
Indonesia, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred, which was the subject of ITV's harrowing documentary last week detailing human rights abuses and cruel oppression in East Timor, saw virtually a trebling of British aid between 1980 and 1992–93. What of the arms sales by Britain amounting to 201 million dollars between 1988 and 1992? How were those arms used? What cast iron guarantees do we have that they were not directly or indirectly used for repression in East Timor? Are we really to believe that there is no relation at all between the additional aid and the sale of military aircraft? I know the Minister always says that aid has not been linked to arms sales. But loosely to quote the immortal words of Mandy Rice Davies,"She would say that, wouldn't she?"
Whatever the legalities of trading aid for arms, it is obviously, as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, in his forthright contribution, put it, quite simply wrong. One of the greatest obstacles to development—one of the greatest causes of human suffering—is conflict. How can it begin to be right to associate the aid programme of all programmes, with spending on the fuel of conflict and oppression?
The UK Government are determined to hold on to the permanent seat in the UN Security Council. Credibility in this intent is inevitably severely damaged when at the
1066
same time the UK is opportunistically profiteering out of the arms trade. Furthermore, to feather-bed the traditional arms trade is to work against the economic and industrial restructuring and substitution which are essential if Britain is to be geared to meet the world trading challenges of the century ahead and to secure high levels of employment for the British people.
In conclusion, I must respond to what I regarded as the moving intervention of my noble friend Lord Ennals. I do so by returning to the Pergau dam in a development context. The former Permanent Secretary at ODA, Sir Tim Lankester, was right to say that it was "an abuse of the aid programme". The £ 234 million of taxpayers' money wasted on Pergau would have been better spent on saving lives than on destroying the environment and subverting sound economic management. The 1993 UNDP report estimated that. in sub-Saharan Africa life expectancy was only 51.8 years; infant mortality was 103 per 1,000 lives; 59 per cent. of people had no access to safe water; and 53 per cent. were illiterate. In the face of such suffering, what on earth were the Government doing spending aid money on building an uneconomic hydro-electric plant in Malaysia?
I leave your Lordships with this reflection. At 1991 prices the £ 234 million wasted on Pergau would have been enough to finance the whole of Oxfam's programme in Africa for the next 10 years.
8.23 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, I shall not waste a moment; but I cannot sum up this debate in the eight minutes which are left to me.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I was informed that the debate would finish at thirty-three minutes past the hour of eight o'clock. If your Lordships will bear with me for a little longer, I shall say a little more. I am very happy, after this interesting debate which I welcome, to do that. It is a good opportunity to look at where our aid should be targeted. I am very grateful to a number of noble Lords who have sought to follow the wording of the Motion.
Some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, to whom we are grateful for initiating the debate, seemed to be under some misconceptions. Perhaps they have been carried away by the tide of press attention on certain issues in recent weeks. There has been a notable degree of consistency in many of the comments made which are in support of the Government's commitment to maintain a substantial aid programme and in support of the direction in which it should be spent, concentrating on the poorest and helping people to help themselves. I believe all parties in the House are agreed on that.
The Government have consistently made clear the main purpose of the aid programme. To quote from the departmental report, to which so many noble. Lords have paid compliments (for which I am grateful):

1067
"the purpose of our overseas aid for developing countries is to promote sustainable economic and social development and good government in order to reduce poverty, suffering and deprivation and to improve the quality of life for poor people".
My duty—both to the recipients of our aid and to British taxpayers—is to ensure that our aid is directed to where it is needed, as the Motion says, and where it can be effectively used.
Development therefore is the main aim. To draw a distinction, as some of your Lordships have tried to do, between the promotion of development and the reduction of poverty can be misleading. The reduction of poverty requires sustainable economic and social development. Aid has to be seen in the wider picture. It helps to create stability; and by helping countries individually it contributes to the global economy. That is in British interests and those of the countries we assist. I see no difference between the aims of my department and those of the department which my noble friend Lord Alport helped to set up so many years ago. Those were his aims then, and those are still our aims today.
Aid is not a static instrument. The way we give aid—the forms it takes, the channels we use, even the countries to which we give it—reflects the constantly changing international scene. I want to highlight two or three major changes of recent years. In our bilateral aid programme we now place greater emphasis on technical co-operation, institution building and policy reform advice, with less emphasis on that project aid of a traditional infrastructure kind. In short, we are helping poor countries with sound policies to help themselves. We are involving a large number of UK citizens and institutions, both public and private, to ensure that our aid programme meets its objectives. In the past six years the amount of official aid which we have channelled through British NGOs has increased from £ 30 million to £ 150 million. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the many other noble Lords who spoke on NGOs, are glad to hear that. We believe that it is exceptionally well used by the NGOs. I shall return to that point in a moment.
The third aspect is that we have to respond to what are tragically the most obvious needs of all. We have had to increase our humanitarian aid in recent years—the money which helps people to stay alive, to obtain basic shelter and food, without which there can be no reconstruction or rehabilitation—in a way few would have envisaged even five years ago. The guiding principle which we maintain, whatever the changing circumstances of the recipients, is that our aid must be closely geared to their particular individual needs. To do this we maintain a constant dialogue with the countries to which we give aid. We encourage them to develop their own strategies to combat poverty and to draw from the experiences of other developing countries.
So where should we—and do we—give our aid? We deliberately focus our aid to developing countries on the poorest of those countries. We seek to target on the poor people in those poor countries. We have frequently been congratulated on this by other donors in the OECD Development Assistance Committee. Poverty reduction lies at the heart of our development effort. Most poor
1068
people live in low income countries, and the number of the poor is continuing to rise. We cannot ignore the fact that empowering them and assisting them to greater growth will make them consumers of the future. Only when they are consumers of the future will they as countries be able to develop the trade on which they would like to rely rather than being so dependent on aid.
These countries have the least domestic resources to invest for growth and higher living standards. Most of them also have difficulties in attracting foreign investment. It will still take many years of successful development with aid and investment and trade before the numbers of the absolutely poor will start to fall consistently. That is why our focus on the poorest countries is right. But we do not and should not ignore the benefits of using smaller amounts of assistance, the provision of technical advice, know-how and training of better-off countries, especially where these have reached a crux in their economic fortunes and social development, as the countries in transition so clearly have.
What is encouraging is the clear evidence that development efforts can succeed; that developing countries can secure self-sustaining growth. Over the 25 years to 1990, GDP growth in low and middle income countries was nearly 5 per cent. per year. The growth in per capita incomes was nearly 2.5 per cent.
But income is not the whole story, as so many of your Lordships have reminded us tonight. Adult literacy has increased from 42 per cent. to 65 per cent. The rate of infant mortality has nearly halved, and life expectancy has risen from 51 to 64 years. All those statistics need to improve still further and that I do not deny. But the most important thing is that they are going in the right direction. The most important factors in this are the actions and policies of the developing countries' governments themselves and a commitment to setting a framework in which individuals and communities can help themselves.
Aid has played a vital part in helping this process. We have given substantial British aid to support economic reform; to help improve countries' infrastructure; to assist in the provision of better education and health and the many other essential areas such as water and sanitation and access to good quality family planning services which the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and my noble friend Lady Flather spoke about so warmly. We are after real improvement in the quality of life for hundreds of millions of people.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that the speech I made in 1991 on open government, a free press and good governance, had somehow changed. I can assure him that whatever he is trying to read into any subsequent speeches—I may not have used identical words—but those words of 26th June 1991 have not changed and they will not change. There is no muting of my call in the October speech.
A small part of our aid programme is ATP. It is an important part; it is 5 per cent. It is covered by the same good governance criteria as we apply to the programme as a whole. That can be seen when your Lordships investigate the restrictions on our aid that we made,

1069
including ATP, to countries like Malawi and China because of human rights anxieties. It is certainly wrong (as some try) to portray ATP as operating outside those criteria. It does not.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, put me in some difficulty tonight because I shall be giving evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs tomorrow. I may not say in your Lordships' House those things which have not already been said. Yet it would be ridiculous to repeat everything which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said this morning. I urge all noble Lords to read what he said because it is certainly true that there is still some muddled thinking around.
In winding up, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, talked about aid for the dam being entangled with arms. This morning my right honourable friend made it absolutely clear that, yes, there were three months of an attempted linkage, but that was all long before the Pergau project was even considered. Before that project even came to Ministers it had been disentangled. I ask the noble Lord to look at the dates on which that happened. I can assure him that the Pergau dam was in no way linked to the temporary entanglement that occurred between March and June 1988. In fact, it was my noble friend Lord Howe of Aberavon who carried through the disentanglement and not my right honourable friend the current Foreign Secretary.
We shall not use ATP to boost defence sales or to promote such sales. ATP has been designed to help recipient countries develop their economies in ways that are also of commercial and industrial importance to Britain. It is good for us and for them that ATP has helped British companies in a wide range of industries to win contracts.
As my noble friends Lord Weir and Lord Prior said, we are in a very difficult position at the present time. There are very good British companies which have done good work throughout the world and whose future may indeed be imperilled by the comments of some. It would take too long to put down the inaccuracies. I have eight pages of inaccuracies from the British press on this subject gathered in the past couple of weeks or so.
Above all, ATP is a longstanding provision of the aid programme, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, accepts. It is successful; and as [told noble Lords the other week, we have to date about £ 3.9 billion worth of British exports for a cost of £ 1.4 billion won with ATP since the scheme's inception. That represents over 270 projects in 50 countries worldwide. We have already amended our ATP rules as a result of the review which I undertook in 1992 and announced last year. That is that we shall concentrate our ATP in future on countries with a per capita income of under 700 dollars per annum at 1989 figures. That brings us into line with the focus of the wider aid programme.
One of the reasons why we have ATP and for which it was designed in the first place, was so that we could have a scheme like most other aid-giving countries so our firms could compete on equal terms. I have heard
1070
many comments tonight on the ATP programme which I do not propose to go into until after I have spoken and answered questions of the FAC tomorrow.
However, one comment which my noble friend Lord Prior made was that he felt that ATP should be handed over to the DTI. We have examined that extremely carefully in the past; but because ATP meets a developmental need, and because we have the systems of assessment, monitoring and evaluation in the ODA, my noble friend is not right in that. I shall look at all aspects of this matter in a calmer time after this review. We are in a far better position to run ATP, however difficult it may sometimes be for the Minister in charge of the ODA, as it was for my right honourable friend Chris Patten when he was there, and now for me.
In these words I hope that I have said where we stand. I cannot answer all the questions; but I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who wants us to do more in Albania, that we are gradually building up our programme. Last year it reached nearly £ 400,000 in that country. Given our two-man show on the ground in Albania, we are not doing too badly in assisting them with the help of Britain's NGOs.
My noble friend Lord Clanwilliam commented about South Africa. He seemed to think that we had only just started giving assistance there. In fact, we have been giving that assistance for about eight years now and the programme is really building up, particularly in education, health and in the townships.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, spoke about Uganda. I can certainly agree with him that the multilateral debt situation is difficult for that country because it is so large. But that is being helped both by ESAF and IDA. Britain has forgiven all the bilateral debt with Uganda. We are encouraging our partners to do likewise. Uganda is also one of our largest aid recipients. It was the sixth largest last year and it received a total of £ 32 million. Uganda is not only trying very hard, but beginning to succeed in many areas where other countries are not.
My noble friend Lord Alport asked about the Commonwealth. It may interest him to know that we keep aid to those countries as a priority. That is why two-thirds of our bilateral aid goes to Commonwealth countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, spoke a lot about the Pergau dam and defence. He made a number of comments, including one on aid volume which I shall take up now. We are still the sixth largest aid programme. Indeed, we are getting small increases in our budget at a time when a number of countries have cut or frozen their programmes. I am determined that we shall let ours grow sensibly. I very much hope that those people who are critical of the real term decline in our aid programme will examine the detail of what we are doing with it because they will find that so much more of our aid is targeted on those areas which are critical to the welfare of people as they grow and develop whereas many other donors' projects are less clearly targeted in that way.
I urge the noble Lord, Lord Desai, to realise that bilateral aid is a much more controllable animal than multilateral aid. However, I advise the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, that, with my partners in the

1071
European Union, I have plans to try to make our multilateral aid through the European Union more effective and better targeted. It forms about half of our multilateral aid, not the percentage that he said, and it is growing all the time.
Deciding where our aid should be spent and for what purposes is complex. We have to weigh up a number of critical decisions, but we want to ensure that aid is not unidimensional, not conditional on just one objective. We want it to achieve sustainable development. I shall not shy away from difficult decisions. I shall stop aid where aid needs to be stopped for the very reasons that many of your Lordships have mentioned. But I shall always make sure that we encourage recipient governments to give poverty alleviation a high priority because the only way in which they will make the programmes effective is if they have some ownership of them, through partnership with us. We shall continue to ensure that we help to improve the standards of good government. We want the governments concerned to respond to the real needs of their populations.
The yardstick for our aid programme is the improvement that it brings to the basic quality of life of the poorest communities. That means access to opportunity, family planning, education, health and clean water. It also means having the chance to be able to get one's goods to market, which is why, in certain circumstances, infrastructure projects are necessary. It also means having the power to run the embryo factories and developments about which my noble friend Lord Prior and the noble Earl spoke earlier. These things are all part of a whole. We cannot pick and choose how countries will decide to develop. We can back good projects and we can refuse to back projects which we do not find developmentally sound. I am glad that at least the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD recognises that our record in delivering aid is one of the best. I intend to keep it that way.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The title of the debate was set on such a broad basis as to enable all those noble Lords who wished to speak on certain matters to find a means of doing so. I am glad that we have had such a wide-ranging debate covering many subjects of importance.
I also thank the Minister for answering the debate. The fact that I focused my speech on the Pergau Dam project—and I believe that there is a problem there—does not mean that I do not have the highest regard for the work of the ODA and the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Criminal Injuries: Compensation System
8.43 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether their plans (contained in the White Paper Compensating victims of violent crime, Cm.2434) to
1072
replace common law and statutory principles of compensation by a tariff system will give effect to the intention of Parliament expressed in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and will ensure that all victims receive no less favourable compensation than at present.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, for almost the past 30 years, successive governments have acted with reasonable generosity towards victims of violent crime by providing them with a scheme operated by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board with compensation based on what the victim would have received if he or she had successfully sued the criminal in the civil courts. That has been known as the common law basis for damages for personal injuries.
On Good Friday, the Government intend to repudiate their obligation contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to put the scheme on a statutory basis and, without first obtaining any parliamentary approval, to replace it with an entirely different non-statutory scheme—a tariff scheme providing merely what is described as,
"a tangible recognition of society's sympathy and concern".
I wish to make three submissions to your Lordships. The first is that the Government, in asserting that their new scheme will,
"provide a better service to victims", are guilty of hypocrisy. This is a cost-cutting exercise.
My second submission is that the proposed scheme is grossly unfair since those who suffer the more serious injuries and the more substantial losses—that is, the most vulnerable—will receive but a fraction of the compensation which is now provided. Thirdly and lastly, I submit that the Government's proposed action is an abuse of power.
Before addressing your Lordships further, perhaps I may say how delighted I am that my noble and learned and old friend Lord Nolan is choosing this Unstarred Question as an opportunity to make his maiden speech. I have known him all his professional life. Our chambers were on the same staircase in Pump Court. We are members of the same Inn, the Middle Temple, and I know that, having had an outstanding judicial career, he will be able to bring wisdom to your Lordships' House on all matters, including in this case on the assessment of damages for personal injuries as provided in the civil courts.
There are certain factors in the history of this matter which I think that it would be convenient if I referred to, taking them as quickly as I can. I believe that they are relevant. In March 1964, the Government, having considered the report of a working party set up by the Home Secretary in 1961, set out in a White Paper, Cmnd.2323, the arrangements which they proposed to make for compensating the victims of crimes of violence. Compensation was to be administered by a board and, subject to three exceptions, assessed on the basis of common law damages. Perhaps the most important exception was that the rate of loss of earnings was not to exceed twice—I believe that it is now one-and-a-half times—the average of industrial earnings at the time that the injury was sustained. In the case of fatal injury, any compensation awarded to the spouse or dependants would be assessed on the same principles as a claim under the fatal accidents Acts, except that the

1073
total income of the deceased to be taken into account would be subject to the limitation to which I have just referred.
I wish to stress what I think is an important point. Since there was virtually no previous experience on which to draw in assessing how a compensation scheme would work in practice, the White Paper proposed that it would be an experimental and non-statutory scheme, the compensation being paid ex gratia.
The next stage was that on 24th June 1964 in your Lordships' House it was announced that a board, to be called the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, would be set up. The scheme in the White Paper, with certain amendments, would be put into force and the first applications would be dealt with on and after 1st August 1964.
Things proceeded smoothly for some 15 years with annual reports being made by the board, until the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury, the Pearson Commission, reported in 1979. It had considered and commended the scheme, but recommended that it should be put on a statutory basis.
In paragraph 1: 589 of its report it drew attention to the fact that similar schemes, usually statutory, had been set up in New Zealand, the Federal Republic of Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, most of the provinces of Canada and several states of the USA. It observed that the Council of Europe had recently adopted a resolution inviting its members to make special provision for criminal injury compensation.
In July 1979, a few months later, the Home Secretary confirmed the Government's acceptance of the recommendation of the Pearson Commission that the scheme should be put on a statutory basis and that compensation under the scheme should continue to be based on common law damages.
In December 1983 in a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale who, among his many other distinction;, was a member of the Pearson Commission, attention was called to the need to put the scheme on a statutory basis, it having by then operated on an ex gratia basis for some 19 years. At the end of the debate the Government confirmed what they had already confirmed: it was their intention to do exactly that
In July 1987 the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill, which became the Criminal Justice Act 1988, took place in your Lordships' House. The Bill contained inter alia clauses implementing the undertaking of the Government given some four years previously to make the scheme statutory. Detailed provisions concerning the scheme are to be found in Sections 108 to 117, Schedule 6 and Schedule 7. Section 171 places a statutory obligation upon the Home Secretary to bring the relevant sections into force.
In 1989, because of the unprecedented rise in applications and the very sizeable backlog of cases with consequent delays to all claims, it was decided that to make the scheme statutory at that date would disrupt the work and add to arrears. It was therefore agreed not yet to make the scheme statutory but to streamline it in certain respects.
1074
I now turn to the proposed tariff scheme. On 23rd November 1992 the then Home Secretary, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, announcing the scheme, said that it offered,
"the best prospect of providing quicker payments to claimants through a means that is fair, straightforward and understandable".
In December 1993 the Government presented their White Paper, Cm.2434, setting out plans in more detail. The opening paragraph stated:
"The aim would be to provide a better service to victims".
Perhaps I may now refer to the unfairness of the scheme. As recently as Tuesday of last week my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, when answering a Starred Question, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, relative to the high quanturn of damages awarded to litigants in the civil actions, agreed with me that by far the major part of such awards reflected loss of income, loss of pension, medical treatment and often the large expenses involved in making the establishment in which the injured person lives capable of being used properly by him.
The accuracy of the propositions which I put to the Lord Chancellor and of his confirmatory answers is well borne out by a recent case in which the board awarded a man in his mid-40s, who was paralysed from the neck down, £ 1,153,000. Of that figure, £ 72,000 was attributable to future loss of earnings, that is, £ 6,000 per year over a 12-year period; future medical and care costs of £ 726,000 over 15 years; and special damages for the adaptation of the house, special needs and transport of £ 255,000. Under the Government's tariff none of those heads of loss would be payable since compensation will no longer be assessed on the basis of common law damages. Accordingly, there will be no separate payments for loss of earnings or medical expenses or any other special damage.
As the Government have conceded, the new scheme is not intended to provide compensation to reflect a particular victim's losses. The effects on the particular individual of his injuries are irrelevant. All victims would be lumped together and would receive a payment based solely on the category of injury without regard to the age or sex of the victim. Victims will either receive too much or too little, and those who lose out most are the most vulnerable, that is to say, those whose injuries and loss are the greatest. They fall into the following three categories: first, those who have suffered the most severe injuries; secondly, those whose injuries have resulted in significant impairment of earning capacity and loss of employment; and thirdly, families of victims of murder and manslaughter. As I shall seek to show by reference to a very few decided cases, all the above categories will receive but a fraction of what is currently being paid.
I have given my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie a lengthy list of recently reported cases. In the time available I shall refer to a few only. I choose first from the list which I provided one of the cases of paraplegia—Tansley—decided in January 1992. His loss of past earnings was £ 30,852; loss of future earnings over £ 97,000; past care £ 35,000:, and future care £ 250,000. The total award, involving the special damages referred to, was £ 689,000. Under the new scheme he would get £ 175,000.

1075
I now refer to one of the cases of brain injury, the case of Burleigh, decided in September 1992, a case in which the victim required continuous care day and night, the strain of which proved too much for his wife, with the result that they separated. The total award was over £ 510,000 of which future care accounted for £ 234,000. Under the new scheme he would receive £ 40,000 which in no way recognises the need for care of the victim, even if provided for by relatives, nor the effect on the family, particularly in cases such as this of marriage breakdown.
I now refer to my second category of cases where the injury, although not of the greatest severity, significantly impairs the earning capacity and involves loss of employment. The first case, Holton, decided in April 1993, concerned a female psychiatric nursing sister aged 35 whose arm was badly injured. She was assessed as unfit for any work. She received a total of over £ 126,000 of which only £ 17,720 was attributable to general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. Under the new scheme she would have been awarded £ 5,000 which would account on its own for only three months loss of earnings.
Burrows, decided in March 1933, involved a wrist injury which did not unite properly leaving the applicant with a continuing disability in her dominant right hand. She received a total award of £ 55,000. Under the new scheme she would receive £ 3,000. The award for the injury alone under the old scheme was more than three times the total award under the new scheme.
Stonier, decided in March 1993, involved a back injury to a male police officer aged 34. He received for future loss of earnings over £ 61,000, that is, a little over £ 8,000 per annum times seven. Together with other items of special damage, his total award was £ 121,000. Under the new scheme he would receive £ 7,500.
Lastly, under this heading, Parslow, decided in September 1992, involved a knee injury. At the date of the hearing he was in receipt of a disablement pension following assessment of 30 per cent. disability. He had no prospect of obtaining employment in the future. As he was aged 37, the board applied a multiplier of 11 for future loss of earnings, and his total award, including £ 46,000 for future loss of earnings, amounted to over £ 74,000. Under the current scheme he would receive £ 5,000.
I turn to my third and last category—the families of victims of murder and manslaughter. Under the provisions of the fatal accident Acts, as your Lordships probably know, dependency awards to a wife or dependant children are based largely on an assessment of the amount of financial support provided by the deceased and for how long it would have lasted. Future loss of earnings feature prominently in such calculations. I shall refer to one case, details of which I have provided to my noble and learned friend.
Slater, decided in June 1993, involved a female aged 38 at the time of the hearing who witnessed her husband dying, following a stabbing at the front door of their home. She was married with two young children aged six and four. She suffered the deepest distress as a result of that traumatic experience. She received general
1076
damages of £ 17,500 but, in addition, received nearly £ 120,000 for the loss of dependency, making a total award of over £ 137,000. Under the new scheme, she will receive £ 10,000 by reason of the death of her husband and £ 7,500 for her condition, making a total of £ 17,500 plus funeral expenses.
Those cases illustrate that innocent families of manslaughter and murder victims, whose financial security was previously provided by dependency awards, receive nothing for the future. There are a number of anomalies and oddities about the figures and scales provided but I do not propose to refer to them in view of the time factor.
The Government are proposing to act in defiance of the will of Parliament as expressed in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Paragraph 38 of the White Paper states:
"Provision was made in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for the scheme to be placed on a statutory footing … With the impending demise of the current scheme the provisions in the 1988 Act will not now be implemented. They will accordingly be repealed when a suitable legislative opportunity occurs".
As your Lordships know, I am a child in these matters but I find it difficult to imagine a more arrogant refusal by a Minister to carry out his statutory duty. I await with interest the first of the set of proceedings for judicial review to test the legality of the Government's action.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the timing of the noble and learned Lord is impeccable. The whole House should be grateful to him. From 1st April, if not checked, the Government, without any reference to Parliament, will destroy the scheme for compensating victims of violent crime that has stood since 1964. That scheme aims to compensate a victim for the losses that he or she has suffered and will suffer. It treats the individual claimant as an individual. The new tariff scheme represents a government attack on the victims of violent crime whose losses are the greatest.
Before proceeding with my speech, I should say that we look forward from these Benches with keen anticipation to the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, a lawyer of the highest distinction.
I agree with every word that has come from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. The reasoning of the White Paper is so obviously specious that I do not occupy more time by exposing it. It is an insult to the intelligence of its readers. The assertion that the object is,
"to provide a better service to victims",
is humbug. The proposition that,
"everyone sustaining a similar injury will be treated in a similar fashion"
is deceptive if it suggests that like cases will be treated alike. The financial consequences of injury to individuals are infinitely variable. The new scheme is a denial of justice precisely because it will treat fundamentally different cases as though they were the same.
Let us take a different sphere—compensation for personal injuries caused by the negligence of another at the workplace or in the street. Compensation is not

1077
confined to a tariff for the injury itself. Common law damages apply. Loss of past and future earnings are compensated, as was the case in the criminal injuries compensation scheme, until 1st April. There would be public outcry if the workman injured at work due to an employer's negligence or a citizen in the street injured due to the negligence of a driver could not recover for his loss of earnings capacity. Do the Government propose legislative change so that in cases of personal injury caused by the negligence of others, the civil courts should in future be entitled to make an award from a tariff based on the extent of the injury, without any regard to loss of earnings and loss of future earnings capacity?
The answer to that is no, but why should that not be the case if the right award for criminal injuries is a tariff sum based on the nature of the injury? Why should that not he so also in the case of personal injuries caused by negligence? The Government could promote a tariff system as a better service by the courts to the victims of injury at work—to borrow the language of the White Paper and adapt it—and they could sell it to an audience of employers as a welcome reduction in the costs of employment.
Of course, the Government have no intention whatever of altering the basis under which the courts compensate victims in personal injury cases for the loss of income, past and prospective, which each has suffered and will suffer as an individual. The fact is that the Government have decided to introduce a tariff system to discriminate against the victims of violent crime, who suffer the greatest loss, because the Government have to pick up the tab. I ask the Minister where the Government stand in relation to all the calls at the Tory Party conference last October for more to be done for victims of violent crime? Will they acknowledge that they will do so much less for those who suffer the greatest loss from violent crime?
The point about the existing scheme is that the compensation paid distinguishes among victims according to the impact of the injuries upon their individual earning capacities. From 1st April, without a word of parliamentary debate if the Government have their way, this crude tariff scheme will deprive the victims of violent crime, who have lost their livelihoods because of their injuries, of the financial support that they require.
In my contribution tonight, I propose to confine myself to the legality of what the Government propose. I have given the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, advance notice of the two specific points that I propose to make. I look forward to hearing his replies. First, The European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes was ratified by the United Kingdom in 1990. No doubt it was then thought by the Government that it could safely be ratified—safely, because the existing criminal injuries compensation scheme complied with Article 4, which provides:
"Compensation shall cover, according to the case under consideration, at least the following items: loss of earnings, medical and hospitalisation expenses and funeral expenses, and as regard dependants, loss of maintenance".
I ask the noble and learned Lord to tell the House whether, in deciding to introduce a new tariff-based
1078
scheme, the Government had specific regard to their convention obligations and whether they believe that their new scheme will comply with them.
The preamble to the convention records,
"that it is necessary to establish minimum provisions in this field".
As I read Article 4, every case is an individual one which must be considered on its own particular facts; and, as a minimum, compensation must cover—that is, completely defray—"loss of earnings" consequent on violent crime. Yet the White Paper in terms declares as one of,
"the main features of the new arrangements [that) no separate payment will be made for loss of earnings or medical expenses'".
That is two of the heads of loss which Article 4 requires, as a minimum, to be covered. The current compensatory scheme treats every case as an individual case. It has regard to the particular circumstances of each individual victim of violent crime and the loss that he or she has suffered and will suffer. The awards cover, in just the same way as in personal injury awards in these cases, what is called special damage for past losses; for example, earnings and medical expenses, and general damages, compensation for the pain and suffering caused by the injury itself, together with compensation for future loss of earnings.
Under the new scheme, awards are not to be loss related but injury related. The payments are to be related to the nature of the injury suffered. The consequences on the earning power of the individual are not to be addressed. The award will depend solely on the tariff band within which the particular injury falls. It would be hard to devise a scheme of greater crudity. The reasoning of the White Paper is as specious as the scheme it devises is crude. It actually asserts that the new scheme,
"means that people with similar injuries will get the same payment, which is by no means the case under the present system where people can often get radically different awards for similar injuries".
That is a thoroughly deceptive sentence. Precisely because no injury or group of injuries is identical, there are well known guidelines for the assessment of general damages which were published by the Judicial Studies Board in 1992. So there is a range for particular categories of injuries. But because the extent of the disability within the headings varies in the individual case, the guidelines are flexible and allow justice to be done in each case. Inflexible tariffs for classes of injury are not a virtue. Not to compensate specifically for loss of earnings, past and prospective, is a vice.
I turn now to my second and major point. Sections 108 to 117 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 put the existing criminal injuries compensation scheme, which had been established under the Royal prerogative, and the board which administered the scheme on a statutory basis. Paragraph 8 to Schedule 7 provided that the amount of compensation should basically be what would be recoverable for the relevant injuries in a civil action brought against the offender, with a ceiling on loss of earnings of one-and-a-half times the "gross average industrial earnings". Thus, Parliament decided that what had been a system of ex gratia payments based on common law compensatory damages should become

1079
statutory so that claimants should become entitled as of right to payments under the scheme. These provisions were, as the noble and learned Lord said, to come into force by order of the Secretary of State under Section 171(1), but no order has been made. The White Paper feebly states that,
"at the request of the Board the relevant provisions were not brought into force, because this would have disrupted efforts to deal with the heavy workload".
That, surely, was a purely temporary reason for not bringing the provisions into force immediately. In any event, workload problems depend upon the resources that are brought to bear upon them. Any suggestion that the workload problem justifies the Government's failure over six years to implement the will of Parliament is absurd. Although no doubt the board would always wish to improve upon its turn-round figures, the current figure of reaching first decisions in 80 per cent. of cases within nine months of the making of the claim is good and compares favourably with the ordinary courts.
The White Paper then continues:
"With the impending demise of the current scheme the provisions in the 1988 Act will not now be implemented. They will accordingly be repealed when a suitable legislative opportunity presents itself".
That represents, I suggest, a staggering disregard for Parliament. The original authority of the board to grant compensation derived from the prerogative. But for the 1988 Act, the Government could unilaterally have made the changes to the scheme that they have announced with effect from 1st April, but the 1988 Act has changed that. By the 1988 Act Parliament decided two distinct things: first, that the scheme should continue on its existing common law basis with compensation for loss of future earning capacity and, secondly, that it should be put on a statutory basis giving claimants legally enforceable rights to compensation under the existing scheme. Thus, Parliament has decided that the scheme should cease to be based upon the prerogative. But the Secretary of State's decision to change the scheme fundamentally in accordance with the White Paper can only be based upon the prerogative, for he has no other power to which he could lay claim. I submit that the Secretary of State may not lawfully derive power from the prerogative, once Parliament has decided that the scheme should become based on statute, not the prerogative.
The only power that the Secretary of State had in relation to the scheme after the passage of the 1988 Act was to determine when, and not whether, Sections 108 to 117 should be brought into force. He certainly had no power unilaterally to reverse the will of Parliament and fundamentally alter the scheme that Parliament had approved. The White Paper states that the provisions of the 1988 Act will,
"be repealed when a suitable legislative opportunity presents itself'.
Why bother repealing these provisions if the Secretary of State is acting lawfully in changing them unilaterally from 1st April? Why has a suitable legislative opportunity not occurred in the shape of the Criminal Justice Bill now going through the other place? Is it
1080
because the Government fear full exposure by debate in Parliament of their reduction in the rights of victims of violent crime?
Why have the Government wilfully abstained from providing an occasion for parliamentary debate of their proposals to diminish compensation for those who have suffered the greatest loss from violent crime? Why has it been left to the initiative of the noble and learned Lord? If the Government bring in these changes unilaterally on 1st April I agree with the noble and learned Lord that they will be playing with fire and I, for one, would predict that they will get their fingers burnt in court.
This is the latest example, as we see it from these Benches, of overreaching power by a Government who have been in power too long.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will excuse me for one moment. I listened with growing incredulity to what he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, have said on this subject. I hope my noble friend can help a layman like myself. He thinks the Government will get their fingers burnt. Will there be any remedy for someone who is given an award under the Government's new proposals? Will he be able to take the Government to court and get a decision from the court on the matter? What remedy is he likely to have?
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the remedy will be in judicial review. The remedy would be available to a complainant who under the new scheme will receive substantially less than he would have received under the previous scheme. The argument will be that the Government are acting unlawfully in setting aside, without reference to Parliament, a compensatory scheme and putting in its place a tariff based scheme which has no specific regard to individual financial loss. I believe I have taken up sufficient of the time of the House.
9.19 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, in taking part in this debate in your Lordships' House tonight I must declare an interest as the Chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. As your Lordships will know, that board consists of 40 part-time members, all of whom are leading practising lawyers. We are a totally independent body, appointed by the Home Secretary, responsible for implementation of the scheme, for deciding whether individual claimants are eligible for compensation and for deciding in each case the amount of that compensation. I am delighted to be able to take part in this debate introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and to have this opportunity to express to the House the considered and unanimous views of the board as to the Government's proposals as set out in their White Paper.
Before I do so I should like to make two general points. First, I accept that the scheme for the compensation of victims of crimes of violence which we have had in this country since 1964 and which aims to provide for the individual the same award as he would have achieved had he sued his assailant in the court, is

1081
a scheme of which we are entitled to be thoroughly proud. As has been said in another House, it is the leading scheme of its kind in the world. It has been the model for many other schemes elsewhere.
Secondly, I say to the Minister that I accept that much has changed over the 30 years that the scheme has been in operation. A scheme which was appropriate in 1964, with five members on the board,2,500 applicants in its first year and paying out compensation of some £ 403,000, is not, I accept, necessarily the appropriate framework for a scheme which has now grown so that we have some 70,000 applications and are dealing with some £ 160 million of compensation.
I can assure the Minister that the board fully understands the anxiety expressed by the Government as to the ever mounting cost of the scheme. We share the aims of the Government in wanting to see an efficient scheme, a scheme which deals with individual cases as reasonably quickly as possible, and one which is readily understandable. But I have to say to the Minister that the board is concerned and dismayed that the Government should decide to change the fundamental basis on which until now compensation has been based without any prior consultation of the board, even as to the practicality of what is being proposed. They have done so in a way which the board considers to be fundamentally flawed, in that we believe that the move to a total tariff system as is proposed will be seen to be manifestly unfair and certainly a far less fair system of compensation than that which at present exists.
Until now, as has been said, under the common law damages system each application is individually considered so as to compensate the individual victim for the loss and injury he has actually sustained. To replace it with a tariff system with one single lump payment for a particular type of injury is, I believe, a retrograde step in that of its very nature a tariff system cannot and does not take account of the vastly differing effects of similar injuries on different people.
A tariff of its nature, for example, means that no regard can be had to such fundamental matters as the age, sex, occupation or way of life of the victim, all of which are reflected enormously in the effect which an injury may have on an individual. Many examples of that have been given. I take only one. The elderly lady mugged in the street, when she is knocked to the ground and her handbag snatched, may suffer very little physical injury, but the effect on her life may be totally devastating. I fear that she may be far more gravely injured than in a similar incident occurring to a fit young person in their twenties. Yet I fear that under the tariff system the elderly lady will probably no longer succeed in achieving any rights to compensation.
Further, in arriving at the tariff figures in the way in which the Government do, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, no proper account has been taken of the loss of earnings or the loss of future earning capacity. The effect of that is that those who have suffered the most will in future be under-compensated, in many cases substantially so.
It is said by the Government that the figures in the tariff are based on an analysis of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board's awards. I accept that. I accept
1082
fully that the figures in the tariff are generally comparable with the pain and suffering element of general damages. I believe that the White Paper is right when it states that many victims will receive the same amount or perhaps slightly more than they would receive under the present scheme. However, it is equally true that many will receive less, and some substantially less, as no proper account has been taken of loss of earnings and earning capacity, or of the cost of future medical care.
The man whose injury means that he is off work for six months will receive no more than the retired or the unemployed person with a similar injury but who has no similar loss. The building worker who has an injury to his ankle or knee which means that he can never work again, or cannot work at the skilled tasks that he now undertakes, again will receive no more than for a similar injury occasioned to a person who has no loss in earning capacity. Surely that cannot be a fair system.
The Government say that there is in each of the awards a degree of loss of earnings. To some extent that is true, but it simply means that those who have no loss of earnings will be compensated slightly more than they are at present, at the direct expense of those individuals who have lost as a result.
We believe that the proposed scheme is unfair. Further, we believe that in many areas the scheme will be shown in practice to be unworkable. There are certain types of offences where the resulting injury caused to the victim varies so widely as to make any tariff system unworkable. I pose certain questions. Let us take the area of child sex abuse. What is the correct tariff figure for sexual abuse? Every case differs. The effect of such cases on any child varies so enormously that it seems to me that each case must require individual assessment. What is said about sex abuse of children can be said equally about many cases of rape. I give another example. The effect of the shock on the bank clerk who is the victim of an armed robbery varies enormously depending on the makeup of the individual concerned. Psychological injury, sexual abuse and rape are, sadly, growing areas of our work.
The final example I take is the whole question of facial scarring. While I accept that the Government have made an effort in their tariff to provide a classification of facial scarring, frankly I do not believe that one can fairly compensate an individual for facial scarring without assessing the effect on that individual of his scars, rather than saying that they are merely medium or severe, or words to that effect. Thus, the board's feeling is that the scheme proposed is unfair and in certain aspects unworkable.
I turn briefly to consider the advantages that the Government see in their proposals. The White Paper says that the scheme will be quicker and more readily understandable. As regards speed, I accept that if each case does not have to be considered individually, there will be some savings. But I am bound to tell the Minister that I do not think that the savings in time will be significant. Delay has always been a problem for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Lack of resources at an earlier stage created a system where in 1989 92 per cent. of applications were not able to be

1083
dealt with in less than nine months from the date of the application. I remind the Minister that that has now dramatically changed and that in 80 per cent. of all our applications a decision is now given to the victim within a nine-month period. I do not believe that a great deal of saving can be made beyond that because the restraints that exist are the need to obtain reports from the police to find out what happened and reports from the doctors to see the effect of the injuries the person received. Those restraints will be there, whatever scheme we have.
As regards the scheme being more readily understandable, I am at a loss as to what the Government mean. I do not know whether they realise that we already send to every applicant a piece of paper which is a guide to the level of awards and which sets out, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said, the pattern of general damages awards that people can expect.
Finally, the cost: again, I accept that there should be some saving in administrative cost. But I think the Minister will agree and the Government will accept that the amount will be unquantifiable. Our costs today are something less than 9 per cent. of our total budget. What of the cost on the compensation scheme? If I may say so, the Government are rather coy there. They say that they will be providing more money in compensation in the next few years than in the current year. I remind noble Lords that the total overall cost depends far more on the volume of violent crime and the number of applications that are made than on the individual amount given to any applicant. But doing the best we can, our calculation is that the new scheme will mean that the amount paid out in compensation will be 20 per cent. less than it would be under the current scheme. Our objection—and I believe it is a fundamental objection—is that the whole of that saving will be made at the expense of the biggest losers. It is those who have borne the worst injuries who will suffer the most. The board believes that that is the wrong way to make the savings. We believe that there are other and better ways. We have expressed our willingness on many occasions to discuss the changes which we think would meet the Government's aims and so far, frankly, we have not been heeded.
I end by saying to the Minister that I hope that the system for compensation of the victims of crimes of violence is outside the ambit of the party political battle. Since its inception, the scheme has been supported by both parties in Government and in Opposition. It has been reviewed twice by the Home Affairs Select Committee, both times with approval. It was put forward, as we have already been reminded in speeches, by the present Government to Parliament in 1987 as the proper basis for a scheme which should be statutory. On 23rd November 1992 the then Home Secretary, without any prior consultation with any of those interested, announced the intention to change the basis of the scheme. At that time he stated that the Government's intention was to publish a White Paper in the early part of last year and introduce the scheme in April of this year.
1084
In replying to an Adjournment debate on 18th March 1993 in another place, the then Minister of State said:
"Of course, there will be an opportunity for the House to consider our proposals when the White Paper is published". —[Official Report, Commons,18/3/93; col.508.]
In the event, the White Paper was not published in the early part of last year. It was published on the eve of Parliament's adjournment for the Christmas Recess on 15th December. The scheme is due to be implemented next month. The effect has been that there has been no time for that informed discussion which the Government said they had intended would take place. The Government claim that the great advantage of a non-statutory scheme is that they can change it at any time without requiring parliamentary legislation or debate.
I hope that, in the light of the criticisms that have been and may still be made tonight, the Government will look again at their proposals, with the clear intention to achieve what I believe to be possible; namely, a scheme that will reflect the changing nature and volume of the board's work, one which will achieve the Government's stated aims but will do so in such a way as to avoid the fundamental flaws which are inherent in a total tariff system such as is now proposed.
9.36 p.m.
Lord Nolan: My Lords, I am very conscious of the fact that a maiden speaker should avoid controversy, and also of the fact that in the present debate that is rather a tall order. I shall do my best to be constructive and not contentious. I have three points to make. The first two are based on my experience of trying personal injuries cases as a Queen's Bench judge. As your Lordships well know, the amounts of the awards made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board are based on the awards made by the courts in these cases.
The White Paper speaks, in paragraph 12, of,
"the very difficult and time consuming task of trying to assign a precisely calculated, but essentially arbitrary, sum to the injury suffered".
It points out that,
"under the present system … people can often get radically different awards for similar injuries".
That is one of the arguments for a simple and uniform tariff.
I should be the last to suggest that the assessment of compensation for personal injuries is an entirely simple and straightforward matter. I wonder, nonetheless, whether there is a danger of over-estimating the difficulties and the differences that are involved.
I should like to speak from my own experience, for what it is worth. When I was at the Bar I specialised in tax law. I did no personal injuries work. When I was appointed to the Bench, the Lord Chancellor, mercifully recognising that tax was getting far too difficult for me, put me in the Queen's Bench Division. There I did virtually no tax work but a great many personal injury cases. Although I was inexperienced, the assessment of damages in those cases was an area—I think probably the only area—in which none of my judgments was ever overturned, or even questioned, on appeal. If that seems a very vain and remarkable thing to say, let me add at once that in my three very busy years in the Court of

1085
Appeal I can remember hearing only one case in which the judge's assessment of damages was challenged, one party saying that it was too high and the other that it was too low. Of course, there were other cases heard by other divisions of the Court of Appeal during that time, but they were rare.
The reason is that certainly at High Court and Court of Appeal level one had the assistance of very experienced barristers and solicitors like the members of the board, although seldom so distinguished. With their help one found that the range within which injuries of the same kind should be compensated was well established. There was a pretty clear upper and lower limit. Within that range, as my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine said, there would be substantial differences according to the irnpact of the particular injury upon the life of the individual concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has given a number of examples. A young manual worker or a musician, say, who lost the use of his dominant hand, would be at or near the top of the scale. A middle-aged businessman with a chauffeur, a dictating machine and a secretary would be at the lower end of the scale. Examples can be multiplied.
The Judicial Studies Board, as has been said, has put forward proposals for codifying and narrowing the range within which compensation should be awarded for specific injuries. Those proposals are designed for the benefit of recorders and district judges who have to try such cases without the assistance of very experienced advocates. If the White Paper's proposals are to go ahead in their present form—that is a matter of policy and of law on which I say nothing whatever; it would be improper for me to do so—I wonder whether, with the assistance of the Judicial Studies Board's guidelines, it may yet be possible to retain a measure of flexibility in the new arrangements so that compensation can continue to be related to individual loss.
It may be said that that would perpetuate in the new arrangements the uncertainty and unpredictability of the awards made by the courts. There is always an element of unpredictability in litigation. However, in my experience, there are many cases in which the amount of the damages is agreed once the question of liability or entitlement has been answered. I think I am right in saying that the vast majority of personal injuries cases in the courts are settled by agreement once that stage has been reached and once entitlement has been determined.
That brings me to my second point. Normally the most difficult and anxious task for the judge is deciding whether the claimant is entitled to compensation at all and, if he is, whether his entitlement should be reduced because of his misconduct or carelessness. The board has stricter requirements than the courts in that respect. In a recent letter to The Times, Sir John Palmer, a distinguished former member of the board, wrote:
"In a high proportion of cases it must be decided whether or not the applicant's own conduct was wholly or in part responsible for his or her injury and whether or not he or she co-operated with the police. Those ate difficult matters of judgment requiring professional experience in assessing evidence".
For my part I would add that there are also many cases where the victim is all too genuinely and seriously afflicted by suffering but where those sufferings cannot, or cannot all, be linked to the crime committed against
1086
him. Here, too, great skill and experience may be required in assessing the medical evidence and indeed the evidence of the victim. If the verdict goes against the victim, it is necessary to explain to him and to his family exactly why he is to get nothing or a reduced amount. It has been well said that every trial is a trial of the judge. In my experience the judge is never more on trial than when trying to explain his decision in these matters.
The first annex to the White Paper shows that over the 30-year life of the scheme,643,469 cases have been resolved and awards made in 462,561; in other words, nearly 30 per cent. of the applications have been either abandoned or completely rejected. I suggest that that is a most important statistic in both human and financial terms. It reflects the strictness with which the members of the board have applied the rules. Despite the high percentage of disappointed applicants, it is very rare to hear any complaint of unfairness on the part of the board. I suggest that that is hardly surprising in view of the great experience and ability of the board members.
The White Paper envisages that in future disappointed applicants can make use of a two-stage appeal system, first, to a more senior administrator, and secondly, to an independent panel of professionals, businessmen and others. I hope that the community will not be deprived of the wisdom and the experience of the present board members and that at least a number of them, if they are willing, will be invited to serve on the panel.
The third matter I wish to mention is simply this. I have a friend who was an inspector of police. One night, about 14 years ago, he was doing the rounds of his constables on the beat. He came across one of them sorting out a fight outside a public house at closing time. My friend managed to arrest one of the troublemakers but was attacked and brought to the ground. While on the ground he was kicked in the back of the neck by someone who was never identified. He suffered severe injuries to his spine and to the base of his skull. Until then he had never known a day of serious ill-health. Since then he has never known a day of normal good health.
After some three years of diagnosis, surgery, convalescence and prognosis he was awarded £ 60,000 by the board. That has made his life more comfortable in a number of ways. For example, he can take package holidays and swim in warm seas, which he much enjoys. I do not know what he would receive under the new system or when he would receive it. I make no point on that. I merely express the hope, with him and those like him in mind, that whatever the precise form of the new arrangements, we shall continue to have a scheme which makes fair and appropriate provision for those who need and in many cases—one thinks particularly of police officers and of civilians who have a go and who are injured as a result—richly deserve it.
I thank my noble and learned and, if I may say so, old friend Lord Ackner for giving me the opportunity of taking part in this extremely important debate, and I thank your Lordships very much for the patient and courteous hearing you have given me.
9.47 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, when I realised that I had the pleasure and privilege of congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, I must confess that at first it was accompanied with a sigh. The sigh was caused by the fact that I remembered that I had had the great honour of briefing him in years gone by and it seemed as though the years—so far as I was concerned—must have mounted up considerably for me to be paying a compliment to a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary who was that self-same person. The sigh was removed when I looked at the speed of the career of the noble and learned Lord and saw how, after only two years in the Court of Appeal, he has honoured this House, as we honour him, by his being a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. We listened to a delightful and learned speech. We look forward to hearing many more.
I turn immediately to the Minister. It is not with a sigh that I look at him; it is with a sense of sympathy but with a word of respectful advice. I venture the suggestion that he forgets all about the speech that he intended to make and which was prepared for him. With the wisdom that he has always shown, especially as an illustrious lawyer when we were used to calling him the "noble and learned" Lord—I shall not leave out the "learned" on this occasion, even though he now occupies the position of Minister of State and therefore is not strictly entitled to it—I ask him to say, whatever may be contained in the brief, that the Government will consider carefully what has been said in your Lordships' House tonight by those so well qualified to say it. I ask him to say that the Government are prepared to consult those with whom consultation should have taken place but did not take place with a view to ensuring that, although the old scheme may be reformed, it will not necessarily take the shape of the tariff system.
Not only would the noble and learned Lord be wise to follow that respectful advice as a lawyer, he may also wish to follow that advice as a politician. As a lawyer, he may have noticed—the Minister is very observant—that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg referred to the fact that the Government were trespassing upon very dangerous ground in regard to their legal position and that a remedy of judicial review might be taken, as was stated in answer to the very pertinent question of my noble friend Lord Callaghan, and on good grounds, by someone who was disadvantaged by this new scheme as against the old one, at least four former Lords of Appeal in Ordinary nodded their heads. That was about the best legal opinion gratuitously obtained that the Government could ever expect.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: And free, my Lords.
Lord Mishcon: And gratuitous, my Lords, as I said. It would be very foolish in my view for that gesture, which was made so generously by the noble and learned Lords, to go ignored.
I am going to talk to the Minister as a politician. There are to be some by-elections. I am not going to pretend—it would be hypocrisy—that I feel that the Government are likely to win any of them.
1088
Nevertheless, I want at least a good battle. There is going to be a pretty poor battle in view of all the speeches that have been made and that I have listened to from the Front Bench opposite—not from the Back Benches, which are so often wiser—about law and order. When those on this side have said,"Please, don't fill the prisons any more. Please, in regard to punishment which must be meted out to those who have broken the law, show a little attention to the hope that they will indeed be better people; that they should have community service instead of prison", and so on, we have listened to speeches from Ministers saying,"We are going to show the public that so far as we are concerned it is sympathy for the victim that counts. You are giving too much sympathy to the offender". It will not sound well if on 1st April, before those by-elections are held, the Government proceed with this scheme which shows little support indeed for victims. So I ask the Minister in all seriousness to take this back to his colleagues and say to them that they must think again.
There is another principle that the Government have so often spoken of; that is, open government. Open government means, of course, that you consult and that when appropriate you go to Parliament. I have in front of me a paper which was issued by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, of which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has been a notably great chairman. If I may say so, the noble Lord is much too much of a gentleman to have said this in public about what the Government have done. In that paper I find the following sentence:
"The announcement made by the then Home Secretary on 23rd November 1992 to change fundamentally the basis of compensation and replace it with a tariff system was taken without any prior consultation with the board".
That is not only wrong, but bad manners, for this and other consultations, I repeat, to take place. It is not open government to be doing all this with a White Paper issued in December, with no opportunity for debate and talking about the date,1st April. It is not open government.
I conclude by begging the Government not to do something which really makes them look ridiculous. I am certainly not going to take up the time of the House in doing what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, did so much better; namely, reciting cases showing the vast discrepancy between what is proposed under this new scheme and what is there under the old. I shall read out two examples of what the tariff does and the sheer absurdity of it, quite apart from the injustice. Then, I hope with some dramatic effect, I shall sit down.
The examples are these, and I put them forward seriously:
"Sexual and/or Physical abuse of children Not involving rape or buggery, £ 1,000 teeth: loss of one front tooth, £ 1,500".
I give another example and, again, very seriously:
"Rape or buggery: by one person, £ 7,500.
Lower limbs: fractured patella—knee cap, £ 7,500",
which is the same amount. I keep my promise and sit down.
9.56 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, your Lordships have heard sufficient of the history of this matter to know how indebted we are to my noble and

1089
learned friend Lord Ackner for providing Parliament with an opportunity to discuss this scheme. Indeed, it looked as though it was to be the only opportunity that Parliament would have. I do not propose to cover the ground that has been so ably, cogently and devastatingly covered by the speakers who have preceded me.
I shall look a little further than this scheme and its predecessor. As regards the present scheme, I have always heard that its operation is very highly regarded indeed. There has been remarkably little criticism of the way that the board has operated it, and there have been many expressions of appreciation.
The new scheme may look very attractive from Whitehall with its median, its tariff and disregard of all the individual circumstances that are attendant on the injuries with which we are concerned. I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will call to mind the way in which we were invited to approve of the Child Support Act which was similarly a bureaucratic Act. It was felt that the operation of the magistrates' courts varied. Of course they do because the circumstances they had to deal with were infinitely different. They also take account of local conditions. So it is with the way in which the board has operated the present scheme. There is no advantage to have a neat tariff scheme based on medians and to think that one has thereby brought in an improvement.
Going beyond that, I should like to say just this: the White Paper mentions the sympathy and concern of the Government for the victims of crimes of violence. That is quite inadequate. It is a primary duty of society—of the state, indeed—to protect the individual citizen and the body of citizens both from external violence and from internal violence. It is not a matter of sympathy and concern; it is a matter of duty, and the citizen has a right, a commensurate right, which he derives from his own service to the state: financial, by employment, and in other ways. That right should be recognised. It is surely retrograde to go back from a statutory scheme to an ex gratia scheme.
The other thing that I want to say is more controversial. I have had doubts from the very beginning of the scheme about whether we were not differentiating unduly between victims of violent crime and those who lost property by crime. When the time comes—and that means when the means are available—the duty of the state ought to extend also to compensating victims who have suffered loss of property. From the very beginning of the liberal state, the duty of the state to safeguard property has been given a high priority. I know that that is quite impracticable at the moment. The prime duty of the Government is undoubtedly to reduce the overspending of £ 50 million per year as soon as possible; but in the end, when the means are available and after the present scheme has been restored with possibly some minor adjustments, we should look beyond it to see what further duties the state owes to the individual.
In the meantime, as I said at the beginning, the present scheme has been highly regarded. The way in which it has been administered has been much admired. It is a thoroughly deplorable step to go back from the
1090
statutory scheme to the White Paper scheme involving all the injustices that have been spelt out beyond any question in the debate already this evening.
10.3 p.m.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, all the speeches so far have been made by lawyers. In fact, nearly all the remaining speeches will be made by lawyers, with the exceptions of myself, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, who is to follow me, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford. I very much hope that a speech from a layman will not be unwelcome. Perhaps we look at this from a marginally different point of view.
My interest in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme arises because in my time I have seen far more of the results of violence than I would wish—perhaps not in England, Scotland or Wales, but that does not matter. The effects of violent behaviour are the same wherever it occurs. One cannot help but be interested in a scheme that tries to do something for the victims.
I do not think that there is anyone in this country who feels that what Parliament decided 30 years ago was wrong; namely, that the state should seek to help those who became victims of violent behaviour who had no other remedy because either they could not identify those who had caused their distress or, if they could identify them, those responsible could not in any way recompense the victim for the damage that had been suffered.
Everybody agrees that that is a first-class scheme which should continue. That is not to say that I have not had questions from time to time about the way in which it has been administered, certainly questions about the proposals which we are now discussing.
I want to make three points, and I shall make them in ascending order of importance.
The first concerns the speed with which claims are dealt. Two thousand years ago a Roman poet, whose name I cannot properly pronounce because I am uneducated, said something to the effect that "he gives twice who gives promptly". The reverse applies, He gives only half as much who delays a great deal. There have been occasions in the past, some years ago now, when delays in settling claims were appalling, so that when the claim was settled it was worth much less. I am not talking about inflation; they were worth less because they had taken so long and there had been so much hassle in settling. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Carlisle was right when he said that matters had improved over recent years and become much speedier, but I note that in the White Paper, Cm.2434 which we have before us, in no less than three paragraphs, Nos.8,9 and 41, it is claimed that the new scheme will be even speedier. When my noble friend comes to reply I should very much like him to tell me on what he bases that and how much quicker he thinks it will be. I hope that he will be able to give me some comforting news.
My second point relates to a matter already raised by a number of noble Lords: the tariff which is published as Annex B to the paper. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, gave us some examples, and noble and learned Lords

1091
who have great experience of these matters in the courts have been able to give even more telling examples than I can. I look at it from a layman's point of view.
Perhaps I may tell my noble friend and the House that one particular point struck me straight away. If you look at the proposed tariff you will see that if somebody is killed, not necessarily on the street but perhaps by helping to arrest a criminal, the tariff specifies that his widow will receive £ 10,000, and that if that man is not killed but has the misfortune to lose two fingers he will also receive £ 10,000. I am happy to see that my noble friend on the Front Bench has all his fingers and I hope that he will continue to retain them, but I should like to ask him whether, if he lost two fingers of his left hand, he could not do the same job as he is doing now equally well? Of course he could. I accept that if one happened to be a concert pianist one could not. The loss of two fingers may cause great pain, great trauma and difficulty, and hospitalisation, but it does not impair a man's ability nearly as much as being killed. As a layman, it seems to me ludicrous to say that losing two fingers is the same as losing your life. No doubt many other examples can be given. I just give that simple one.
This leads me on to my third point, which has been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and by others, about the question of the scheme being non-statutory. The noble and learned Lord gave many examples of when the Government had undertaken to make the scheme statutory. All noble Lords have referred to the 1988 Act. I remember well being told eight years ago that it would be made statutory. On 17th April 1986 I was responsible for raising the issue in a debate in the other place which was answered by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd. It is quite clear in Hansard that he said that:
"we intend to put the criminal injuries compensation scheme on to a statutory basis".—[Official Report, Commons,17/4/86; col.1150.]
He spoke about introducing legislation next Session, which he did, but it is still a non-statutory scheme.
Many noble Lords have stated why they believe that that is a bad thing. I should like to put forward another reason. A non-statutory scheme, as this is, which relies solely upon the prerogative means that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland can alter it whenever they like without the smallest reference to Parliament.
It is true that Parliament votes the money. That is the only control that Parliament has. And it is quite a lot of money—£ 150 million or £ 160 million per year. The only control that Parliament has is over that money. How is that control exercised? It is exercised merely because the estimate for it is presented to the other place.
I am sure that we all know how that works. Estimates are presented. What can the other place do about those estimates? They can only reduce them by a token or total amount. It cannot say, "We do not like this scheme; we shall not go along with it; and you cannot do it". It can merely say that it does not like the scheme and that the Government must spend less on it.
1092
That is no form of parliamentary control that I can see. If Parliament means anything—and it does and we all know that it does—it should have the right to say to a Minister who proposes to make radical changes to an operation which costs the taxpayer £ 160 million per year,"We do not like this proposal. You must take it away and think about it again". No Member of either House of Parliament has that right, and I cannot believe that is right.
I shall not enter into the discussion about the legality of what the Government are doing because that has been raised already and it may be challenged in the courts. I believe that from a parliamentary point of view, it is high time that the scheme were placed on a statutory footing. I must tell my noble and learned friend that I am dismayed that in the White Paper it merely says that the Government will think about it. I hope that they will think long and hard about it and make the scheme statutory.
10.13 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, I am a lay person and I hope that my contribution will be welcomed in the debate. I do not speak as a lawyer. I speak as someone who has seen the great benefits which the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board scheme has provided for people who would have no other form of redress to compensate them for the injuries that they had received.
I am in good company because not one noble and learned Lord has spoken in favour of the proposal and therefore I am encouraged to continue with my contribution. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for initiating the debate. It is an extremely important subject and many people outside the House will be grateful to him for providing us with the opportunity to discuss the matter.
I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, on his maiden speech. He has shown care, compassion and understanding. His contribution was extremely welcome and I was very interested by it.
In November 1991, in a Written Answer in another place, the then Home Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, said that the Government were anxious to improve services to all victims of crime. He said that a structure was needed which would provide quicker payments and which was fair, straightforward and easy to understand. I suggest that the proposals now before us have none of those virtues. There are fundamental changes across the board. I can only come to one conclusion; namely, that it is really about saving money. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, confirmed that point in respect of the work that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has been able to do.
In 1992, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board dealt with 252 awards for fatal injuries,25 of which were over £ 10,000. By taking the median, the Government are now arguing that most people will not be worse off with the new tariff of £ 10,000. I suggest that that introduction will deprive a small group of people who are in real need.
I do not want to deal with supposition: let us deal with the facts. I looked at the 1992 report of the CICB.

1093
As a lay person, I am obviously interested in the compensation that was paid. However, I am also interested in the personal circumstances surrounding the particular claims that were lodged with the board. I was concerned to read, for example, about a man who was working as a doorman. He was a married man with two sons. While at work he noticed that an argument was going on in the car park of a public house. He went to help and, in the process of so doing, a car reversed at high speed and he was killed. The award was £ 121,000. Under the proposed tariff it would be £ 10,000.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, mentioned the story of a young woman in her thirties. I should like to read from the report which sets out the details surrounding that case. I believe that it really goes to the heart of the impact on families and children in such circumstances. The young woman, who had two children aged six and four, had gone to bed with her husband. Some time later, there was a knock on the front door. The husband went downstairs to answer. The young woman heard a commotion, got out of bed and went to investigate. She says that she did not see who stabbed her husband but that she did see him struggling with the assailant at the bottom of the stairs. The young woman went to help her husband and was injured as a result. She dragged her husband inside the house and vividly recalls—and, indeed, will recall to the end of her days—the assailant still staring in from the garden path until she closed the door on him.
The young woman telephoned for an ambulance and remained with her husband until it arrived. The two young children were still upstairs in bed unaware of what was happening. She tried to stop the blood flow but her husband was pronounced dead at home. The unknown assailant remained undetected. Understandably, that young wife suffered from post-traumatic disorder of a deep intensity. Moreover, at the same time as trying to rebuild the lives of her two young children, she was awarded £ 137,000 under the scheme. Under the proposed tariff, the young woman would have received £ 10,000 for the death of her husband, and £ 7,000 in respect of her own injuries.
That is what the new tariff will do to families faced with such a situation. It is a cruel decision. I ask the Minister to reconsider what the Government are doing. I cannot believe that it is the Government's intention that families in such a vulnerable position should be faced with that kind of financial hardship.
Regrettably, many people are subjected to criminal assault in the course of their work. The TUC and many unions, especially in the public sector, are concerned about the matter, as, indeed, was the Health and Safety Commission in 1987 when the health service advisory committee examined the issue of violence to employees in the health service. The committee produced a most remarkable figure. It found that 11.5 per cent. of staff in the health service in any one year sustain physical injury because of assault.
The single group most at risk among health service workers are student nurses. In any one year the Royal College of Nursing represents 160 of its members in criminal injuries cases. For example, a psychiatric nurse in Manchester sustained a 15 per cent. Permanent
1094
disability for life as a result of an attack. Her award was £ 127,000. She would receive £ 5,000 under the tariff system. The tariff system puts victims into predetermined bands which take no account of their individual circumstances or individual identities. It is a heartless, cruel proposal that we are faced with. It also abandons the principle of taking into account potential loss of earnings.
The Government say that the intention of the new system is to remove inconsistencies. However, I would suggest it attempts that in a rather bizarre way. Facial scarring has already been mentioned. Some £ 3,500 is awarded for a significant disfigurement whether the victim is a young girl of 17 years of age looking forward to her life ahead or a pensioner in his sixties. A victim receives the same compensation whether his left or right hand is injured and yet the Judicial Studies Board and the courts have recognised that there is a difference between injuring one's right or one's left hand.
Another factor which has not been taken into account is the trauma that flows from rape or child sex abuse cases. A child of 12 in Nottingham was subjected to a vicious sexual assault—I take the case from the report of the criminal injuries board—by her uncle which included penetration with a walking stick. The present scheme provided £ 5,000 compensation. Many may feel that that is not sufficient. However, under the new tariff, the victim of an injury would receive an award of £ 1,000.
A woman of 25 was raped and subjected to a vicious sexual attack for over 12 hours by the lodger in her own home. Her six year-old son witnessed part of the attack. She received £ 42,500 under the present scheme. The woman needed two operations and long psychiatric treatment after the attack. Under the proposed tariff—which will operate from April unless the Government recognise they have made a mistake and change their mind—she would receive £ 1,000.
These are not pleasant stories. But we must face up to the real-life situations behind the statistics. We must also face up to the real impact of the proposed changes. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is all too often the only avenue of support for victims. I cannot believe that the Government really want people to suffer in this manner. I cannot believe that this miserly, heartless route is the one down which the Government, or anyone in a civilised society, wish to proceed.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is against the proposals as are trade unions. I hope that the Government are not so dogmatic as not to listen to the view of the trade unions on this matter. Why is there such a rush? If the Government are determined to introduce a tariff, why not consult people on it? No consultation has taken place. Why do the Government not recognise that people are different and that their circumstances are different? Why do the Government not recognise that people's injuries are different? Victims' loss of earnings must be taken into account:, as must the effect of their injuries on their lives. 'The present scheme is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it is streets ahead of what is being

1095
proposed. The proposed scheme will have a deeply punitive effect on people who have no other avenue through which to seek help.
10.24 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that at least one lawyer gains a great deal of pleasure from hearing non-lawyers speak on this matter. It appeared from what a Home Office Minister said on the radio last week that the Government are not paying any attention to complaints about the new system because only lawyers have complained about it. It would be unfortunate if only lawyers complained about it.
It is unfortunate that the present members of the board were not consulted. It is unfortunate that the Faculty of Advocates, of whom the noble and learned Lord the Minister who is to reply and I are both members, wrote on 9th July of last year to both the Minister's right honourable friends the Secretaries of State raising the European Convention on Victims of Crime and the European Convention on Human Rights and has yet to receive a reply. The Faculty of Advocates is, of course, a legal organisation. I shall be interested to hear the reply now.
The main difficulty with the new tariff scheme is the total unfairness of the approach. Loss of earnings is not a feature in many claims. There are retired people, housewives, students and the unemployed. There is also a large number of employed people who receive payment when they are off work, whether as a result of a crime of violence or for any other reason. Civil servants and judges are two categories of people who are in that position. However, a great many self-employed people and others are not paid when they are off work. It is of considerable importance to them. Why should I as a judge, breaking an ankle in a crime of violence, receive exactly the same as a man who is off work for three months and receives no earnings during that period? Are our losses exactly the same? That is the effect of the tariff.
To quote paragraph 12 of the White Paper, the tariff,
"means that people with similar injuries will get the same payment, which is by no means the case under the present system where people … get radically different awards for similar injuries".
That is the whole basis of compensation in the civil courts. We compensate for the actual injury that the person has sustained. Do the Government say that the whole system of civil damages is wrong? If so, are we to discard the Pearson Report and everything else?
I was a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and so in a sense have an interest. I also took part in the debate on what became the 1988 Act. I played a considerable part trying to represent the board. It is discouraging to see that just thrown aside. However, that discouragement could be accepted if this were a better scheme.
Last month I made an award to a steel erector of 50 who will never work again. His damages for loss of earnings, present and future, were £ 147,000 out of a total award of £ 187,000. That same injury could easily
1096
have been sustained in a crime of violence, in which case under the tariff he would receive £ 20,000. Do the Government really consider that that would be fair?
Do the Government really consider that paragraph 25 of the White Paper dealing with fatal injuries is reasonable, just and fair? It states that,
"the new tariff award in fatal cases will, like other awards under the tariff scheme, leave most claimants no worse off than before. Indeed, in fatal cases, most claimants will be rather better off".
One could congratulate the writers of that paragraph for their supreme complacency.
If a police officer of 30 with two children and a wife is killed he will receive £ 10,000. I once prosecuted a drunk driver for killing a policeman who happened to have two children. There is no difficulty in such a case because the motor insurance will take the case. But if that man was killed by stabbing, as was a police officer recently, his widow and children will receive £ 10,000. The Government may say,"Of course the police give pensions to people." What happens if the man is a self-employed plumber who happens to be lending a hand? The sum is still £ 10,000, no matter how many children or however difficult the wife's position.
How does that position square with the European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes? Article 4 states:
"Compensation shall cover…. funeral expenses, and, as regards dependants, loss of maintenance".
With regard to the tariff system, that compensation goes completely.
I had planned to say much that has already been said. Sir John Palmer has been mentioned. I vividly remember him having to make an assessment on scarring on a young lady who was a photographic model and who appeared on occasions on page 3 of certain newspapers. To say that her loss through receiving a scar on the chest was the same as my loss through a scar on the chest is the most absurd piece of nonsense. It is difficult to understand the basis of that argument.
Some years ago the Government introduced a scheme whereby in a certain area everyone, no matter what his means, was to pay the same amount. That scheme became rather unpopularly known as the poll tax. This scheme in effect is a mirror image of that system. The Government are saying that everyone who suffers a broken ankle is to receive the same damages; everyone who suffers an injury to the hand is to receive the same damages, whatever his personal circumstances. There is nothing more blatantly unfair.
10.32 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, in making a contribution to the debate, perhaps I may declare an interest as a serving member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. We are all deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this vital issue which affects the whole community.
I do not believe that it would be wrong for me to say in the context of this debate that so far the Government, in the shape of the Minister, have received a severe mugging, including a judicial mugging. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the tariff to compensate him for that

1097
other than to take up the offer of my noble friend Lord Mishcon and to reconsider this piece of nonsense in the light of what has been said in your Lordships' House.
It is not only the lawyers who object to this iniquitous scheme. I have a letter from the Law Society of Scotland which has taken a stand against it. The letter states that the society has also had indications of support from the Faculty of Advocates—you may say that that is another bunch of lawyers—and ENABLE, which is the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped, and the premier Cornrnunity Law Centre in Glasgow known as the Legal Services Agency. A number of other bodies had indicated support but the writer did not know whether they wished to be named at this stage. Several speakers still have to make a contribution to the debate. There would be moderate surprise if more than one of those speakers supported the Government.
If there is to be a scheme, then it is the essence of justice and fairness that each applicant's application is considered subjectively and assessed on a fair and equitable basis to reflect, first, the wrong done to the individual and the consequences, financial and otherwise, flowing from that wrongdoing. It is correct to say, as has been said in the past, that the state has no legal obligation towards victims of crime. For that reason the scheme is an ex gratia one. But there is a moral duty; and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, mentioned, the state has a duty towards the citizen to whom wrong is done.
The debate has demonstrated one important matter. The reality of life is that citizens innocent of any misdemeanour or crimes against the state and those who are at the forefront of fighting on society's behalf, the frontline soldiers of the community, will be denied justice from the community in whose name they serve and whom they serve with magnificent courage and resolution in many spheres. I speak of police officers who face danger daily and suffer the consequences. I speak of firemen dealing with arson who sustain serious injuries. I speak of psychiatric nurses and many others who could be added to the list.
Those are specialised fields, but in the absence of a common law scheme under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, pointed out, those people have no recourse to any other place from which to obtain compensation. Perhaps I may read one sentence from a letter received from the Royal College of Nursing which states:
"A fixed tariff and an expression of sympathy is an inadequate response to the nurses who are injured while caring for others".
Under the tariff scheme, who is to pay the policeman and those people in the examples I gave who suffer serious and permanently disabling injury in the course of duty? Who is to pay the young nurse whose career is brought to an abrupt end in perhaps her early twenties, dealing with a psychiatrically disturbed patient? It is in the nature of the work that those people carry out, in dangerous circumstances on behalf of the state, that they will be disabled to one extent or another and on occasions be rendered completely unfit to work. Under the tariff scheme proposed by the Government, the door of compensation will be firmly closed in their faces without one word of sympathy from the state on behalf
1098
of the community. That action may well be a deterrent in itself to such people carrying out duties efficiently on behalf of the community, although I am sure that they will all continue to do their best.
What of the private citizen? Time and time again over the past few years, private citizens have been exhorted by the Government, in the name of law and order, to go to the assistance of the police. Where they see a police officer being attacked, go and help them; where they see trouble, go to the assistance of the officer. Who will help the person who, in carrying out his public duty and perhaps risking life and limb, sustains a serious injury which disables him for life? Who will pay under the tariff scheme? The answer is no one. The Government, through the scheme, will say: "Thank you very much for your courage and public-spirited actions. Sorry, you can't work any more. Goodbye and good luck". If that is justice, then it is a pretty poor example of justice as perceived under the scheme.
Clearly, as from 1st April 1994, any such minded citizen would be well advised to stay out of the fray. If lives are lost which could have been saved, and if police officers are injured whose injury could have been avoided, and if criminals evade capture, then the fault for that will lie solely at the door of the Government.
Serious questions have to be asked as to whether there is a philosophy behind the tariff. I give the Government the credit of being able to apply some form of philosophy; but what is it? In the search for a philosophy, we have a negative answer. As the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, said, the tariff scheme has been imposed without consultation; 40 senior members of the legal profession with probably 20 to 30 years of experience between them, with a vast reservoir of knowledge of the law on personal injury, were deliberately ignored by the Government who introduced the scheme out of the blue following the matters that have been discussed in relation to the criminal justice Bill.
The Government say they are a listening government. There is another aspect to listening, and that is hearing. If you listen with cloth ears, you hear nothing. This Government have unfortunately—I do not believe this is a party-political issue—demonstrated time and time again that they will not listen. When they are forced to listen, they change their mind. This House has forced an about-turn on various aspects of legislation recently. Even in Scotland new fees have been imposed on the sheriff courts without consultation. They took effect from 1st January this year. In at least one aspect they have been found to be defective, and people are now getting their money back. The scheme was wrong and badly thought out. One sheriff has challenged the whole basis of the scheme. That has all happened because Government will not take time to think.
If I am correct and that is so, then any reasonable person—lawyer or otherwise—is driven to the inevitable conclusion that the proposed tariff is the reflection of a heartless, Treasury-led exercise, paying little if any regard to fairness and equity and the public interest.

1099
The position of the lawyers in the administration of the board is neither here nor there. Lawyers will come and lawyers will go; they will find other spheres of activity in which to entertain themselves (if that is the correct word) or to occupy themselves. But what happens to the victim, to the person in the wheelchair who has not been adequately compensated by this scheme? He or she cannot find another field of activity. He or she can no longer take part in sports; play with the children; dig the garden and do all the things that ordinary people like to do to one degree or another. That person is imprisoned by the wrongful act of another citizen, perhaps while acting on behalf of the community. This scheme says: that is just too bad; you will just have to live with it and get on with your life.
It is important to bear one other factor in mind which I believe has already been touched upon; namely, that the injured person may be—indeed, is more than likely to be—the sole wage-earner in the family. What does this scheme give to that sole wage earner who is deprived of the dignity of work—the ability to work is a matter of dignity, and people regard it as such—who is deprived of the ability to work, of an income and of the dignity of supporting his or her own family? In the absence of the wage loss being taken into account, it gives very little indeed. That has further implications for the community. The community has then to support the family. It is not only the victim who will hold a grievance. His family, also affected by the injury, would be entitled to hold a grievance against a society which had unfairly compensated a well-meaning individual acting without any wrong towards society. That is a sorry state of affairs.
Examples of unfairness have been given, and I do not intend to go over them, apart from perhaps mentioning two cases. One of them has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. I heard a case on the day when this scheme was announced of a labourer who had appealed against an award of £ 2,500. On the tariff he would have got £ 2,500. When he came before the hearing, it turned out that he had an inverted foot, which meant that he could not dig. He could not work on a building site or anywhere requiring manual work, which was his only skill. Manual work on a building is, in fact, a skill, although some people might not accept that. He could not work. Instead of getting £ 2,500, he got £ 70,000 to make up for his inability to work.
Another person who was very badly facially scarred and on whom the plastic surgeons had done a magnificent job, purely on a scarring basis, according to the tariff, might have received £ 6,500. It so happened that that person's occupation heavily involved confronting members of the public and public relations work, in which the person was unable to continue. A sum of over £ 100,000 was awarded. That is proper compensation from the state for those injuries which would never be seen within the tariff. There are various areas, touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, where the tariff scheme cannot work.
One other area that was not mentioned was that of multiple injuries. There is a sliding scale of adding 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. to the major injury, going
1100
through the various injuries. A figure is brought out which would never be awarded in the courts and which is well below the court's award. By some form of tortuous reasoning, the principles of fatal injury awards in England and Wales are applied to Scotland. I do not know anyone who was consulted in Scotland as to whether that reasoning is good or bad.
As has already been pointed out by the noble Baroness, there is the matter of sexual abuse. Do we have a Richter trauma scale for sexual abuse, compiled by what is known as the number-crunching of 20,000 files within the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board? The variety and degree of trauma in sexual abuse cases is unbelievable. It would do a lot of people a lot of good perhaps to sit in the court and listen to what people have to suffer at the hands of their abusers.
In the Scotsman —and for noble Lords who are not familiar with Scottish newspapers, the Scotsman is a Scottish newspaper—for Saturday 26th February 1994, under the headline "Criminal injuries pay plan may alter", the Home Affairs Correspondent writes:
"A Scottish Office spokeswoman said last night that although the changes would come in on 1 April, ministers remain open-minded".
That is nice to know, because up to now they have been closed-minded. The article goes on:
"The new scheme will take effect"—
I ask noble Lords to listen carefully. The item comes from the Scottish Office—
"because the Government has this power and has deemed it so".
What sort of democracy are we living in? The government have deemed it so and therefore it shall be, with no give or take one way or the other. The writer continues:
"but ministers are still listening and debating the detail of it. It is not too late to change the detail before 1 April should they wish to".
An interesting observation to make is that change of detail does not amount to change of principle. They can "futter" about as long as they like with the detail of the tariff without affecting the principle of restoring to injured persons the rights which they previously had under the common law.
The time has come for the Government to take this issue away and have another look at it. They have had plenty of advice so far in this debate, and no doubt they will receive more.
I close by referring to three passages which I believe apply today as equally as they did at the time they appeared. One is from the White Paper that has already been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. In that paper, referring to a previous White Paper, it was said:
"The assumption that the claims of the victim are sufficiently satisfied if the offender is punished by society becomes less persuasive as society in its dealings with offenders increasingly emphasises the reformative aspects of punishment. Indeed in the public mind the interests of the offender may not infrequently seem to be placed before those of his victim. This is certainly not the correct emphasis".
The White Paper goes on to say at paragraph 8:
"Compensation will be paid ex gratia. The Government do not accept that the State is liable for injuries caused to people by the acts of others. The public does, however, feel a sense of responsibility for and sympathy with the innocent victim, and it is right that this feeling should find practical expression in the provision of compensation on behalf of the community".

1101
Finally, from the first report of the board, paragraph 15 concludes in these terms:
"But no-one who is called to deal with those cases in which a blameless victim his been seriously disabled, sometimes for life, or with those uses in which the elderly and infirm have suffered injury and shock, can fail to feel deeply what a worthwhile part is played in the full administration of justice by the power to award compensation".
Let us return to those principles and apply justice to this scheme.
10.50 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, perhaps I may—somewhat improbably in this debate—begin with a word in praise of the Government. I believe that Conservative governments have a conspicuously good record in the field of criminal injuries compensation. Following, I am glad to say, hard on the heels of a Justice report, it was a Conservative government which introduced the scheme in 1964. It was the first such scheme to be introduced in Europe. It was a Conservative government which decided that the scheme should be put on a statutory basis in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The scheme is currently as generous as exists anywhere, except possibly in the United States. That, I am sure, is regarded by everyone in your Lordships' House as an admirable record which we would wish to acknowledge.
I also applaud the action of the Government at any time in looking closely at the management of the scheme to see that it gives value for money. Some suggest that the proposal is mere cost-cutting; that it is, in that dreaded phrase,"Treasury led", as though that automatically proved that it was suspect. I am not sure that that is necessarily right.
The eternal complaints against the law are uncertainty, cost and delay. I believe that our formal legal processes are still far too cumbersome and still far too expensive. So I welcome any sensible attempts to introduce a cost-benefit approach to the delivery of justice. But it remains vital to the credibility of justice that the result should be fair and should carry respect. For me, the current proposals fail that test miserably.
well recognise, as did the distinguished chairman of the scheme, that there have been criticisms of the existing scheme. A backlog of cases did build up. And there have been complaints—let us acknowledge them—notably from Victim Support, that the basis of awards is difficult to understand and that the amount awarded is sometimes seen to be unpredictable. Clearly it is important that those complaints should be carefully weighed. We would all agree with the statement in the White Paper that the operation of the scheme should be reasonably speedy and straightforward.
But those concerns would sensibly have led to an improvement and an enhancement of the existing scheme, rather than the radical change which is now contemplated. For I believe, as the White Paper itself acknowledges, that over the years the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has served a most useful function in dealing with an ever increasing number of claims. As has been said tonight, the board deals with 80 per cent. of cases within nine months of receipt, and the main cause of any further delay is a need to obtain reports
1102
from police and medical authorities. But, as has again been said tonight, all that will be needed under the new scheme. I believe that the scheme, as at present constituted, on the whole meets the criteria of speed and simplicity in so far as it is able to do so and will still do justice.
Perhaps I may also voice a real anxiety about the way in which the reforms are being introduced. Prior to 1988, the scheme existed on an ex gratia basis. No doubt spurred on by the concerns of such as my noble friend Lord Colnbrook—that it was right to make the scheme statutory—the Government therefore did so in the plainest possible terms by Section 108 of the Criminal Justice Act. That Act made absolutely plain that the general principles which had governed the amount of an award should be the same as those which apply in the courts; that they should be the same as those which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, described as the common law basis of damages. Those enable, as we all know, account to be taken of individual circumstances, including loss of earnings. I refer, as did the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, to Section 111 and to Schedule 7, paragraph 8. It is as plain as a pikestaff what Parliament had in mind. It was a very clear endorsement, at the instigation of the Government, of the principles on which this scheme had operated for almost 25 years.
There had been ample experience of the scheme; it was endorsed and Parliament exercised its sovereignty. But what has happened? Because of the absence of statutory procedural rules, the legislative scheme has never been put into effect. It is to be left dangling. unloved, unused and ignored, on the statute book. The Government now propose to ignore what would seem to me to be their clear statutory obligation to bring the scheme into effect. They also propose to depart, again without the consent of Parliament, from the ordinary principles of common law of assessing damages which, as I read the 1988 Act, Parliament expressly enjoined the board to follow. Yet on the radio last week, Mr. David Maclean, the Minister of State at the Home Office, made much of the fact that the scheme he is proposing is a non-statutory one, and that there were no proposals to put it on a statutory basis. Given that we have a statutory scheme, that does not seem to me something of which a Minister ought to be proud.
This departure, without the consent of Parliament, from a scheme enacted by Parliament seems, to put it mildly, surprising. I suspected before the debate that the Government would, if sued by a litigant who could afford to bring proceedings—let us bear in mind the cost—be liable to an action for mandamus requiring them to bring the statutory scheme into effect. But my suspicions have hardened because they have been reinforced by the judgment in this Chamber of at least one distinguished Law Lord. It is always comforting to have a Law Lord on one's side before one has to argue the case.
I thought it right to give my noble and learned friend the Minister notice of my doubts on these constitutional issues so that he could provide the House with the views of the Law Officers as to the legal validity of the present proposal, and I asked whether he would do so. I ask him tonight: have the Government sought their advice; and,

1103
if so, will he allay my concerns and those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, by placing their advice, with of course their consent, before the House?
Many of your Lordships have spoken of the inadequacy of assessing damages for injuries suffered through crime under a tariff scheme. As I understand it, the reason that the Government propose to introduce a tariff is that it will bring greater simplicity to the assessment of damages. But what is the price of simplicity? The price is that it will ignore some of the fundamental considerations which ought to be taken into account in determining fair compensation. Some people will get more than under the existing scheme. That is not necessarily fair. But what is much more unfair is that those who lose most from their injury will lose most from the new scheme. That is at the heart of the concerns that have been expressed tonight and it is that which if implemented would bring the scheme into disrespect.
Feeling as strongly as I did about the mistake, I searched the White Paper very hard to see what one could find by way of justification for this approach. Paragraph 10 of the White Paper rightly says that the assessment of damages cannot be an exact science. But it goes on to say that under the common law:
"the assessment is essentially subjective rather than objective".
I believe that this is a fallacy which lies at the heart of the present proposals. Obviously the assessment of compensation involves judgment, but that judgment, to be a judgment, must seek to take into account all the circumstances of the case. That is what true objectivity and true individual justice—and we are still a society that dispenses individual justice—are all about.
Many of your Lordships have given examples of the wholly unsatisfactory way in which the new scheme would operate. I take just two to illustrate my point. First, the loss of the sight of one eye is valued in the same way whether the victim is a girl of eight or an elderly person of 90. Yet the difference in deprivation over a lifetime will be great. This difference in age is not a matter of so-called subjective assessment; it is straight, hard fact.
Secondly, a 30 year-old pilot, firefighter or manual worker may suffer the same injury as a 70 year-old pensioner but additionally suffer disastrous financial consequences for himself and his family. That loss will not be taken into account. Yet surely those facts, too, are hard, objective facts. They are not subjective at all.
It would have been easy to say much more in this vein. The White Paper appears to believe that justice does not require compensation to be matched to individual circumstances. In saying that, it is rejecting totally the approach developed by the courts for damages for negligence throughout this century. It is ignoring the effects of crime on its victims.
Perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend the Minister some more questions. In one sense I apologise because he has been set a stiff examination paper tonight. Do the Government believe that looking at individual circumstances is less fair than a tariff system? Do they consider that a tariff system, even if buttressed by social security, fairly takes account of the
1104
losses sustained by individuals? And are not those worst hit by their injury going to be the biggest losers? If they are, how can that be a fair acknowledgment by society of the damage suffered by individuals?
Most of the speakers in the debate are lawyers, but I am glad to say that we are buttressed by the good sense of non-lawyers. In the broadcast last week, to which I referred earlier, Mr. David Maclean appeared to suggest that many of the anxieties voiced were being expressed by lawyers and, of course, it was lawyers who stood to lose income by the change. That is an argument, I believe, of some desperation. I wonder on what basis Mr. Maclean would brush aside the anxieties of the nurses which have been expressed to all of us. In responding, I ask my noble and learned friend firmly to disclaim that eccentric argument and to acknowledge that the views of lawyers who have practised in this field have some weight as well as the views of non-lawyers.
I began by praising the Government. I hope that they will be willing to listen. I hope that this debate will give them the chance to think again. I also hope that they will reflect on the fact that Parliament has enacted a statutory scheme which requires that compensation should be assessed by taking account of individual circumstances on a now well-recognised basis.
I conclude as I began. I am proud that the Government I support have a good record, until this day, in this area. I hope that we shall be able to say that after All Fools' Day they will continue to have a good record.
11.4 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I feel abashed in such company although a good and encouraging word has been said about the good sense of non-lawyers. Beside me sits one eminent lawyer and another has just spoken. I believe that they have collaborated very fruitfully in the past. We have all this eminent legal wisdom.
I speak from a slightly different angle, and I am not the only non-lawyer to speak. People often come up to me and say,"You seem very sweet on criminals. What have you done for the victims?" I feel entitled to reply,"I reckon that I have done a lot more than you have", and I am very seldom wrong, if ever.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, mentioned with great pride the achievements of the Conservative government in 1964 and said that they were responding to the findings of the committee of Justice. Perhaps it escaped his notice that I was the chairman of that committee and was then, as now, a Labour Member. Soon after that, I introduced the first debate on victims to be held in my time as a Member of your Lordships' House. When the then Lord Chancellor introduced that measure, he acknowledged the influence of the committee of Justice, over which I presided, so I am afraid that I am not going to give the Conservative government a monopoly on glory because of the production of the 1964 measures.
Later, in 1978, I formed a committee; and in 1979 I introduced a Bill into this House. I do not know how many of the eminent people around me have introduced a Bill into this House. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has been a supporter of mine from the early days of the

1105
work of that committee and in connection with that Bill. The Bill was not taken over by the Conservative Party. I withdrew it on the perhaps optimistic assumption that the Government would do something quite big for victims. I should say in passing that that committee and the Bill owe a great deal to the work of the Matthew Trust which has been so very helpful to victims over so many years. Well, years have passed and something has been done for victims but no one would seriously think that it is anything like enough.
Soon after the most recent Conservative Party conference, the impression was gained—I think correctly—that the Government were anxious to do less for criminals and more for victims. It was rather a crude antithesis if that is what was in their minds. If one thinks the matter out at all carefully, one realises that better treatment of prisoners and ex-prisoners would reduce crime and would therefore be in the long-term interests of victims.
However, leaving that aside, the Government took it on themselves to do more for victims—or at least gave the widespread impression that they were going to do more for victims. What have they done? Does anyone, not just in this House but in the country, seriously argue that victims will get an improved deal as a result of the
1106
new arrangements? No one in their senses would say that. A few people might say that the position is unclear and it is possible that things might work out better than we think. But, on the face of it, victims are damaged and what appeared to be a pledge to do something for victims has been betrayed in the recent proposals.
I shall not go on at this time of night. Like others, I have tremendous confidence in Victim Support, a society which devotes itself to the interests of victims. I rely considerably on people such as Mary Tuck, the chairman; Helen Reeve, the director; arid Martin Wright, the policy director. I have received their guidance and I hope that they will not think that I am letting them down or going beyond the brief that they have offered me if I say that their cautious approach, not very statesmanlike, does not, in the light of this debate, take us far enough forward. They are of course bound to be vigorously critical of the proposals, as many of your Lordships will know, but they expressed the hope that I would call on the Government to pause to give time for consultation and reflection before the proposals are brought into operation. In the light of this debate, I hope that they will allow me to go much further than that and to back up all those who have called on the Government to take away this wretched thing and forget all about it.
11.9 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I shall not prolong the debate for more than a few moments because, inevitably, what I say is bound to be repetitive. I feel bound to say that I believe that the White Paper is a misguided attempt to circumvent the will of Parliament. The facts are brief and speak for themselves. A non-statutory scheme was introduced in 1964. It was a term of that scheme that compensation for the victims of criminal violence should be based on the loss and damage suffered. Twenty years later the Government rightly decided that the scheme should be statutory, so the 1988 Act was passed to place the scheme on a proper statutory basis. That Act specifically directed that compensation should continue to be paid on the basis of the loss and damage suffered by the victim. As the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, has said, that is spelt out in clear terms in paragraph 8 of Schedule 7.
Now the Government refuse to bring the statutory scheme into operation. They state that they intend to recast the non-statutory scheme on a basis other than that of the loss and damage suffered by the victim. Is that not a case of the Executive defying the will of Parliament? Is it not the proper course for the Government to introduce a Bill which contains the new tariff-based scheme, if that is what the Government want; a Bill which both Houses of Parliament can debate and amend if desired and, if thought fit, enact in the usual way? Or is the Executive to be allowed to take over the functions of Parliament? As has already been said, there are some £ 150 million at stake. The application of that amount of money should surely be controlled by an Act of Parliament and not by a White Paper.
I am sure that most of us here are extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for introducing this debate. There is just one matter which I wish to add in conclusion. I have been asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, to apologise for the fact that he has had to leave the debate before the end because he has to carry out his duties north of the Border.
11.12 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, it is becoming a regular feature of your Lordships' debates that the Government fail to attract one single supporter from any section of the House on very important issues. That was so on the Bill to privatise the railways on the question of the railway workers' pension scheme and the ability of British Rail to bid for the franchise. It happened on the education Bill in relation to student unions and the control over universities, and again only recently on the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill.
One would think that the Government would learn from that, but they come back like punch-drunk boxers asking for more. The unfortunate Minister who has been put up tonight to accept, as my noble friend Lord Macaulay said, the legal mugging has the sorry task of replying to a debate in which the Government's
1108
proposals have been absolutely taken apart. I cannot imagine for a moment what kind of brief the Minister has been given to enable him to respond to the debate.
I do not bring with me any legal qualifications for speaking in the debate. However, I bring 32 years' experience of helping public sector workers. I declare an interest in that I have retained both an interest in and my membership of the Union of Communication Workers. I should like to speak briefly on its behalf tonight and to express its fears. I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lady Dean raise the question of nurses. My noble friend Lord Macaulay and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, in an admirable maiden speech, raised the question of police officers.
I wish to refer to one more sector of public service workers; namely, postal workers. Over the past three years the Union of Communication Workers has sent 1,200 to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for its consideration; namely, postmen, postwomen and counter clerks. In the previous three years the number was much smaller. The fact that 1,200 cases have been sent over the past three year is an indication of the increasing violence that society in this country has to tolerate.
My union is deeply concerned about the proposed tariff scheme to be introduced on 1st April. Examples have been given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who I thank for initiating the debate this evening. I should like to cite three examples from the casework of the Union of Communication Workers, which has a specialist department—the legal and medical department—dealing with those matters.
In Sheffield recently there was the tragic case of a postman aged 52 years, David Hinds. He was going about his duty in one of the Sheffield suburbs, clearing mail from a postbox. He was attacked viciously by a violent thug, beaten unconscious and then, it is suspected, was run over by his own postal van. Tragically, the culprit who committed that heinous crime has not yet been apprehended. That man had provided 31 excellent years' service as a postman. The reward for the apprehension of the person who committed the crime was £ 50,000 made up of £ 25,000 from the Post Office, doubled to £ 50,000 by the Daily Mirror. Both organisations are to be commended for their public-spiritedness in putting up such a reward. But the irony is that the reward for the apprehension and conviction of the criminal is three-and-a-half times the amount which the victim's widow will receive under the scheme which the Government propose to introduce on 1st April. That cannot be right. The reward is right but the tariff scheme cannot possibly stand up to that kind of examination.
A postman who was delivering valuable packages in the West Midlands was beaten so badly over the head with an iron bar some years ago that he is now receiving constant medical care and attention because of the serious injuries that he sustained. Under the old scheme that was taken into consideration and the award was made accordingly. Under the new scheme that constant care is not allowed for.
Here in London a counter clerk, a lady, had acid thrown in her face. Fortunately, she recovered from the

1109
injuries that she received as a result of that; but she did not recover from the scars on her mind. Again, that lady is in need of constant attention for a psychiatric problem. She is being taken care of under the existing scheme; but she would certainly not be under the tariff scheme which will be introduced on 1st April.
I could go on quoting case after case where the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has considered and awarded on merit the requests that were made as a result of a case being referred. But that will not happen under the proposed new scheme. It may be a little ungenerous of me, but I cannot avoid the feeling that somewhere someone in the Treasury has the impression that anyone who receives £ 250,000 from the CICB has somehow or other won the pools. The money does not heal the sick and it does not cure the damaged mind, but it does help to make life a little more tolerable for the victims of violent crime.
I shall turn now to the parliamentary situation. It is outrageous. There can be no defence for what the Government are doing without parliamentary approval. A Minister rises at the Dispatch Box in another place and sets aside a scheme that has been in place, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, said, since 1964. There is no parliamentary order; indeed, we do not even have the opportunity to oppose an order under the negative resolution procedure.
As regards the request of my noble friend who spoke before me, the Government will not introduce legislation for the tariff because that would put it on a statutory basis. That is the very thing that the Government are seeking to avoid as Mr. Maclean said in his radio interview. As I said, there is no parliamentary procedure involved. The Minister merely rises at the Dispatch Box, sets aside a scheme that has been in place since 1964, and tells us that the tariffs will come into effect on 1st April.
In an attempt to be helpful to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Mishcon made a few suggestions. I shall follow his good example and try to be equally helpful to the Minister. My noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg made the point that the Criminal Justice Bill is before another place at present. On Monday of this week, the Government tabled 17 new clauses to that Bill. I suggest to the Minister that they should put forward one more new clause. If the Government are so sure of their ground and if they are so confident that they could command majority support in both Houses for the proposals, I ask the Minister to table a further new clause to the Criminal Justice Bill repealing the appropriate section of the 1988 Act. That would give both Houses the opportunity to debate, consider and decide the matter. In many ways, it would get the Government off the hook.
However, my view is that the Government know that they cannot command majority support for what they are doing and, therefore, they will not table a new clause. There will not be another legislative opportunity to repeal the appropriate section of the 1988 Act. They have the legislative opportunity at present through the Criminal Justice Bill. As my noble friend Lord Mishcon said, the Minister should throw away the brief that has been written for him. For goodness sake! I hope that he
1110
does not read it. He should just rise to his feet and tell us that the scheme will not be implemented until Parliament has decided to repeal the appropriate section of the 1988 Act. That is not long in the future; indeed, it could be done before we rise for the Summer Recess. It would not mean a long delay. It is a reasonable proposition.
The Minister has no grounds for refusing the proposition that I put to him. If the scheme is introduced on 1st April without any consultation—and there has been no consultation—not only will trade unions be up in arms about it, but people the length and breadth of the country who are the victims of crime in all its forms will oppose what the Government are doing. The Government will have neither the consent of Parliament nor that of the people.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: My Lords, I shall take up only one minute. I had not put down my name to speak in this debate because I had every confidence that those who had would make all the points that needed to be made, and that confidence was fully justified. I rise for one reason only and that is because, as far as I can see, I am the only lawyer in the House who has not uttered, and I am suddenly assailed by the hideous thought that my silence might be interpreted as dissent. Far from dissenting, I cordially agree with everything that has been said by other members of my profession.
I cannot understand how any member of the profession could fail to condemn the White Paper's theme. I find it incomprehensible that anyone, lawyer or layman alike, should think it fair and right that the victims of criminal violence should be substantially less generously compensated at the expense of the. taxpayer than the victims of civil torts are compensated at the expense of those who pay insurance premiums. There are two lawyers still to speak. I suspect that one of them will certainly be on my side and I wish I thought the other one was too.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, has started a bad habit, because how can I be left out now? I have followed the noble and learned Lord, as he knows, on many occasions and indeed regard my conscience as very much in his keeping. I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord says and I want the Minister to know that he has no friend in me. I ask him seriously to deal with the question which I put to my noble friend earlier as to whether the Government will get in deep legal waters on this matter. I hope he will also answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, about the advice of the Law Officers on a matter of this kind. I say that in no cynical spirit.
11.27 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I wonder whether the best service I can do for the House is to remain seated for as long as possible so that other noble Lords may also intervene. We are all greatly indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for having made possible this quite remarkable debate His Question tests not only the extent of the Government's commitment to the interests of the victims of violent

1111
crime but also the extent of the Government's commitment to the most cherished principles of our unwritten but still paramount constitution; namely, to parliamentary sovereignty and to the rule of law.
The Government did not intend that there should be any parliamentary debate before their proposals for replacing the existing scheme came into force. That was made quite clear in the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to my Starred Question on 20th January. But for the initiative of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, there would have been no parliamentary debate about these controversial proposals to replace common law and statutory principles with a mechanical, unfairly discriminatory and devalued tariff system.
The debate has demonstrated deep anxiety and justifiable concern from all parts of the House, both as regards what the Government are doing and also about the manner in which they are seeking to do it. Statements of commanding authority have been made by eminent judicial members of the House. I wish to pay my own tribute to the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, who has spoken with such charm, clarity and persuasive force, reinforcing, in the non-contentious way customary for maiden speeches, the trenchant, quite devastating and unanswerable criticisms made by four Law Lords: the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Brightman and Lord Bridge of Harwich, together with a distinguished member of the Court of Session, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and the devastating criticisms from the Labour Benches by the noble Lords, Lord Irving of Lairg and Lord Mishcon, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lords, Lord Macaulay and Lord Ewing. Powerful and well-informed anxiety has also been voiced by the outstanding Chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and by loyal supporters of the Government, including the noble Lords, Lord Colnbrook and Lord Alexander of Weedon.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, speaks for justice—with a capital as well as a small "j". As the noble Lord reminded us, it was Justice whose all-party committee, chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, made pioneering proposals for a fair and workable scheme in 1963.
Given the lateness of the hour, I shall concentrate on the constitutional impropriety of what is proposed. I shall not repeat what has already been said about the manifest unfairness and injustice of what the Government intend for the greatest victims of violent crime. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, called it a heartless and cruel approach.
Nor will I respond to the unworthy suggestion made on the radio last week by the Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. David Maclean, that the strong tide of public opposition to the Government's proposals reflects the interests of the legal profession rather than the interests of the victims of violent crime.
Even when the scheme was first introduced 30 years ago real doubts were expressed in this House by Lord Gardiner, Baroness Wootton, Lord Parker of
1112
Waddington and Lord Silkin and in the other place by Sir Frank Soskice and Mr. Niall MacDermot about the constitutional propriety of acting under prerogative powers rather than seeking statutory authority. Those doubts were also the focus of a debate in this House in December 1983 initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, with powerful support from, among others, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
In her reply to that debate the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, very properly accepted on the Government's behalf that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider in detail and to approve in formal legislation the general composition, functions and procedures of a board in which was placed such trust and responsibility.
Five years later, as your Lordships have repeatedly emphasised, Parliament enacted a comprehensive scheme based on common law principles of compensation which have full regard to the particular circumstances of individual victims. It did so in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The statutory provisions were described by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Hurd, as being designed to improve the circumstances of the victims of violent crime.
The enactment of those provisions in 1988 meant two things: first, that Parliament had at last removed the unique constitutional anomaly whereby many millions of pounds of public funds were being spent under prerogative powers without any parliamentary approval of the substance of the scheme itself; and, secondly, that what had for 24 years been a mere privilege or expectation of receiving compensation as some form of government bounty became a right to compensation—a matter of statutory entitlement, a right, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, indicated, which is inherent in belonging to a liberal society.
All that remained was for the Home Secretary to exercise his power, as Parliament clearly intended, to bring the relevant provisions of the 1988 Act into force by statutory instrument so as to translate them into enforceable statutory rights. That was surely the reasonable expectation created by the Government in asking Parliament to enact a statutory scheme. That was surely what Parliament expected would happen.
However, Parliament might just as well have written the statutory language in water; for what the present Home Secretary, like his predecessor Mr Kenneth Clarke, has decided to do is to flout the will of Parliament, to frustrate the purpose of the statute, and to act in breach of the legitimate expectations of victims of violent crime that they would continue to be compensated on the basis of the just principles of the common law.
Mr Howard has announced that he will never bring the statutory scheme into force but will ask Parliament to repeal the statutory provisions upon some future and as yet unspecified occasion. The Home Secretary has informed Parliament, via his White Paper rather than in person, that he will use his ministerial prerogative powers to introduce an entirely different scheme, no longer focused on the particular circumstances of the individual victim: a scheme which gives the victim no

1113
statutory right to compensation, and which can therefore be changed again at the pleasure of Ministers if the Treasury and the Home Secretary think fit.
If the Home Secretary has his way, Parliament will not he asked to approve these proposals, except, as the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, said in the formal and technical sense that parliamentary approval will be needed under the next Appropriation Act after the scheme has been brought into force on 1st April for expenditure meanwhile incurred under the new scheme. I am wholly unclear as to the basis upon which the Government intend to obtain proper parliamentary authority for expenditure incurred meanwhile under this wholly new scheme. I should be grateful if that were clarified in the noble and learned Lord's reply. Last year's Appropriation Act authorised expenditure under the existing scheme. But where, I wonder, is the legislative authority meanwhile for expenditure upon this new and entirely different scheme?
When Parliament has intervened and has provided by statute for powers previously within the prerogative to be exercised in a particular manner, and subject to the limitations and provisions contained in the statute, it is not self-evident that the Home Secretary can, merely at his pleasure, disregard the statute and fall back on the prerogative, without parliamentary authority, to introduce a wholly different scheme.
I therefore share the very great doubts expressed by so many of your Lordships, including four Law Lords and a member of the Scottish Court of Session, and the noble Lords, Lord Irvine and Lord Alexander, about the constitutional and legal propriety of what is here intended. By purporting to act under the prerogative the Home Secretary no doubt hopes to avoid or weaken the possibility of judicial review, contending that he is taking a decision which is not justiciable and that what he does is a political matter wholly for Parliament. Yet at the same time he refuses to obtain parliamentary approval for his abandonment of the 1988 scheme and for his abandonment of the common law principles in the existing ex graiia scheme.
The. Home Secretary thereby seeks to avoid both effective judicial review and effective parliamentary scrutiny. He seeks to do so even in the absence of war or of a state of public emergency which might justify such a major departure from the essential principles and conventions of the modern British constitution. As yet he has given no reason for acting under the prerogative, without seeking parliamentary authority, or without seeking to repeal the statutory scheme which he treats as stillborn.
There is a yet farther objection to what the Home Secretary proposes. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, have quoted from Article 4 of the European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes. I agree with them that Article 4 plainly requires the United Kingdom to provide compensation which covers,
"according to the case under consideration"—
that: is, according to the particular circumstances of the individual case—
1114
"at least … loss of earnings … and, as regards dependants, loss of maintenance".
Like the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton, I do not understand how the tariff scheme, which merely reflects an element of loss of earnings based on the board's past award levels, can properly satisfy this treaty obligation which is binding upon the United Kingdom in international law.
Like several of your Lordships, I have therefore written to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, giving notice of my doubts on the constitutional and legal issues, so that he can provide the House with the views of the Law Officers on those matters. The specific questions in the examination which I have raised are these, and they are two: first, how is the Government's proposal to introduce a new scheme under the prerogative, without obtaining prior parliamentary approval, (a) consistent with the intention of Parliament in enacting the relevant provisions of the 1988 Act; (b) in accordance with the constitutional requirement of clear statutory authority for public expenditure; and (c) in accordance with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty or supremacy?
My second question is: how is the Government's proposal to introduce a compensation scheme not based on the individual circumstances of particular victims in accordance with the international obligations imposed on the United Kingdom when ratifying the European Convention?
I look forward to hearing the noble and learned Lord's response to these questions and to the many other questions raised by your Lordships. I am the sixteenth speaker in this debate. Not one of us has felt able to support the Government's intended course of action:. not even one. If parliamentary government and ministerial accountability mean anything, the Government should surely take note of their unsplendid isolation in this wise, fair-minded and independent-minded House. I hope that even at this very late hour the Government may think again, for the sake of the victims of crimes of violence and for the sake of the constitutional rights and liberties of us all. If not, then I submit that there will be a pressing need for Parliament to exercise its sovereign powers to prevent the serious misuse of ministerial powers—quite unprecedented in peacetime. Otherwise, in the memorable words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, the Executive will have taken over Parliament.
11.42 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, for giving us this extended opportunity, as it has turned out to be, to debate the Government's plans for changing the system of compensating those who are injured as a result of violent crime. Perhaps I may join in paying my compliments to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, on his maiden speech. It was not only calm and learned; it was delivered with such forensic skill that his powerful contribution was heard without in any sense offending the conventions of the House in respect of such a speech.

1115
This is an area of considerable interest and concern, as has been evident from the many contributions made to the debate. That is as it should be, since we are talking about a matter which affects those who have the misfortune to become the innocent victims of crime. I hope, and I am sure, that all your Lordships share the Government's concern to safeguard the interests of such victims. That concern is manifested in many ways—by accepting all the Royal Commission's recommendations relating to victims; by introducing measures in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which is currently before another place; by providing generous financial support to the national charity, Victim Support; and by supporting the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme itself.
We are not the richest country in the world and we are certainly not the most violent. Nevertheless, our current scheme pays out in compensation more than all European Union countries put together. It is indeed the most generous scheme anywhere in the world, as my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon pointed out. It is a scheme of which we can be proud.
It is also a scheme which was designed for a different time and which now needs to change to reflect current circumstances. When the scheme was introduced the number of applications with which it had to deal was very much less—something like 2,500 in the first full year. It dealt with about 66,000 applications in 1992– 93 and the number is likely to approach 70,000 in the current year,1993– 94.
Even looking back over a shorter period there has been a dramatic change. In 1987– 88—a year obviously of some significance in this context—the scheme made awards in about 21,000 cases. Five years later, by 1992– 93, there had been a 75 per cent. increase in the number of awards, coupled with a threefold increase in the amount of compensation paid.
And, of course, victims' expectations have changed. They want their awards to be paid quickly so that they can try to put the incident behind them and, in common with other members of society, they want—and are entitled to expect—systems to be both open and understandable. For all those reasons we believe that the current system needs to change. We believe that others share that view, including those within Victim Support, although there are many differences of opinion about significant details of the changes.
The new scheme will be simpler and easier for the victim to understand. A victim applying for compensation under the new scheme will know with some certainty what level of award he or she might receive. This is not the case at present when each case has to be considered in detail to arrive at a figure which attempts to reflect the special circumstances of the individual.
The new scheme will also be quicker. Despite the best efforts of my noble friend Lord Carlisle and his colleagues—I pay tribute to them for the greater efficiency that they have achieved in recent years—there remain inevitable delays that are built into the current system. Many cases still take over a year to resolve and some drag on for years. The very issue which has caused so much controversy, namely, the question of whether
1116
loss of earnings should be specifically allowed for, is one which accounts for considerable delay under the current scheme since detailed information is required from different sources and complex calculations have to be carried out. That will no longer be necessary.
Nor will it be necessary for medical reports to be as detailed as in the past. And it should be possible to speed up police reports. No reductions will be made to take account of benefits, thus removing the need for no fewer than 27,000 inquiries made annually to the Department of Social Security. All of this means that applications should be decided more quickly. Some noble Lords, like my noble friend Lord Colnbrook, may question whether this speeding up will actually happen. All that I can say is that we believe that it will; and in order to help ensure that it does, we shall be setting the new authority some demanding targets, which will of course be made public.
There will also be a new system for reviewing decisions. Unlike the current system, under which the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is seen to act as both judge and jury, there will be a separate appeals panel, which is to be chaired by Mr. Michael Lewer QC, a respected member of the existing board who will bring much valuable experience with him. To the noble Lord, Lord Nolan, who asked whether others from that board might join him, I would say that that is very much in contemplation. There will therefore be a wholly independent system of appeal and one that will be seen to be so.
Although the basis of the scheme is being changed, the rules of eligibility will be broadly the same as at present, so that anyone who currently qualifies for an award will be likely to do so under the new scheme. Indeed, the rules of eligibility are being relaxed in one or two respects.
Finally but very importantly in this matter, we estimate that the majority of applicants will receive as much or more under the new scheme as they would have done under the existing one. Current estimates suggest that about 54 per cent. of applicants will be in that position. That will be achieved while at the same time making future costs more predictable and producing some cost savings in the longer term. Bearing in mind the spiralling costs in the past, some action is needed. Once the changeover to the new scheme has been completed, expenditure on compensation will continue to rise, but not at the same rate as might have been expected under the current scheme.
By the end of the decade we expect to be spending something in the region of a quarter of a billion pounds annually under the new scheme. Without the change, the annual total could be at least double that sum. Even then, ours will remain, as it is at present, the most generous scheme anywhere. It is only right that we should seek to provide a scheme which is fair to both victims and the taxpayers who fund it. I trust that those who wish to retain the status quo will have both the intellectual and political honesty to acknowledge that there are very significant costs involved, and if they wish to retain the status quo, their commitment to its funding will indeed be unequivocal.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, suggested, and in customary style argued

1117
vigorously, that such compensation might extend beyond personal injuries. Given the figures that I have already indicated, the cost would seem to me to be prohibitive.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to remind him that I expressly said that that could not be done now.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Indeed, that is what I was at the point of indicating. It would indeed be prohibitive.
It has been suggested that, by changing the scheme in the way now proposed, the Government are disregard-ing the wishes of Parliament, and indeed that the Government are acting improperly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, with an unusual figure of speech for him, described what we were doing as an abuse of power. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, if I recollect correctly, indicated that it was a misguided attempt to circumvent the will of Parliament.
It is true that we have not brought into force the provisions affecting criminal injuries in the Criminal Justice Act 1988—because initially the Criminal Injuries Board specifically asked us not to do so—but we do not believe that, in failing to implement those provisions and in introducing a new scheme, the Government are in any way acting improperly.
When Parliament made provision for the existing scheme to be placed on a statutory basis, it placed no obligation on the Secretary of State as to when such a scheme should be implemented. We must all recognise that as time passes, so circumstances change. The figures that I have already given of the increase in cost and number of applications are there for all to see. That has certainly been the case. The fact that an unimplemented scheme remains on the statute book cannot and must not inhibit the Government from taking what they now believe to be the right course of action. The current scheme is an executive one. It can be, and has been in the past, amended by executive action.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, indicated that he considered that the Government would get their fingers burnt in the courts. I was interested to hear what a distinguished lawyer had to say of the matter and was interested to know whether what he said was a general proposition or one chat applied in this matter alone. I regret to say that I did not see, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, four heads nodding in agreement with him. I wish that I had.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord allow me to ask a question? During the course of the debate several noble Lords raised the point that we had given notice of questions and asking that the Law Officers' opinion be placed before the House. The noble and learned Lord indicated that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, is a distinguished lawyer—as indeed he is—but it would be helpful to the whole House if one could have the opinion of the Law Officers as to the legal and constitutional propriety of what is proposed placed before us. Several noble Lords made the point that the circumventing of parliamentary
1118
authority seems to be unconstitutional and unlawful. It would be extremely helpful for the opinion of the Law Officers to be given to the House on that question.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as a former Law Officer I am well aware of the conventions that attach to their opinions. I am certainly not in a position either to confirm or deny having received such advice. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, appreciates, I certainly could not do that without their consent, and that I do not have.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, who has, as he said himself, been a senior Law Officer. Surely the opinion of law is frequently cited to Parliament. There is a famous example in relation to an amendment to the Maastricht Treaty, and there are many more recent examples.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord rose to his feet before I concluded what I was saying. I remember that incident well enough. I also remember an earlier occasion on which an opinion of a Law Officer was cited without his explicit approval, with rather drastic consequences.
What I say to the House is that we do not believe that we are acting improperly. We do not accept that anything has been done which breaches the law or that what we have done is inappropriate. Obviously, unless or until that is tested in the courts—if that is what some individual wishes to do—it cannot be a wholly definitive view.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to intervene, which I do with great reluctance on this matter. But it seems to me that this is a matter that concerns parliamentarians as well as lawyers. Does not the noble and learned Lord think it right that he should convey to the Law Officers the concern expressed in the House tonight? Can he secure from them release of their opinion?
It seems to me, if I may say so, with respect, that the Government may be plunging into uncharted waters on this matter. The House has the right, surely, to ask that the Minister convey that feeling to the Law Officer, and that Parliament be informed whether or not the Law Officer has given an opinion. If so, why cannot it be released? If there is a good reason why it cannot be released, then we shall understand. But it is an important constitutional issue in which those of us who are not lawyers are just as much concerned as those who are.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I shall certainly convey that view. But I must be clear, as I indicated earlier, that I neither confirm nor deny, as I think I am bound to, whether or not such an opinion has already been obtained. I was also interested to discover exactly what it is that your Lordships' House wishes to ascertain. As I am sure the noble Lord will know from his long experience, there are many statutes that have been passed in recent decades, whole parts of which have never suffered or received—
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it is not the non-passing of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 of which one is complaining. There may be many reasons for delay in not carrying out Parliament's intention. We are concerned with repudiating Parliament's intention by saying,"We refuse to carry out Parliament's intention. We propose to go off on a frolic of our own without any parliamentary support". I should be very grateful if my noble and learned friend would address his attention to that part of the complaint; the refusal to carry out what is laid down in the 1988 Act and the assertion of an entitlement to do something different, deferring the accepted obligation, as set out in paragraph 38, some time to get the provisions revoked in Parliament.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I can only say at this time that the Government do not consider that anything they have done, or propose to do from 1st April, would be improper. However, I am most grateful once again to the noble and learned Lord for so clearly articulating the point that he considers ought to be addressed. I can only say to him though, as I have already said, that, whatever view might be expressed within government or indeed with the high authority of Law Officers, ultimately any definitive view on such a matter would have to be expressed in the courts. If I may say so, as it is now after the hour of midnight, perhaps I may carry on to my conclusion.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am bound to intervene once again, and it will be the last time. A number of us have, on paper, asked the noble and learned Lord, with good advance notice, to indicate how he justifies the Government's assertion that they are acting lawfully. All he has done is constantly to repeat that the Government take the view that they are acting lawfully. Our question was: would you tell us on what basis you justify that assertion? To that we have had no reply, and that is within the Unstarred Question.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord may think that it is an unsatisfactory answer. But I have indicated that the particular provision of the 1988 Act has not been commenced. The Government accordingly believe that the current scheme, which remains a scheme that does not have a statutory basis, is an executive one and can be thus amended by executive action, as indeed has been done in the past. If there are noble Lords, or indeed if there are individuals outwith the House, who believe that that proposition is an incorrect one, I can only say in repetition that the way to secure a definitive answer to the point is to take the matter before the courts. I do not really believe I can elaborate upon it any further.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, if my noble and learned friend is leaving this matter, he again reiterated the fact that he said that the request that the 1988 Act should not be implemented had come specifically from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Will he make it clear to the House that that was based on the fact that it was felt that to implement it at that particular moment of time would cause consider-able delays when we were facing an increasing backlog and had just taken on a number of new staff? Will he
1120
accept from me that it was never the intention of either of the parties—certainly not of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and, as far as I know, certainly not of the Government at that stage—that the scheme would not be implemented at the appropriate moment? In answer to the views of the Select Committee which said that they were satisfied that the scheme should not be put on a statutory basis at present, the Home Office said:
"The Government welcomes the Committee's agreement that the Scheme should not be put on a statutory footing for the time being".
Was not that intended to imply that at the appropriate moment it would in fact be put on a statutory basis by the commencement order being implemented?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, in first referring to the view of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, if I did not say originally that it was not implemented as a result of that request I am more than content to accept that the narrative that my noble friend has given to your Lordships explaining why it was that request was made and why, I believe, he gave evidence to the Select Committee, is indeed a correct one. I hope that there is no dubiety about that.
A further aspect of this matter relating to legal or constitutional issues was in relation to the European Convention which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and others, raised. We do not accept the argument that by breaking the link with common law damages and not including a separate element for loss of earnings, we are in effect producing an unfair scheme or one which contravenes the European Convention on the compensa-tion of victims of violent crime. I assure both him and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, that we are sending full details of the new scheme to the Council of Europe, as we are required to do in discharge of our international obligations under that convention. We shall naturally take careful note of anything it has to say in reply.
In any event, we would argue that the tariff scheme, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, seemed to appreciate, incorporates an element for loss of earnings and other heads of damage currently payable, although these heads are no longer assessed separately. The tariff levels were set by reference to awards made in the recent past by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Those awards include loss of earnings so the tariff awards similarly include an element for loss of earnings although it may be an unquantified one.
As regards the criticism that many people will be worse off because of the change, that is not the case. We have left the lower limit for awards at £ 1,000. That was a figure which was set about two years ago. As I said, the rules of eligibility are broadly left untouched, so the same range of applicants remain eligible for awards.
We have set the upper limit at the very high level of £ 250,000 to cater for the most serious category of injury. Our estimate is this: about 70 per cent. of applicants will either gain or lose no more than £ 500. The simple fact is that most awards are for comparatively small amounts. In 1992– 93,74 per cent. of awards were under £ 3,000; 85 per cent. were under £ 5,000 and only 5 per cent. exceeded £ 10,000. Fortunately, the very serious incapacitating or life-changing injuries are rare indeed. In the past three

1121
years just 21 awards exceeded the upper limit of £ 250,000. Obviously, cases of this sort are very distressing and we all have immense sympathy for anyone unfortunate enough to have suffered such major injury.
But such people can look to other sources or to state help. They can and do receive generous and long-term help from the National Health Service and from the Department of Social Security, as indeed can anyone who has sustained a non-criminal injury or who is unfortunate enough to suffer some comparable misfortune.
It has also been suggested that a tariff scheme cannot take into account differing degrees of injury or cope adequately with certain types of injury such as shock, child abuse and sexual offences. When we looked at the results of the extensive sampling exercise which was undertaken—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, referred to it—involving about 20,000 people, the awards made by the board showed that these anxieties were, broadly, not borne out.
The sampling exercise showed clearly that the sorts of injuries mentioned could satisfactorily be categorised and slotted into a tariff scheme with an appropriate level of award. Different degrees of injury could be dealt with by gradations of award for appropriate injuries such as burns, scarring, broken limbs and shock. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carlisle for appreciating that the tariff began as a result of the accumulated wisdom of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board itself.
It was implied that in some respects the award levels in the new scheme were incapable of assessing the seriousness which attached to particular injuries. I can fully understand that. People will have strong and sometimes conflicting views, particularly in relation to child abuse, about which injuries should attract the largest awards. Teat is why we did not attempt to impose our own views; instead we used a tariff system, based on the average awards recently made by the board. A number of examples were given, some of which included a degree of shock. Those who are concerned about the matter may care to look at the tariff which has been prepared where they will see that such a head is included.
We have, of course, considered the alternative approaches suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and others, such as the possibility of having a hybrid system which would apply a system on the retained basis of common law damages to the more serious cases but possibly dealing with minor cases on a tariff approach. Having looked at that and considered whether it would work, we concluded that it would not deliver the simpler and quicker service that we wish to achieve. Nor would it be a system that could be understood by victims. The crossover point would be almost impossible to detennine.
In this complicated field, I am confident that the new scheme is the right way forward. However, I would not wish to claim any monopoly of wisdom. There may well prove to be improvements which can be made in due course. We certainly undertake to monitor the new scheme carefully and to listen to the views of those experienced in the field. Indeed, my right honourable
1122
friend the Home Secretary will be meeting the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, shortly and will consider carefully any points that he may wish to make. We shall also be ready to consider any longer term developments. I have already indicated to the House that I shall pass on the views that have been expressed with regard to the legal[and constitutional propriety of what we did—
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would be good enough to confirm that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which is now in the other place provides a legislative opportunity now for dealing with these matters. Will he explain why that opportunity is not being taken by the Government?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord seeks to open up the matter yet again. I have indicated that the provisions of the 1988 Act have not been commenced. They rest. I should have thought that what I said some minutes ago was quite clear. It will, of course, be open to the noble Lord, if he wishes, to take the opportunity to make an unequivocal commitment to the costing of the status quo when that Bill reaches your Lordships' House.
I trust that we can now draw this debate to a conclusion—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords—
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have given way at least 15 times and now, well after the hour of midnight, it seems to me that I have answered as much as I can, particularly when, as I said, I shall be passing on a number of matters to those involved in offering advice to the Government on these legal and constitutional matters.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, and despite his charm, perhaps I may briefly raise one matter before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, raises a point.
I am sorry to return to the charge, but I should like to raise a point about the advice of the law officers on which I am puzzled and would be grateful for my noble and learned friend's further help. He has told us that he can neither confirm nor deny that the advice of the Law Officers has been taken. That does not tell us very much. I wrote to him on 16th February asking if he would help us tonight and I ended by saying
"preferably with the benefit of the advice of the Law Officers".
I should like to ask two questions. First, in the light of that letter, did he ask for the advice of the Law Officers? Secondly, did he ask for the consent of the Law Officers to disclose that advice to the House?
I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for jumping in ahead of him.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, can do no more than return to what I have said and, at the risk of repeating myself, indicate where the Government stand. The noble Lord asked me to indicate whether or not the Law Officers' advice has been obtained. I have indicated that I neither confirm nor deny that. That must be where I rest on this.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord a question which I think has not been answered. Can he explain exactly why the new scheme is to be introduced by a White Paper and not by an Act of Parliament drafted with appropriate flexibility?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I invite the noble and learned Lord to read what I have said. I may not have said it very eloquently or elegantly but I have indeed repeatedly attempted to answer that question by saying that it is an executive scheme. It has been modified in the past by executive action, and that is what is proposed to be done in the present circumstances. The noble Lord may not care for it, but I hope that is an explanation for the basis on which it has been done.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord has had an arduous task, to say the least, but will he explain why the Government are afraid
1124
of taking a vote in Parliament? What is his fear? Is his fear that because everybody who has spoken in this debate has shown that they do not favour this scheme it will not get through Parliament? Is that the reason?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we are beginning to go round the same circle yet again. I was asked a question from the Opposition Front Bench as to whether the Bill that is presently in another place provides such an opportunity. The noble Lord has great ingenuity in putting matters before the House and securing a vote. I have no doubt that if that is what he feels is an appropriate way forward he will exercise that ingenuity for which he is well famed.

British Railways (No.4) Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past midnight.

  LIBERIA: UN OBSERVER MISSION REPORT
  LIBERIA: UN OBSERVER MISSION REPORT
  LIBERIA: SUPPORT PAYMENTS FOR UN MISSION
  LIBERIA: SUPPORT PAYMENTS FOR UN MISSION
  IGADD: POSSIBLE EU COLLABORATION
  IGADD: POSSIBLE EU COLLABORATION
  AZERBAIJAN/NAGORNO KARABAKH CONFLICT
  AZERBAIJAN/NAGORNO KARABAKH CONFLICT
  MACEDONIA: GREEK RESTRICTIONS
  MACEDONIA: GREEK RESTRICTIONS
  MOLDOVA
  MOLDOVA
  ARMENIA: IBRD LOAN
  ARMENIA: IBRD LOAN
  CARIBBEAN BANANA INDUSTRY: ASSISTANCE
  CARIBBEAN BANANA INDUSTRY: ASSISTANCE
  BANANA INDUSTRY LOSSES: STABEX COMPENSATION
  BANANA INDUSTRY LOSSES: STABEX COMPENSATION
  LONDON BOROUGHS TRANSPORT SCHEME: PERMIT SYSTEM
  LONDON BOROUGHS TRANSPORT SCHEME: PERMIT SYSTEM
  LONDON UNDERGROUND: VANDALISM
  LONDON UNDERGROUND: VANDALISM
  GUINNESS PLC: INQUIRY COSTS
  GUINNESS PLC: INQUIRY COSTS
  ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION, WALES
  ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION, WALES
  HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES TRUSTS, NORTHERN IRELAND
  HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES TRUSTS, NORTHERN IRELAND
  TEACHERS (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1994
  TEACHERS (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1994
  GLOUCESTERSHIRE: LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
  GLOUCESTERSHIRE: LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
  TELEVISION AERIALS AND SATELLITE DISHES
  TELEVISION AERIALS AND SATELLITE DISHES