Sitting of 4 May 1994

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

    CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS)
    ORDER CONFIRMATION
    Mr. Secretary Lang presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Church of Scotland (Properties and Investments); and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered on Tuesday 10 May and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Singapore
    Mr. Gallie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Singapore.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): Our relations with Singapore are excellent and are particularly close in the fields of trade, education and defence.
    The Singapore Prime Minister, Mr. Goh Chok Tong, paid a very successful visit to this country two weeks ago, during which he had wide-ranging discussions with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other colleagues. The two Prime Ministers agreed that every effort should be made to maintain and strengthen our ties. Singapore is our largest export market in south-east Asia. British exports last year grew by 24 per cent., and are now worth £1.4 billion. My right hon. Friend and Mr. Goh agreed to the establishment of a Singapore-British business council further to enhance co-operation between the private sectors of our countries, including in third countries such as China and Vietnam.
    Mr. Gallie: I thank my right hon. Friend and particularly welcome his comments on the trading links. Did my right hon. Friend discuss with Ministers in the Singapore Government the issue of law and order and the means by which they had controlled vandalism and crimes of violence—in particular, the use of corporal punishment? If so, has my right hon. Friend discussed those issues with our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary?
    Mr. Goodlad: I shall refer my hon. Friend's views to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

    Greece
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of Greece's commitment to the policies of NATO and the European Union.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The Greek Government are committed to the policies of NATO and the European Union. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Worthington: Well. That raised a laugh.
    Is not the Minister really as disturbed as I am that the President of the European Union and also a member of NATO should unilaterally impose a blockade on Macedonia; should undermine sanctions as much as it can; should have withdrawn airborne warning and communication systems crews from activities; and should be involved in or suspected of terrorist activity on the Albanian border? Is not the Minister really as concerned as I am that no obstacle will be put in the way of Serbia's pursuit of a greater Serbia by the Greek Government?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We regret that Greece has imposed a trade embargo against the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia. That issue is now to go to the European Court of Justice. I hope that Greece, particularly as it has the presidency during these six months, will reconsider its policies before the matter has to be resolved legally.
    Mr. Lidington: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite outrageous for Greece to be in receipt of large sums, effectively from British taxpayers, through EC cohesion funds, while the Greek Government are making an already dangerous situation in the Balkans still more unstable through this illegal and unwarranted embargo against Macedonia?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We recognise that the situation in Macedonia is potentially unstable and threatens to get worse if the trade embargo persists. For those reasons, we support the action of the European Commission in taking the matter to court.
    Mr. Trimble: Surely the action of the European Commission on this matter is inadequate. It is foolish to hang around waiting for the European Court of Justice, whenever it might come to consider the matter. Is not there a consistent pattern of action on the part of the Greek Government, who are clearly trying to destabilise their northern neighbour? Surely it is contrary to membership of the European Union for a member state to be trying to foment a war on its border, contrary to the policy of the Union—because that is the goal towards which Greek policy is clearly driving.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We have made our concerns known to the Greek Government in the clearest possible terms. We recognise the dangers inherent in the policy, but Cyrus Vance is pursuing mediation between the Macedonian and the Greek Governments, so it is possible that the matter under dispute may be resolved amicably before the court case becomes necessary.

    Bosnia
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had over future United Nations operations in Bosnia in the light of recent events.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I am in regular touch with colleagues in the Security Council and NATO, and with those from other troop-contributing countries, about the UN operation in Bosnia, now and in the future. We are also working with close allies and with the Russians to step up the search for a permanent and negotiated settlement.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the British Government reacted in an exemplary way to General Rose's request for more troops in Bosnia, the same could hardly be said for other countries? Given that strong moral position, are not the Government well placed to urge for a more positive way forward for the United Nations in future, possibly including a redefinition of the UN mandate?
    Mr. Hurd: There has been some progress since we took the initiative in New York by supporting the Secretary-General's appeal for more troops; he wanted 10,600 more troops to police the Sarajevo and central Bosnian ceasefires. Early responses amounted to undertakings to provide 8,500 troops, and 2,500 new troops are already in theatre including, as my hon. Friend said, 905 from the United Kingdom. Others have come from France, Spain, Russia and the Ukraine, so there is progress. We should certainly like it to be faster, and now that the United States has permitted the Security Council to lift the financial barrier, I hope that those who have promised troops will bring them forward quickly, and that those who have not promised troops will consider doing so.
    Mr. Wareing: Has the Secretary of State had time to consider General Rose's remarks about the way in which we were all misled about the amount of destruction in Gorazde, and about the casualty list? We are told that some of the so-called casualties used the lift to Sarajevo simply to gain their freedom. Is not it time that the right hon. Gentleman spoke to the media experts, who for the most part reside in Sarajevo and keep telling us everything that comes through the propaganda machine of Sarajevo's Muslim-controlled radio?
    Mr. Hurd: General Rose has objected to the way in which some off-the-record remarks were picked up by a certain newspaper. I would not advise the hon. Gentleman to give too much credence to the report in question.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that although we all deplore the actions of the Serbs, many of those who now urge us take tougher action would be the first to turn against the Government as soon as a British soldier was killed, the aid effort was impeded or a Serbian school was accidentally bombed? If the policies of many of those Johnny-come-lately, get-tough-from-afar proponents of action had been implemented in the past we should have been left without the troops to carry out our present policy. Does my right hon. Friend accept that most of my hon. Friends and I feel that, in immensely difficult circumstances, his has been the best possible policy?
    Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That was a rare tribute on this subject, and I am the more grateful for it because of that. We have certainly been prudent and have asked practical questions about any proposal for the deployment of troops. When we have been satisfied on the basis of professional advice that a measure is justified on the ground, we have been among the first to contribute. As my hon. Friend says, that is in contrast to the attitude of some people, especially some commentators, who have been anxious to urge everybody forward but who bear no responsibility for the consequences.
    Dr. Howells: Given the reports of a considerable build-up of Bosnian Serb forces in the Posavina corridor in north-east Bosnia, will the Secretary of State press for an immediate preventive deployment of UNPROFOR troops in that area, backed up by adequate air cover, to act as a deterrent to what in the context of Macedonia he has described as adventurism, by the Serbs or by anyone else in the Sava valley?
    Mr. Hurd: I am worried about the Posavina corridor, as are our allies. Brcko is occupied by the Serbs, but Muslim troops surround it and the corridor is very narrow. We are doing our best, both in New York and on the ground, to prevent a further flare-up in that corridor.

    Middle East Peace Talks
    Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the peace process in the middle east.
    Mr. Hurd: I am sorry for the delay, Madam Speaker, but we are a little short of Ministers today. [Laughter.]
    I warmly welcome the conclusion of the agreement on the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza strip and Jericho area and the related economic agreement. This is an historic step which has our full support. I hope that it will be followed by further progress along the other tracks of the peace process.
    Mr. Clappison: I join my right hon. Friend in welcoming the historic progress being made today by the Israelis and the Palestinians, but does he agree that the future peace and stability of the region would be greatly assisted by economic growth and that trade has a role to play in promoting that? Will he keep under review measures that would assist the flow of trade between this country and that region?
    Mr. Hurd: Indeed—and on the whole our exports have held up well. There has been a substantial increase of about 50 per cent. in our exports to Israel year on year. At the beginning of last week we held a conference in London which concentrated on trade and the financial sector. It was designed to bring together the Israelis, the Palestinians and others from that area and precisely to focus attention on the economic opportunities opening up as a result of the peace process.
    Mr. Kaufman: Should not this House offer its congratulations to and express its admiration for Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat on their courage and foresight in going through with an agreement that was not easy to frame and will not be easy to implement but which it is essential to implement? Is not that a vindication of all those who said, when it was not fashionable, that there

    707
    could be no peace in the middle east without negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation? Will the right hon. Gentleman do all that he can to speed the negotiations with Syria and Jordan, which can bring about a comprehensive peace with open frontiers and form diplomatic relations in the middle east?
    Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has it exactly right, both in his analysis of what is taking place today in Cairo and in his advice on the future, which we shall follow.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the most important issue today is our involvement in Bosnia, he should demonstrate that, now that we have abandoned the principle of getting involved only when the British national interest is affected, we are prepared to at least double the size of our forces so that we can intervene wherever there is a humanitarian cause?
    Mr. Hurd: I think that I am answering a question about the middle east; we have no intention of doubling our forces in the middle east.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: I am sure that the whole House concurs with what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier about the historic nature of the agreement signed today in Cairo. He is aware that three other elements are very important if the agreement is to be the first stage in bringing peace not only to Israel but to the whole of the middle east. There needs to be a comprehensive peace settlement with all the Arab countries, including Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. There also needs to be not only economic progress for the Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza but security for the Palestinians in the interim. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that, as a result of Security Council resolution 904, of which we are co-sponsors, either this week or next there will be a temporary international presence in Hebron as part of the confidence-building measures. Resolution 904 also calls for an extension of the international presence to the rest of the west bank. Has the right hon. Gentleman had any discussions with our European partners with a view to offering that protection throughout the west bank?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is right about the need for security; I welcome the arrangements for Hebron. The British Government are giving substantial help to the Palestinians for the police, with training courses for senior officers and 200 sets of riot control equipment to minimise the use of guns. We have persuaded the European Union to contribute up to 10 million ecu to the police. The policing of the west bank—Gaza and Jericho first, then the rest of the west bank—is crucial.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the great courage and determination shown by both sides are only the beginning of the peace process, and that the more difficult part of implementation still has to be addressed and will need the support of all Governments? Is it not, therefore, an appropriate time for the Government to take a larger step towards the obliteration of the iniquitous Arab trade boycott, which is in contempt of the principle of free trade which the Government hold so dear?
    Mr. Hurd: We have urged our Arab friends to lift the boycott. We believe that there was never any justification for it; even on the basis of the justification given by the
    708
    Arabs, the moment for it has passed. We welcome some steps, notably in the Gulf, to lift the boycott and we hope that they will be continued.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour party expresses emphatic support for the courageous and historic agreement between the Labour Government of Israel and Mr. Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organisation? Is not it clear that those political leaders have earned widespread respect, and that they deserve continuing support and encouragement in their endeavours to secure a comprehensive settlement?
    Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what practical financial support is being made available to buttress the agreement? What is Britain's contribution, for example, to the package being assembled by the World bank for investment and reconstruction in the west bank and Gaza? As we both agree that British trade with Israel, the west bank and Gaza will be of mutual importance and benefit, can the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position on export credit guarantees for such trade with the Palestinian communities?
    Mr. Hurd: I need notice of the right hon. Gentleman's last point; I will write to him. I agree with him about the need for progress on the other tracks and about the need for help for the Palestinians. The World bank has its own resources, of course, but the Government intend to provide £70 million in assistance to the Palestinians in the years 1994–96 both through multilateral, mainly European, and through bilateral channels. I have already given the House details of our specific help to the police. We are providing expert legal help for the drafting of Palestinian laws, Bank of England advice on banking matters and help in preparing for the Palestinian elections.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to encourage inward investment in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Goodlad: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, working very closely with the inward investment bureau of the Department of Trade and Industry, attaches a high priority to securing inward investment in the United Kingdom. We have dedicated inward investment teams at our posts in the United States, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Japan and South Korea. In all our other markets, there are knowledgeable staff in our posts who can develop and respond to inward investment opportunities. In 1992-93, there were at least 303 inward investment decisions by foreign companies, creating or safeguarding more than 56,000 jobs.
    Mr. Bruce: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how successful Britain has been compared with other nations in attracting inward investment? Will he have a conversation with his colleagues who are on the Front Bench this afternoon and so learn of their experiences when visiting south Dorset? Information about what a wonderful place south Dorset is for inward investment can then be passed on to diplomats throughout the world, to ensure that the success in the rest of the country is duplicated in my area.
    Mr. Goodlad: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is: very successful. One third of all inward investment in the European Union by the end of 1992 was in the United Kingdom. By March 1993, we had attracted 41 per cent. of all Japanese investment in the European Union and by the end of 1992, we had attracted almost 39 per cent. of all United States inward investment in the EU. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his dedication to the cause of inward investment in south Dorset and will ensure that that message is transmitted throughout the world.
    Mr. Enright: Would not it be a great disincentive to inward investment if, in the future, when monetary union came about in Europe, Britain rigidly refused to go in? Will the Minister condemn those buffoons who are going around at the moment proclaiming it as a great principle that we should not join a monetary union?
    Mr. Goodlad: I am entirely convinced that the conditions that have attracted so many foreign businesses to invest in the country will prevail in future as they have in the past under a Conservative Government.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole history of events since the last war has demonstrated that the one great disincentive to invest in Britain is the fear of a Labour Government?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but we shall disseminate throughout the world the message that there is no such danger.
    Ms Quin: As there seems to be a peculiar belief on the Conservative Benches that low wages and poor working conditions attract inward investment, will the Minister explain why Nissan, in its evidence to the Select Committee on Employment, said, first, that the social chapter would be no problem for it because it already exceeded its provisions and, secondly, that it thought that the low-wage, low-skill approach to the economy was the road to economic disaster?
    Mr. Goodlad: The evidence given by Nissan is obviously a matter for it, but it is an extremely enthusiastic investor in the United Kingdom and is very welcome. The reason why we are so successful is that we have low inflation, low taxes and good industrial relations. The Labour party would make this a high-cost area and would deter foreign investment. People recognise that, but they also recognise that there is no danger of its being allowed to happen.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Minister agree that one of the keys to inward investment is the ability of the regions and the nations of the United Kingdom to offer a good base in terms of transport, communications, infrastructure and the like? Is that advantage—or potential advantage—as great as it could be, given that there is misuse of the European Union structural social funding in the sense that it is not being made truly additional to the funds that the Treasury should be making available through the local authorities and other funding bodies? Will the Minister take steps to correct that deficiency so that we can realise the full potential which would otherwise be available to different parts of the country?
    Mr. Goodlad: Obviously, a company's final decision as to where to locate is a matter for its commercial
    710
    judgment. It is one of the objectives of the Invest in Britain Bureau to encourage firms to set up in assisted areas when that is appropriate to the company's needs. Its enormous success in doing so suggests that, for once, the hon. Gentleman is uncharacteristically quite wrong.
    Mr. Viggers: My right hon. Friend has already referred to the success of Japanese investment in this country, which accounts for more than 40 per cent. of all Japanese investment in Europe. Does he agree that to underpin, complement and promote still further that Japanese investment, it is entirely appropriate that there should be a much wider educational and cultural inter-relationship between the United Kingdom and Japan?
    Mr. Goodlad: Yes. My hon. Friend is on to quite an important point. He will be aware, because he makes a considerable personal contribution to this process, that the Government are seeking to fulfil the objectives that he sets out.

    Yugoslavia
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the former Yugoslavia.
    Mr. Hurd: The situation throughout Bosnia remains tense. The immediate priority is to secure a ceasefire as a prelude to a negotiated settlement. The new contact group, which was formed in London a week ago, brings together the negotiating efforts of the European Union, the United Nations, the United States and Russia and it is exploring on the ground prospects for a negotiated settlement with the parties.
    Mr. Macdonald: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that every declaration on Bosnia to which either he or the Prime Minister have put their names—from the London conference to the Edinburgh summit and even the Washington agreement—has affirmed, as a matter of principle, the recognition of Bosnia-Herzegovina within its internationally recognised borders and also the absolute right of refugees to return to the areas from which they have been cleansed?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the Government's attachment to those principles and explain how that squares with the reported comments of the Minister of State in Sarajevo yesterday that there would have to be some land given up by the Bosnian Government and some readjustment of borders? Does he accept that any attempt made by the Government to go back on those declarations would be a cynical betrayal of their previous words and would fatally undermine their ability to adjudicate in the crisis and in future border disagreements?
    Mr. Hurd: We are talking about boundaries inside Bosnia-Herzogovina—what the boundaries should be between areas occupied by Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Moslems. There has been some progress on that through the months, but the matter is not yet finalised. It will have to be negotiated—it cannot be imposed.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the attacks against French aircraft and the shooting down of a Royal Navy Sea Harrier are acts of aggression against NATO? Consequently, there is no excuse now for the Germans, for example, not to send troops, and the United

    711
    States should not be standing on the sidelines. Without the presence of those two nations on the ground, NATO's position is weakened. The bargaining position is weakened, and goodness knows what their absence does to NATO's conventional deterrent capability.
    Mr. Hurd: The Germans have a legal problem as a result of their constitution. They have a historical problem because of the history of the second world war. The President of the United States has made it clear that the United States would be willing, if Congress agreed, to put in troops on the ground in Bosnia once there was a general settlement which needed to be implemented. That is what we are working on.
    Mr. Soley: As the Government seem to accept that when the threat of force was made clear and credible in both Sarajevo and Gorazde it seemed to work, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he thinks that it would not have worked 18 months ago?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not believe that 18 months ago the circumstances existed in which it would have worked. We cannot be certain of these things, but that was certainly the advice that we received at the time and the advice on which we and many others acted. The threat and the use of air power can be useful for certain specific objectives—the self-defence of United Nations units and in certain instances the protection of safe areas. That has been shown, but I do not believe—and I do not think that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members believe—that air power can in Bosnia, any more than in Iraq or Vietnam, bring a war to an end.

    Argentina
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards normalising relations with Argentina.
    Mr. Hurd: We continue to make good progress in many fields. For example, in trade, British exports grew by 50 per cent. in 1993, and there are good investment opportunities. We continue to disagree about sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, but we have an agreement on fisheries conservation and we expect to meet the Argentines in July to discuss oil. We also co-operate internationally: for example, British and Argentine troops are working side by side in UN peacekeeping operations in the former Yugoslavia and in Cyprus.
    Mr. Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that historically Great Britain and Argentina have been firm friends and substantial trading partners? I am glad to hear that my right hon. Friend is doing all that he can to encourage that relationship, but what effect is the continuing claim by the Argentines to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands having on that relationship?
    Mr. Hurd: The relationship would certainly be much more straightforward and the prospects of co-operation between the islands and the mainland much clearer if the Argentines felt able to withdraw their claim.
    Mr. Dalyell: When the Foreign Secretary came to the Latin American group yesterday he referred to the fragile fish breeding stocks. Is it likely that some agreement will be reached with Argentina on that important subject?
    Mr. Hurd: There is a temporary agreement, but it has worked reasonably well. It limits the number of licences that both sides—the Argentines and the islands—offer to fishing fleets, mainly from the far east, catching the illex squid. I should like to convert that into a longer-standing agreement so that fisheries authorities in Argentina and the islands will be assured of proper conservation and a reasonable future for the revenue that comes from fish.

    Holidaymakers
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he has for Britons holidaying abroad this summer.
    Mr. Goodlad: The most important messages are: obtain travel insurance, do not get involved with drugs, and respect and observe local customs. Anyone who needs advice about particular destinations should contact the Foreign Office travel advice unit on 071-270 4129.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to publicise that useful helpline service more widely so that travellers know in advance of the help available to them if they run into any of those problems?
    Mr. Goodlad: Travel advice notices are disseminated swiftly through the travel industry—and thus to a large part of the public—by electronic information systems. Notices may be read on the BBC's Ceefax service. Our aim is to give prompt and accurate advice on the safety of British nationals abroad and we respond promptly to inquiries from the public on the number that I have given.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister advise holidaymakers, wherever they are and whoever they are, to tell their hosts that we in Workington have an empty 500,000 sq ft factory and want a tenant or owner from overseas to put in some substantial industrial plant? We need the business and we are open to offers.
    Mr. Goodlad: I am sure that travellers everywhere will hear the hon. Gentleman's message; perhaps he would like to publicise his own telephone number.

    South Africa
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange to meet South African political leaders to discuss the outcome of the elections.
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to assist the new Government of South Africa to consolidate democracy in that country.
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to make an official visit to South Africa to discuss the outcome of the recent elections there.
    Mr. Hurd: I am sure that the House will join me in warmly congratulating the South African people on their remarkable achievement. They have set the world an example of peaceful democratic change. We congratulate Mr. Mandela on his victory and look forward with confidence to working with him and his colleagues in Government.

    713
    Britain expects to provide more than £100 million of help to South Africa over the next three years. That includes £60 million of bilateral aid, plus investments by the Commonwealth Development Corporation and our share of European Community assistance. That is a sizeable amount—almost double the £35 million that we have given in the past three years. The emphasis will be on quality, concentrating our help in crucial areas and focusing on technical assistance. We have also been training about 1,000 South Africans a year. We shall discuss priorities for our aid programme with the new Government, including help to reduce poverty and to improve education and health care, and we stand ready to help with restructuring and training the police and the public service. On the military side, we have already been asked to help with integrating a new national defence force. The Ministry of Defence has had detailed discussions in South Africa and has come back with some worked-up proposals.
    Britain is also playing a leading role in working out a package of European Union measures to define the future trading relationship between the Union and South Africa, technical assistance and political dialogue.
    Mr. Canavan: I join the Secretary of State in congratulating the African National Congress and, particularly, Nelson Mandela, whom I wish well in his efforts to form a Government of national unity to unite all the people of South Africa, whatever their colour or ethnic origin. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that his statement is an offer of maximum assistance to enable the new South African Government, the new democracy and its economy to flourish and for South Africa to be fully welcomed into the international community, including membership of the Commonwealth if that is its wish?
    Mr. Hurd: I have given the details. It is a strong and very practical British interest that the new South Africa should succeed. I am sure that if South Africa decides to re-enter the Commonwealth it will be welcomed back with warm enthusiasm.
    Mr. Bennett: I echo the congratulations that have been expressed, but does the Foreign Secretary accept that too often celebrations turn to tears? Will he ensure that some of the money in the aid package to which he referred is spent on ensuring that the poorest people in South Africa see a rapid improvement in the appalling conditions in which they have to live so as to make it clear to them that exercising the vote has produced worthwhile improvements to their lives?
    Mr. Hurd: We have to focus our aid, which is limited in its total, on those areas in which we think that British help can be most effective. The problem that the hon. Gentleman raises cannot be solved from outside. It will depend on policies pursued inside South Africa and it is crucially important, as the hon. Gentleman would agree, that the new Government of national unity should follow policies that encourage growth and outside investment.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Once the understandable electoral exuberance has faded and economic expectations come more sharply into focus, will it not be increasingly relevant to remember that half South Africa's foreign investment is itish and that Britain is one of South Africa's major trading partners? Does my right hon. Friend
    714
    have any specific plans to strengthen Britain's commercial and industriai role in bringing greater prosperity to the newly enfranchised South African people?
    Mr. Hurd: It is very important that British business, with the interests in South Africa that my hon. Friend mentions, should follow carefully the opportunities and prospects that are now opening up. They are different and there will certainly be difficulties. The road ahead is bound to include a good many rocks. However, if British business follows the developments with the care that those developments deserve, I hope and believe that the future for British interests and British investment in South Africa will be bright.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Having had the privilege of witnessing at first hand the election that took place last week, may I ask the Foreign Secretary to agree that it was a most massive and convincing approval of democracy? Given the immense tasks of reconstruction to end the legacies of apartheid, will the Foreign Secretary guarantee that he will not simply regard South Africa as yesterday's problem but will realise that it is an issue in which he must keep an overriding interest in the future?
    Mr. Hurd: I hope that what I have said today already shows that. Of course the election difficulties were very great and they have not all been overcome, as the news today shows. Nevertheless, it has been a remarkable feat. I am grateful—and the House should be grateful—to hon. Members on both sides of the House who took part and helped to ensure that.
    Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those who have been in touch with political leaders in South Africa in recent weeks are aware of their keen interest in having support for the maintenance of their new democracy in practical terms in respect of assistance to political parties and for the new Parliament itself? While the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association will wish to play a full part in that, will my right hon. Friend assure us that the Government will consider practical ways to carry forward that programme?
    Mr. Hurd: Indeed, and we shall look to the Westminster Foundation, which is already active in South Africa, to take up—and, where it thinks it justified, to finance—projects to help advance democracy based on parties.
    Dr. John Cunningham: The Opposition join the Foreign Secretary in expressing our great joy at the ending of the dreadful tyranny of apartheid, and we send our warmest congratulations to our friends in the African National Congress, Mr. Nelson Mandela, Mr. Thabo Mbeki, Mr. Mendi Msimang and many others. Should we not also record our respect for the role played by Mr. de Klerk in the historic victory for democracy in South Africa? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, however, that this is simply the starting point in the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the social and economic fabric of a great country? Not only do we owe a great historic debt to that country, but we have significant economic links with it.
    For all those reasons, will the right hon. Gentleman work in the European Union, the United Nations and the

    715
    Commonwealth, and with the Treasury within the British Government, to seek significantly to increase the package of support to which he has referred today?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is the end of one chapter—the chapter of apartheid —and the starting point of a new one. It begins with great hope, but it will certainly include many difficulties, as everyone agrees. Those difficulties must be solved by South Africans within South Africa, but the world outside can help—through investment, through the sort of technical assistance that I have summarised today, and through trade. That is why we and the Germans have paid particular attention in recent months to the new trading arrangements that South Africa will need with the European Union.

    Italy
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement of his policy on relations with the new Government in Italy.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The new Italian Government are not yet in place. When they are, we shall look forward to working closely with our new Italian colleagues.
    Mrs. Knight: Does my hon. Friend consider that the new Italian Government are likely to share the attitude of our Government in their approach to the European Union, especially our opposition to the creation of a socialist super-state?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We do not yet know the attitudes and policies of the new Government, but I expect them to bring some fresh thinking to the issues facing the European Union. We hope to work closely with them to promote British interests, particularly in budgetary discipline, subsidiarity and the promotion of free markets and free trade. We also hope to agree on keeping the European Union outward looking and diverse, respecting the nation state and preventing the creation of a socialist super-state. There is a great deal of evidence that the new Italian Government and the constituent parties in the future coalition share many of our attitudes. We look forward to maintaining a close working relationship with the future Italian Government, as we did with the last.
    Mr. Winnick: Given that it is 50 years since the liberation of Italy from fascism, is it not a matter for concern that some of the people involved in the new Government have highly praised the notorious war criminal and mass murderer, Mussolini, and that the Speaker of the Italian Parliament has made similar remarks? Is it too much to ask the Conservative Government here to make it absolutely clear that we consider Mussolini a notorious mass murderer and that we hold in contempt all in Italy who consider him some sort of hero?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Signor Mussolini is not participating in the new Italian Government. If any supporters of his were to do so, we should naturally take that into account in our relations with them. It is for the Italians to decide who governs them. If the new Ministers are properly elected and appointed by the Italian people, we shall look forward to working with them.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Have not the Italian people given a clear message in their recent elections as to what they think about Euro-elitists and Euro-centralisers?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Italians have been through something of a democratic revolution in recent months. We respect their choice in electing the parties that they have elected. Judging by the programme on which those parties have been elected, we believe that there are fruitful areas for co-operation between the British Government and the future Italian Government.
    Madam Speaker: I called Sir Thomas Arnold, but Mr. Jacques Arnold thought that I had called him. I now call Sir Thomas Arnold.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

    Israel
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Israel.
    Mr. Hurd: We enjoy excellent bilateral relations with Israel.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend consider lifting the arms embargo, and can he confirm that the British Government are now willing to accept tenders from the Israeli armaments industry?
    Mr. Hurd: We are certainly willing to do the second and, as my hon. Friend probably knows, there have been discussions on particular projects. As regards the first point, the arms embargo was imposed because of Israeli action in Lebanon and we would be prepared to review the arms embargo in the light of progress on the Lebanese track of the peace process.
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, following my extraordinary and refreshing visits to Saudi Arabia and Oman last week, I was privileged yesterday to attend the multilateral discussions in Qatar about middle east disarmament? Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating Qatar on its courage in holding the discussions there, Israel and the other participants on taking part and the Saudis on at last taking a thoroughly active and, one hopes, soon constructive part in the proceedings? Will the Foreign Secretary ask the Syrians now to join as without them there is little hope of the proceedings achieving the results that we all want?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. and learned Gentleman is a notable pilgrim to places of interest at times of interest and, whether by coincidence or as a consequence, things do on the whole seem to be moving in the right direction. I do not know whether he has yet booked his passage to Damascus.

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the Falkland Islands.
    Mr. Hurd: My visit to the Falkland Islands was the first by a Foreign Secretary. It is a heart-warming place. The islanders are proud of their way of life and much attached to it and to Britain. They have made great strides since 1982. Their population has increased, the fisheries revenue

    717
    has brought new prosperity and they are confident about the future. I was able to reassure the islanders that, while we seek improved relations with Argentina, their sovereignty is not for discussion and we shall continue to support their right to self-determination.
    Mr. Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has discussed developments in the Falkland Islands continental shelf with legislative councillors, particularly the plans for a licence round for oil exploration and exploitation starting this year and coming to a conclusion in 1995? Will he confirm that those plans will go ahead as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Hurd: That was something which I discussed in general terms with the councillors in Port Stanley and, as I said in answer to an earlier question, we expect to have discussions with the Argentines about oil before long. The islanders, I found, were interested in exploiting and benefiting from the oil if—it is still a big if—it is found to exist in marketable conditions. We have not excluded co-operation with Argentine interests in this, but it is clear from our general policy that any arrangements of that kind must not prejudice our sovereignty over the islands.
    Mr. Foulkes: As the present and previous Argentine Governments have made it absolutely clear that they pose no military threat whatever to the Falkland Islands, and as the Foreign Secretary said earlier that Argentine and British soldiers are fighting side by side in UN peacekeeping forces, why is it necessary to continue an arms embargo on Argentina?
    Mr. Hurd: I welcome very much what the Argentine Government said about the use of force, but one cannot peer with any great certainty into the future for ever. As I said in answer to an earlier question, it would be a great simplification of all the matters if Argentina were to drop its claim to the islands.

    Middle East Peace Talks
    Mr. Bendall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for a forthcoming visit to the middle east to discuss the peace process.
    Mr. Hurd: I have no such plans at present.
    Mr. Bendall: In view of the remarks that my right hon. Friend made about a review of the Israeli arms embargo, may I ask him what time scale would possibly be in mind? Clearly, to take off the embargo, which the other European countries would also do, would help British exports and British jobs.
    Mr. Hurd: As I said earlier, the timing will depend on progress down the Lebanese track of the process because that was the reason for the measure in the first place.
    Mr. Gunnell: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the agreement that we have welcomed today is really the beginning of a peace process in the sense that it represents the first fruits of the discussions? Will he make it clear that we expect that those discussions will go forward and bring other rewards and, indeed, that the behaviour of people in the territories that have self-rule will to some extent depend
    718
    on whether there is movement forward? Will the Foreign Secretary spell out the things he hopes that the peace talks will achieve next?
    Mr. Hurd: There are three remaining tracks. There is the Syrian track, on which the American Secretary of State is seeking to make progress now, and I warmly support what he is doing between Tel Aviv and Damascus. There is the Jordanian track, in which there is a problem of frontiers and other practical matters, and we are in close touch with the King and the Israelis about that. Then there is the Lebanese track. Progress is needed on all of them.
    Mr. Batiste: What impression has my right hon. Friend formed of the intentions of the Syrian Government with regard to reaching a peace treaty with Israel, and in relation to Lebanon?
    Mr. Hurd: The Syrians say that they want total Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. The Israelis say that they want total peace with Syria. The discussions turn on how one defines and, indeed, how one times total withdrawal and total peace. That is what the American Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, is trying to elucidate.

    Cyprus
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the situation in Cyprus.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The United Nations Secretary-General's special representative on Cyprus, Mr. Joe Clark, held talks in Cyprus last week. He was attempting to secure agreement on the implementation of a package of confidence-building measures which we actively support. President Clerides agreed to the UN implementation plan some time ago, but Mr. Denktash continues to have objections to it. The Secretary-General will shortly submit a report on the talks to the Security Council.
    Mrs. Roche: Does the Minister agree that it is about time that the British Government took a very tough stance indeed with the illegal regime of Mr. Denktash, who is clearly blocking any possibility of settlement in relation to Cyprus? Would it not help if the British Government would more actively back Cyprus's application for membership of the European Union?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We have been playing an active role in trying to get the confidence-building measures accepted by both sides. That cannot be done by force. It has to be done by persuasion and diplomatic effort. We regret that Mr. Denktash has, at least for the present, refused to take forward the measures. The Security Council will be considering what future measures to take in due course.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Will my hon. Friend at the same time remind Opposition Members that, had it not been for the duplicity, stupidity and—
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Incompetence.
    Sir Jim Spicer: —incompetence, thank you—of the Labour Government in 1974, we would not be in the situation that we are now in?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I understand the emotions that lie beneath my hon. Friend's question, but we must try to live less in the past and look more to the future. That is why we are doing all that we can to bring about a reconciliation between the two parts of that divided island.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that originally both the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots accepted in principle the confidence-building measures proposed by the United Nations, and that the collapse of the talks last week was a result of a new map being submitted by the United Nations at the request of the Greek Cypriots which contradicted the original one presented on the table?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There have been some changes in the original confidence-building measures plan, but they would still have benefited both communities. I think it is clear to impartial observers that it is Mr. Denktash who has not shown the political will on this occasion.

    Eastern Europe
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether eastern European countries can be expected to join the EC.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Copenhagen European Council in June 1993 agreed that the associate countries of central and eastern Europe that so wished could join the European Union as soon as they were able to assume the obligations of membership by satisfying the economic and political conditions required. We are fully committed to that objective.
    Mr. Duncan: Does my hon. Friend agree that, having pressed those countries to shake off the shackles of communism, it would be negligent if we were then to deny them the benefits of free trade? Does he agree with me that free trade and democracy are not only the guarantees of peace but the best means by which those countries can qualify for membership of the Community in the future?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, I think that we have a duty to try to help stabilise the democracies in those newly liberated countries. One of the best ways of doing that is to trade with them—in other words, not just to encourage them to promote market economies but to provide a market for the goods that they produce. This country is at the forefront of those member states that are calling for exactly such access.

Trade Descriptions (Amendment)
3.31 pm
Mr. John Hutton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to harmonise liabilities for misdescription of services and of goods; to impose strict liability for misdescription of services; and for connected purposes.
The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 forms one of the cornerstones of the United Kingdom consumer protection legislation and, by and large, the Act has been successful in promoting higher standards of truthfulness in describing goods and services. However, it has long been recognised that an anomaly—some would say a loophole—lies at the centre of the 1968 Act. Whereas section 1 of the Act creates an offence of strict liability in the case of misdescription of goods, a lesser form of liability attaches to the misdescription of services by virtue of section 14 of the Act. The simple purpose of my Bill is to bring section 14 into line with section 1.
In any case relating to false description of services, the prosecution needs to prove that the person making the false statement knew that it was false or made the statement recklessly—in other words, there is a requirement of mens rea which is absent in the case of false description of goods. This extra requirement contained in section 14 has made it extremely difficult for trading standards officers to bring successful prosecutions in these cases.
The figures from the Office of Fair Trading confirm the scale of the problem. In 1992, there were 1,441 prosecutions for false descriptions of goods, but in that same year there were only 171 prosecutions relating to false statements about services. The discrepancy in the figures cannot be justified or rationalised by the argument that there were fewer false descriptions relating to services. I think that the experience of most hon. Members in the House is directly contrary to that.
In recent memory, there was the fiasco over the Hoover air flight tickets promotion, and all our constituents experience continuing problems with false statements made in holiday brochures. Many people also experience difficulties in getting their motor vehicles repaired in garages. Those examples confirm that there is a genuine problem that the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 is presently failing to address.
I do not believe that the distinction in the Act between liability for false descriptions of goods and false descriptions of services can be justified any longer. In many individual cases, the distinction between goods and services is not always clear—as in the provision of meals in restaurants, for example. In numerous circumstances, the provision of goods and services always goes together, as in the case of car repairs where replacement parts are supplied as part of a garage's service. In such cases, the distinction between the treatment of goods and of services has little common sense from the consumer perspective.
722
In addition, all the major consumer organisations, including the Consumers Association, the National Consumer Council and the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, support the case for reform of the Trade Descriptions Act. Indeed, that support for reforming the 1968 Act goes beyond the scope of the consumer protection organisations. The Department of Trade and Industry, back in 1990, in a consultation document on reforms to the Trade Descriptions Act, commented:
"there would seem to be a"
logical
"case for this"
reform, meaning the harmonisation of liability. Four years after that consultation paper was published, we still await the DTI's conclusions on what reforms are appropriate to the Trade Descriptions Act. The Act was reviewed in the Methven report in 1976, which recommended that strict liability should apply to offences relating to the supply of services.
There is a further case for the reform that I propose. The developing case law under section 14 has highlighted a specific problem with that section of the Act. I think specifically of the decision of the House of Lords in 1984 in the case of WINGS Ltd. v. Ellis. That case has confused the issue of when liability can arise under section 14, creating the possibility that already strict liability might pertain. The purpose of my Bill is to clarify liability under section 14 once and for all.
My Bill will not, however, impose impossible burdens on traders. It will simply require them to be honest.
It should also be remembered that a general defence under section 24 of the Trade Descriptions Act is always available to a defendant, and the section 24 defence allows a trader to argue in the court that he made a genuine mistake of fact and took reasonable steps to avoid the commission of any offence under the Act. In other words, there is a guarantee—a safeguard—in the Act to protect the genuinely innocent trader.
My Bill would enhance consumer rights and ensure fairer competition between businesses. There should be no place in the market for cowboys and conmen. My Bill proposes a modest but important change to the 1968 Act. That change is long overdue.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Hutton, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Robert Ainsworth, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. Geoffrey Hoon, Mr. Alan Milburn, Ms Janet Anderson and Mr. Peter Mandelson.

Trade Descriptions (Amendment)
  TRADE DESCRIPTIONS (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. John Hutton accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 to harmonise liabilities for misdescription of services and of goods; to impose strict liability for misdescription of services; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 May, and to be printed. [Bill 104.]

The Army
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
3.38 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): At a time when pictures of Army personnel are seldom out of the papers or off the television screens, I very much welcome the opportunity to debate their role. I do not need to remind the House that the Army continues to be heavily engaged in operations throughout the world. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to join me in paying tribute to the quiet professionalism of Army personnel in the many difficult environments in which they find themselves.
I have no doubt that there will be references during the debate to the defence costs study, especially following recent media speculation. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement intends to report in his closing speech on the progress of the defence costs study, but it may help if I remind the House now that it is not aimed at reducing our military capability or our commitments. Its real aim is encapsulated in the alternative title of "Front Line First".
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State explained when he announced the study at the beginning of December, we were confident that a radical review of our support and management arrangements could produce the required savings without reducing our military capabilities or effectiveness. The defence costs study was intended to confirm that and to develop specific proposals, and I believe that it is now in sight of both objectives. That is a tremendous achievement by all concerned. But I remind the House that any further comment about individual items would be pure speculation, as no ministerial decisions have yet been taken. A full report will be made to the House by the Secretary of State in July.
The operations of the British Army in Bosnia and in Northern Ireland are often conducted in the glare of media interest. Many other operational deployments, often involving hardship and danger, take place unnoticed and unsung. I should like to give three examples.
In July last year, major flooding in Nepal killed more than 1,000 people and destroyed many roads and bridges. Katmandu was almost completely cut off from the outside world— the source of all its food and fuel. In response to a request from the Nepalese Government, we deployed a squadron of Queen's Gurkha engineers, who erected three major bridges and successfully reopened communication links.
Also last year, British elements of the United Nations force in Cambodia were caught up in a number of serious incidents orchestrated by the Khmer Rouge in the run-up to the successful elections. Actions by British Army personnel were recognised in the recent gallantry awards.
Since September 1991, we have had a small military team in northern Iraq as part of a coalition presence in the security zone created to enable Kurdish refugees to return to their homes in the mountains. The two officers who died in the tragic accident on 14 April were our contribution to that coalition effort. They were performing a most valuable task, and I wish to record that the Government do not underestimate how much we rely on the skills, resilience and versatility of our service personnel in these and similar
724
tasks. I wish also to convey my condolences publicly to the families of the two officers so tragically and publicly struck down in the course of their duties far afield.
The Army has also been engaged in the important task of providing aid to the civil community here at home. As hon. Members will remember, the Army came to the rescue of people affected by the floods in the south of England last winter. Thousands of sandbags were filled by troops from various units to reinforce flood defences. In addition, in October the Household Cavalry Regiment gave shelter to families in the Windsor area. In January, following the extensive flooding around Chichester, 36 Engineer Regiment was asked by West Sussex county council to restore road communications, which it did by building Bailey bridges at West Hampnett and Merston and leaving them in place for several weeks. Members of the Territorial Army, from 127 Field Squadron Royal Engineers (Volunteers) at Brighton, gave valuable assistance to their Regular colleagues in this operation.
Mr. Winston Churchill: I should like to join in the tribute that my hon. Friend has paid to our armed forces worldwide for the excellent job that they are doing and, specifically, to the families of the men who recently lost their lives in northern Iraq and in Bosnia.
With regard to the deaths of the young officers in the unfortunate incident over northern Iraq, may I ask my hon. Friend whether the Government will look once again at the levels of compensation payable in such cases of bereavement? It would be a scandal of enormous proportions if the families of officers in the prime of their earning capacity who have been struck down in the line of duty were to get a penny less than an Army major who chooses to become pregnant.
Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend speaks for many people. This is a most difficult issue. Other hon. Members may raise the subject, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the sad incident in Iraq is being investigated very carefully. A British officer and a British Treasury solicitor are involved in the investigation, and all aspects will be very carefully considered by the Ministry of Defence.
Having dealt with some smaller issues— smaller but, none the less, important to hon. Members on both sides — with regard to the Army's role during the last few months, I should like to refer to some more weighty matters, such as the events in the former Yugoslavia.
When we last debated Army matters, the first British battalion group to deploy to Bosnia, the Cheshire Regiment, was just four months into its tour. It was relieved last May by the Prince of Wales Own Regiment and a squadron of Light Dragoons from Germany. A third roulement took place last November when the 1st Battalion of the Coldstream Guards and another squadron of Light Dragoons took up the mantle. In March this year, we deployed a second battalion group, the 1st Battalion of the Duke of Wellington's Regiment, and a further Light Dragoon squadron in response to General Rose's request for additional troops to monitor the Sarajevo and Muslim-Croat ceasefires.
The whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to those who have served and those who are serving in that theatre of operations. Although today we are focusing on the Army's contribution, let us not forget the important role of the other services in, for example, the humanitarian airlift to Sarajevo, the provision of close air support and the

725
naval operations in the Adriatic. Invaluable assistance has also been provided by reservists from all three services, mainly with linguistic and public information skills, who have been called out for service. On 1 April, the Territorial Army element comprised 27 personnel serving in the UK as part of the defence debriefing team, and one officer based in Split, Croatia.
The UK contribution to current UN operations in former Yugoslavia is second to none in terms of its professionalism, efficiency and effectiveness. Our two battalion groups on the ground, with their supporting units, comprise some 3,300 personnel. Only the French contingent is larger. The composition of the two battalion groups and their support reflects the many different capabilities and skills which their formidable task and its logistic back-up demand.
The Royal Engineers have played an essential role in opening and maintaining vital supply routes, both for humanitarian aid and support of UNPROFOR as a whole, in mountainous and muddy terrain in severe weather. Other specialist troops, for example in transport and communications, are involved, and those troops at the logistics base in Split are vital to the success of the whole operation.
Inevitably, however, the two battalion groups in central Bosnia have tended to capture media interest. Since the first deployment in the autumn of 1992, BRITBAT 1, as it is now called, equipped with Warrior and Scimitar armoured fighting vehicles, has been escorting humanitarian convoys taking supplies from United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees warehouses to destinations throughout central and north-east Bosnia. In that primary role, the British contingent has assisted with the delivery of over 120,000 tonnes of aid. That is a remarkable achievement in difficult and often dangerous conditions in the face of obstructions and, at times, outright hostility from all three parties.
Our troops have shown tremendous courage under fire, determination, tact in negotiating access for humanitarian aid, and the sheer will to get the job done and done efficiently, which is the hallmark of the British Army. The contribution of the UK contingent is warmly appreciated by the UN and fellow troop contributors alike. Hundreds of thousands owe their lives to the supplies provided by the UN's humanitarian operation, and British service personnel can feel justifiably proud of the part that they are playing in it.
Success, however, has a price. Following the sad death of Lance Corporal Edwards in January 1993, this year has seen four further British fatalities in Bosnia. On 19 March, Corporal Barney Warburton of the Royal Engineers was killed while preparing to destroy a mine handed in at a UN checkpoint. On 15 April, Corporal Fergus Rennie, who was serving as a joint commission officer, was killed as a result of Bosnian-Serb fire at Gorazde. The following day, Marine Timothy Coates, who was serving on attachment to the UNHCR in Sarajevo, was shot dead by personnel manning a Bosnian Government checkpoint in the city. On Friday 29 April, Captain Stephen Wormald of the 2nd Royal Anglian was killed and two other British Army personnel were injured when the Land-Rover in which they were travelling struck an anti-tank mine.
I am sure that the House will join me in expressing deep condolences to the families of those five brave men
726
tragically killed while attempting to relieve the suffering of the ordinary people caught up in that dreadful, senseless conflict.
The recent Sarajevo and Muslim-Croat ceasefires in Bosnia have added to the roles and responsibilities of British troops. In addition to their primary role of escorting humanitarian aid convoys, they have been extensively involved in monitoring the ceasefires, patrolling buffer zones and confrontation lines, manning observation and check points, weapons collection points and liaising between the warring factions. I pay particular tribute to Lieutenant General Sir Michael Rose who has made such an impressive and successful contribution to the developments and in many other areas since his appointment as UN Commander, Bosnia-Herzegovina Command. He is a real model of a modern general.
The House will not expect me to predict how long the tragic situation in the former Yugoslavia will continue. Earlier this year, the ceasefires that I have mentioned resulted in the return to a semblance of normality of life in Sarajevo and generated a mood of optimism that a Bosnia-wide ceasefire would be achieved. All three parties seemed sufficiently war-weary to negotiate seriously towards an overall settlement. The events at Gorazde in recent weeks have been a setback to those hopes.
However, the NATO ultimatum to the Bosnian Serbs has led to an end to their attack on the safe area and a withdrawal of their heavy weapons from the exclusion zone. Let us hope that that will set us back on the right road which, with the establishment of new arrangements to draw together the efforts of the European Union, the United States and the Russians on the peace negotiation front, will lead to a lasting peace settlement in the region.
Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way at that important juncture. Bearing in mind that a considerable movement of Serb men and equipment is advancing on Brcko, what plans, if any, do Her Majesty's Government have for our own troops in that area under the control of the United Nations?
Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right to say that there are movements of troops throughout the theatre in Bosnia. We keep a daily watch over their safety, because the safety of our troops is paramount. They are being deployed by UNPROFOR, which keeps in touch with us if there is a requirement for any major diversion of our troops. Therefore, the answer is that we are keeping an eye on the situation daily.
Dr. David Clark: We in the Labour party completely associate ourselves with the Minister's statement about the bravery and professionalism of our soldiers whom I visited last week. We also associate ourselves completely with the Minister's commiserations to the bereaved families of the soldiers who have died.
As the Minister said, in bringing some form of peace to central Bosnia under which 1.5 million people now live a life of some normality, the British Army's role there has changed from escorting humanitarian convoys to patrolling the battle zone. That means that a new risk faces the British soldier in the form of land mines. I know, having spoken to our commanders and General Rose out there, that probably tens of thousands of land mines pose a threat to our soldiers. What is the Government's approach to that and what role do they see the British Army playing in the

727
defusing of those land mines? For example, is it the view of the Army—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] This is important because it affects the lives of British soldiers.
What is the Government's line on those land mines? Are our soldiers expected to defuse the land mines to try to ensure that civilian communication lines are kept open? I ask that out of helpfulness. I simply want to know the position, as does the Army.
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that important issue. Before I answer, I welcome him back from his recent visit to Bosnia. I am pleased that he is showing no long-term harm from the injury that he suffered while he was there. Obviously, the matter that he raised is of grave importance to our troops. Land mines pose a great danger. We have already heard of the death of one of our contingent while he was trying to defuse a land mine.
We are acting there for the benefit of the United Nations in trying to help the people to receive aid. Obviously, the decision whether it is safe to defuse an item has to be taken on the ground. We keep the matter carefully under consideration, but ultimately it is for commanders on the ground to decide whether it is safe for an item to be dealt with. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, because of his recent experience, about which he has told the House, I shall consider most carefully the point that he has raised.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I raise another matter? It may not be of such immediate importance as the other two that have been raised, but I suspect that it concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I refer to the way in which our forces, acting on behalf of the United Nations, are remunerated while serving in the former Yugoslavia. There is some unrest because soldiers from other countries serving under the same UN mandate are remunerated rather more generously than British forces. I appreciate that that is a complicated matter, but if there are to be further such operations the question of how British forces are remunerated while doing the same job as other soldiers in the same theatre is likely to become more acute.
Can the Minister comment on the Government's attitude towards those matters and say whether any long-term thinking is taking place on the problem?
Mr. Hanley: Some individuals in the House—I do not accuse the hon. and learned Gentleman of being one of them—have tried to exploit the subject of our soldiers' pay in Bosnia for political purposes. They have tried to undermine the morale of our forces for their own political ends. I am sure that the House knows about the way in which we pay our soldiers: we give them what is called the X-factor—a sum to take into account what another nation might call danger pay—on a regular basis throughout their careers. In other words, when they go to a place such as Bosnia they are not paid extra for the additional dangers; they have accepted the bargain of being paid the same amount even when they are back in barracks in England —and that is higher than the basic pay of soldiers from other nations.
If one were to compare the pay of one of our soldiers with that of a French soldier of equivalent rank and ability, one would find that the French soldier would be paid much less when not in Bosnia, but more, because of the element of danger, when he was in Bosnia. I believe that so long as we ensure that our soldiers are not overstretched in terms
728
of deployments to such theatres, most of the armed forces will regard what they receive as a fair bargain, and as fair recompense for the services that they perform in the interests of the nation. Of course, a review of pay and allowances will be carried out during the coming year and no doubt such matters will be considered then.
In the meantime, I make it clear to the House that our soldiers are paid well. Those based in Germany receive an element of local overseas allowance, too, while they are in Bosnia, even though they may not be incurring some of the expenses that they would incur were they in Germany. We do not receive complaints from soldiers on the ground about the level of their pay, because they understand the issues. The complaints come from Members of Parliament who try to exploit the position.
I was coming to the end of my comments about Bosnia, and I was saying that we hope that the European Union, the United States and the Russians will continue the negotiations and that they will lead to a lasting peace. That would be the best way for our troops to return home. In the meantime, the British contribution to the United Nations operations will continue. The fourth roulement of BRITBAT 1 is taking place this month, with the second battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment replacing the Coldstream Guards. I have no doubt that they will uphold the outstanding example set by all their predecessors, and I am sure that the House will join me in wishing them well.
Mr. Churchill: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hanley: I shall allow another intervention, but I have a great deal more to say.
Mr. Churchill: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of Bosnia, may I ask him a question? He rightly said that the safety of British forces there is paramount. Will he say what steps are being taken to provide our combat pilots and Hercules crews with missile approach warning systems, which are standard in many of the air forces of the world? Those would provide them, for instance, with full protection against a SAM 7, which is probably what caused the downing of the Sea Harrier the other day.
Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) for raising the issue. I shall not answer him today because he wrote a detailed letter to the Secretary of State, which my right hon. and learned Friend received only yesterday. My hon. Friend will receive a full reply, of course, as soon as possible. The issue is important and we have it on our agenda for answer.
It is one of the many privileges of my present appointment that I have been able to maintain my connection with Northern Ireland, and to improve my knowledge and understanding of the work of the armed forces there. I draw the attention of the House to the essay in "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994" that explains the role and organisation of the armed forces in Northern Ireland.
Although the majority of the tasks related to providing effective support to the Royal Ulster Constabulary fall to the Army, we must not forget that vital support is also provided by elements of the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force. The House will join me in acknowledging the value of the contributions of all three services to this joint operation, under the leadership of the

729
General Officer Commanding, Lieutenant General Sir Roger Wheeler, who is the first member of the Royal Irish Regiment to fill that appointment.
The armed forces have supported the RUC for nearly 25 years. During that time, more than 300,000 service personnel have served in Northern Ireland, many of them on repeated tours of duty. They have made an immense contribution to the maintenance of law and order in Northern Ireland, and their efforts have prevented countless terrorist murders and outrages. The whole House understands that and admires the sheer professionalism and bravery with which our service men and women carry out their duties, year after year. They fully deserve—and receive—our whole-hearted support.
Force levels are kept under continual review to ensure that they remain appropriate to the prevailing level of terrorist threat. We are satisfied that the present force levels are right. I assure the House that we can and will maintain forces at the present level for as long as the terrorists make it necessary.
Although it is the infantry who make the most obvious contribution to supporting the RUC, they simply could not operate without the Royal Engineers, the Army Air Corps, the Royal Signals, the Royal Logistic Corps and the other arms and services. I take this opportunity to remind the House of the essential contributions which these personnel make, which are often not sufficiently recognised.
Both the full-time and part-time elements of the Royal Irish Regiment continue to provide an essential contribution to the Army's support to the RUC. I never cease to admire the bravery and commitment, especially, of the part-time members. They continue every week to meet the demanding training and operational requirements of the Army, in addition to their civilian employment. Many of them have carried out that dangerous task for years on end. We owe them a great debt.
It is with sadness that I have to remind the House of the continuing terrorist campaign to murder serving and former personnel of the Royal Irish Regiment and of its predecessor, the Ulster Defence Regiment. Last Thursday night, terrorists murdered a man who had left the UDR nearly four years ago. In the early hours of Saturday morning, three soldiers from the 5th Royal Irish were killed in a fire in their base in Magherafelt and eight were injured, one of them very seriously. The House will wish to join me in extending profound sympathy to the next of kin of those who were killed and good wishes for the recovery of the injured.
Rev. William McCrea: I join the rest of the House in expressing appreciation for the professionalism of our soldiers in every war zone in which they are involved and for the service and professionalism that they display in Northern Ireland. On the latter point, last weekend I visited the base that the Minister mentioned a moment ago. I visited those soldiers who, thankfully, had escaped and whose lives were saved by the excellent work of all the services that were at hand.
Does the Minister understand the grief in the hearts of many people in the Province? Three young soldiers who had retired to the resting bay were burnt to death. Will he assure the families that an in-depth inquiry will be carried
730
out to find out not only what happened and how the fire started, but whether there was any negligence? Will the matter be looked into in depth?
Mr. Hanley: Yes, I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. There is a full inquiry being carried out at the moment. It needs to be very thorough because of the extent of the tragedy that has occurred and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall keep him informed as the inquiry continues. I also spoke to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) last night about the matter.
I know that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who represents the constituency in which the awful tragedy took place, has taken an interest in the matter. As I say, I can assure him that the inquiry will be very deep and thorough. If we have anything to learn from the incident, we will most certainly take action.
There are good relations between the armed forces and the community in Northern Ireland. Indeed, that is essential. One important aspect of relations with the local community is the existence of a credible and effective complaints system. The armed forces have made continuing efforts in recent years to ensure that the complaints system is as effective as possible.
The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 established the office of independent assessor of military complaints procedures in Northern Ireland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has today published Mr. David Hewitt's first report as independent assessor. Mr. Hewitt finds much to commend in the present arrangements, but makes a number of recommendations for improvement, which, I can assure the House, we will consider very carefully.
None of us takes any satisfaction from the need for the armed forces to continue to support the RUC over 25 years, but there are no short cuts to eradicating deep-rooted terrorism in a democracy, while acting, as we must, within the law. The armed forces have no desire to continue in the task for a moment longer than necessary. Once the terrorists on both sides renounce violence, and fully demonstrate their commitment to doing so, the armed forces will progressively be withdrawn from the streets and return to their normal peacetime role. In the meantime, it is only the actions of the terrorists on both sides that keep soldiers on the streets of the Province. It is up to the terrorists whether soldiers continue to patrol the streets for a further 25 years. For the terrorists must make no mistake —so long as their criminal attacks make it necessary, the armed forces will continue to support the RUC steadfastly and professionally, as they have done for the past 25 years.
Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way a second time. In the battle to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland, does not he agree that it is absolutely essential that our armed forces in Northern Ireland should have close co-operation with the Irish Army and conduct joint exercises and joint patrols? Is he aware that, at the moment, we are unable to carry out any helicopter surveillance on the border and certainly not over the border?
Mr. Hanley: I am aware of the views of my hon. Friend, but I should say that relationships between the forces on both sides of the border have never been better. We are making very constructive progress in a number of areas, but I shall willingly raise the issue with the GOC when I next see him.

731
May I turn to the size of the Army? With the Army heavily engaged in operational commitments throughout the world, it is right that we should keep its size, especially its front line, under review. Hence, in February last year, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced that we would be increasing the size of the Army by 3,000, compared with previous plans for the mid-1990s. As part of that, we decided not to proceed with the amalgamations involving four infantry battalions, thus increasing the number of infantry battalions planned by 1998 from 38 to 40. As a result, by next year, even if we were to continue to have two infantry battalions in Bosnia, average emergency tour intervals for the infantry would meet the 24–month target. Any reduction in our current level of emergency tour commitments would permit a significant increase in that figure.
However, the Army comprises more than just the infantry, and the decision that we made in December to make available an extra 3,000 personnel to increase the size of selected field Army units had, as a principal objective, increasing the resilience of operational logistic support units. About 1,000 of the extra posts will be allocated to front-line Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, Royal Logistic Corps, Royal Army Medical Corps and Royal Signals units.
As I have already mentioned in the context of Bosnia and Northern Ireland, the profile of such units may not match that of the teeth arms, but I am sure that the House would wish me to state that we acknowledge the vital contribution that they make to the success of operations and our overall military capability.
We have not reached final decisions on the allocation of all 3,000 posts, but I would expect the Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers also to be enhanced as a result of this addition to the front line.
The Government are committed to sustaining and, where possible, enhancing the Army's front-line capability in accordance with the plans set out under "Options for Change", as subsequently adjusted by the announcements to which I have referred. The overall strength of the Army that is required to sustain this capability will continue to be kept under review, and will be informed by progress in achieving greater efficiency in the support area, not least as a result of the defence costs study.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Is my hon. Friend aware of the dismay in the armed forces, and especially in the Army, at the way in which we seem to have one study after another, continually reviewing structures and continually moving goal posts? Is he aware that last year an infantry battalion had 223 nights away from home without spending even one day on an emergency tour? That happens as various commitments continue to expand, as the goal posts move and as the Army continues to shrink.
Mr. Hanley: I accept that when we talk about overstretch we tend to talk about entire battalions. When considering the pressures that we impose on individual soldiers and officers, we must ensure that they are not overloaded. Almost all the soldiers and officers whom I have met relish the tasks that they are given. Indeed, they joined up to be able to help the nation in that way.
I know that there are few in this place who are as experienced in Army matters as my hon. Friend, but whenever he speaks in the House on Army affairs he asks
732
us not to use the Army for something. The best morale is achieved when soldiers are busy doing what they joined up to do. Of course, families must be, and are, taken into account. We will continue to ensure that we do not overstretch any individual soldiers or officers.
Mr. Brazier: Soldiers do indeed join up to undertake operational tours. I shall give my hon. Friend a specific example of another battalion, the 2nd Battalion of the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment, a fine regiment. It provides an example which could be applied across the board as it applies to any infantry unit. Why is it that on returning from an operational tour—the sort of tour which men joined up to undertake—and before moving on to an exercise of the sort that men joined up to participate in, they spend months and months on end away from their families performing buckshee tasks that have nothing to do with operational purposes or training? One such task is several weeks as administrative extras at the Royal Tournament.
Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is, therefore, giving notice that he would not mind if the Royal Tournament were scrapped. Many members of the armed forces greatly value the Royal Tournament and the ceremonial and other tasks that are part of the fabric of our society. According to my hon. Friend, they would rather spend perhaps the 24 months between active operations blancoing boots and painting stones white. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that to be a member of the armed forces is to engage in a multi-faceted role. The training and other tasks that are taken on are taken on willingly.
I say to my hon. Friend—I shall do so again and again —that we will ensure that we do not overstretch any individual units. There are, however, many tasks that our soldiers wish to carry out. I believe that my hon. Friend, while exercising what he believes to be the conscience of our armed forces, will find that most of our men are engaged happily on the tasks that they are asked to carry out.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I do not take upon myself the consciences of the armed forces. He might consider whether his comments about blancoing boots and painting stones white are worthy of a man in his position. I assure him that young men and, these days, young women join the armed forces for action. They relish action, involvement and the duties that they carry out in the name of the House, among other institutions. They do not relish being treated as skivvies and being made to work every hour that God gave, without much appreciation. Furthermore, they feel that, having been in Northern Ireland, as the Coldstream Guards were until the middle of last year, it would be reasonable to have some opportunity to speak to their wives, or to find a wife if they are single, before being sent out to Bosnia. They relish being in Bosnia, but they want some time to enjoy themselves as well.
Mr. Hanley: I do not believe that anyone could disagree with my hon. Friend, except for one thing: I am sorry if I made a mistake, but one blancos belts and polishes boots.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) makes an important point. We shall not allow our forces to be overstretched or to be put at risk. We take their families, their private lives and the times when they can

733
relax seriously. The Army is an excellent employer and has the good will of the forces well in mind, as do the House and the Government.
Mr. Ian Bruce: As my hon. Friend is having brickbats thrown at him, I thank him for his excellent work in consolidating the 18 base workshop in Bovington in my constituency and for accepting the excellent management bid. The workshop is trying to increase civilian management. How many uniform personnel have been released back to the Army as a result of administrative jobs being performed by base workshops? Are not the Government ensuring that people who sign up for the armed forces are used in active duties rather than in back-room jobs?
Mr. Hanley: I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact answer that he wants, but I can say that, because of the changes, it now takes 18 weeks instead of 34 weeks to service a main battle tank. We are seeing, therefore, the benefits of that policy.
The Labour party keeps calling for a defence review. I am sure that it will not be lost on my hon. Friends that if there were a defence review, the front-line capability of the armed forces would be almost equivalent to the number of Labour Members in the Chamber. Under our policy, consider the talent that we have paraded here. I think the importance that the Conservative party attaches to defence is shown by the number of Conservative Members who are in the Chamber.
It would be right to dwell on "partnership for peace." The changed strategic environment is reflected in the partnership for peace initiative, launched by NATO at the January 1994 Brussels summit to develop military and political co-operation with central and eastern Europe. Fourteen states have joined the partnership and we hope and expect that Russia will join soon. Plans for PFP activities are still being developed by NATO and we hope to see at least one land-based and one maritime exercise under the auspices of PFP this year, both with British participation.
Nationally, we are pursuing a vigorous and comprehensive programme of defence-related co-operation with central and eastern Europe. Details were set out in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994", which were published last week.
I should like to highlight our plans for a military exercise later this month in Poland. It will involve the deployment of a company from the 1st Battalion, Devonshire and Dorset Regiment, which is stationed in Germany, to Poland for five days of peacekeeping-related exercises with the Polish armed forces in the near future. It will be the first time that British forces have exercised on the territory of a former Warsaw pact country.
The initiative is important not only in terms of the United Kingdom-Polish defence relationship, but as being very much in the spirit of PFP. Later this year, elements from 5 Airborne Brigade will exercise with their Polish opposite numbers.
We are also looking at exercising in Hungary, both on a bilateral basis and with the Germans, and during his recent visit to Moscow my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agreed in principle with President Yeltsin to the idea of exercising with the Russian armed forces. There is
734
also a continual and wide-ranging series of exchanges involving small delegations from the Ministry of Defence and various other units.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Before my hon. Friend finishes his point about the Germans and the Russians, will he consider seriously the future of Britain's land commitment to the central front in Europe? Is it reasonable or right that after 31 August this year, if the Russians leave the eastern part of Germany on time, we should continue to deploy a large, static, inflexible Army in Germany at a cost of £1.3 billion a year and employ more than 10,000 local German civilians as cooks, mess stewards, batmen, gardeners and so on? Would not the money be much better spent on stopping mergers of good regiments like the Gurkhas and the Gordons and on securing the very best equipment for our armed forces?
Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend raises an important point which is certainly part of an on-going debate. However, we have NATO commitments which must also be considered in conjunction with our own national interest. NATO is a partnership which has served us extremely well over the years and I believe that our NATO commitments are very important. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) that we will consider exactly what he has to say.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I agree with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Minister about our past relationships within NATO. However, does he agree that NATO is now increasingly called on to act outside what is traditionally known as the NATO area of operation? In looking at procurement and the future needs of the British armed forces, is not it time that we sat down with our NATO partners and put together a new framework to determine exactly the future role of NATO and, in particular, the NATO area of operation? Until we have defined that, we are asking NATO to act in an ad hoc way around eastern Europe as well as within the NATO area of operation.
Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend has raised an important matter of current debate. However, such matters are more the concern of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to define NATO's areas. All I can say is that we had a successful summit. The nations that are part of NATO have confirmed the importance of NATO and the fact that we believe that the United States and Canada are vital to the security of Europe. Through the partnership for peace programme, we have shown a way of bringing nations from central and eastern Europe into NATO over a period. Therefore, I believe that NATO is evolving and changing. We must ensure that we keep NATO's strengths and do not damage them as we continue to debate the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning).
I want now to consider the Territorial Army. Hon. Members on both sides of the House attach great importance to the TA. The Government also continue to attach importance to a well-trained, well-equipped and deployable Territorial Army. Hon. Members will be aware of our plans to introduce new reserve forces legislation aimed at making it easier to call out the volunteer reserves in circumstances short of war.
Individual members of the TA have, of course, regularly joined the Regular Army on short-term engagements to fill

735
particular posts. Currently, we have 43 officers and 61 soldiers from the TA serving with the Regular Army, including those I mentioned earlier called out for service in support of our operations in the former Yugoslavia.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced two weeks ago an important development of that concept in the form of a pilot scheme for the use of composite TA units in support of operational commitments undertaken by the Regular Army. We plan to deploy a TA platoon to the Falkland Islands garrison from July to November this year. That platoon will be drawn from the TA in Northern Ireland and will operate in support of a regular company of the Royal Irish Regiment deploying on a four-month unaccompanied tour. We plan to follow that up with a company-size deployment from March to July next year.
That trial of the utilisation of the TA demonstrates the confidence of the Government in the ability of our volunteer reserves to play a greater part in our overall defence effort. If the trial is successful—as I fully expect it to be—it will open the way to the use of the TA in support of the Regular Army in a wide range of operational deployments, including those under UN auspices.
I hope that it is unnecessary to add that the choice of the Falkland Islands for the trial does not indicate any lessening of our commitment to the defence of our dependencies in the south Atlantic. Our investment in the infrastructure at Mount Pleasant has long enabled us to minimise our in-place forces without affecting our responsibilities. There will remain a substantial Regular element to the garrison during the period of the trial. The Falkland Islands offer excellent training facilities, and the tour length is four months—rather than six on operational deployments elsewhere—which should make it easier to recruit volunteers and permit the results of the trial to be assessed more quickly.
We have not yet reached conclusions on the future size and shape of the Territorial Army, but I hope we shall be able to make announcements on this before too long. I realise that many hon. Members have strong views on the matter and I assure them that we will be taking those into account before reaching any final decisions.
Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister say something about the removal of the mines sown during the Falklands war?
Mr. Hanley: All I can say now is that the matter is being dealt with. I think that we have found a sensible compromise for clearing the remaining mines. I will write to the hon. Gentleman if there is anything that I might want to add to that. I believe that the details of the plan are acceptable to the Falkland Islands Government and to us.
Finally, I pay tribute to the many civilians of all grades who work both at home and abroad in support of the Army. They are often much maligned or forgotten. Some people even forget that they are part of the armed forces at all. Life as a civilian in the Ministry of Defence is certainly no sinecure these days, if it ever was. Far from spending their days leisurely writing minutes to each other while sipping tea, they are very much involved with all aspects of Army policy and operations. The pace can be—and often is—fast and furious. Without them, the Army would find it extremely difficult to undertake the tasks that I have just been outlining.
736
Civilians have been involved in all areas of risk in which the Army has recently been engaged—the Falklands, the Gulf and, currently, in Bosnia; as well, of course, as Northern Ireland. It is our policy to employ civilians, either directly or on contract, in tasks which do not require military skills. That is not because one is better than the other, but simply because it makes obvious good sense to concentrate the deployment of highly trained service men in roles that only they can perform.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Can my hon. Friend explain the Government's position on "Front Line First"? The name clearly necessitates a definition of where the front line starts—all else follows from that. If my hon. Friend cannot give us a definition, which group will be charged with defining the notion?
Mr. Hanley: The concept is easy to understand, but not straightforward to define. In essence, the "front line" refers to the overall operational capability which our fighting units, such as warships, battalions, combat aircraft and so forth, need to fulfil the military tasks allocated to them, as set out in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1993". For that capability to be maintained, of course our fighting units must be properly supported, directly or indirectly, by the remaining parts of the services and by the MOD.
Support areas make a vital contribution to the front line. It would be wrong for us to think that there is either front line or support. We must be careful that, in reducing unnecessary support, we do not hollow out to the extent that the front line collapses, particularly in a transition to war.
The difference between front line and support is, by their nature, that they are capable of engineering a separate analysis. That is why the defence costs study is looking into areas of support to maintain our front line. We want to make sure that our front-line units receive the essential support which they need, but that there is no money being spent unnecessarily on support. Any penny that is spent on support is money wasted from the front line.
I hope that that has helped my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith)—it has certainly helped me. I can assure my hon. Friend that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and I have spent many hours during the past three months dealing with the defence costs study. In each area of support we are conscious that the front line is dependent on that, and we must make sure that we do not undermine our front line in that way.
Mr. Edward Garnier: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, as I know that he has been putting up with a lot of interruptions. If that is the definition of front line—and therefore of "Front Line First"—can he tell the House what is second?
Mr. Hanley: That one is easier. "Front Line First" means that we will spend our money first on maintaining our front line. The Labour party wants a full defence review, which means that it wants to question every commitment and the way in which we carry them out. If necessary, it wants to reduce our front line and our capabilities. The Government want to preserve our front line because we believe that every single one of the commitments that we have been given can only be carried out properly with the equipment given to us for that job.

737
There were 50 tasks set out in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1993", and those tasks are vital to the interests of our nation. We believe that we should preserve those tasks with the men, the training and the equipment to do those jobs. We believe that, in preserving our front-line capability, we must maintain our commitments. We believe, therefore, that money must be spent first on equipping our troops properly to do the job. The Labour party believes in querying everything and putting the whole of our nation's forces into a period of instability; we are not prepared to accept that.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Minister tell us whether nuclear weapons are in the front line? If they are not, and if the policy is to put resources into the front line, should not this country be cutting seriously—much more seriously than the Government are doing—its nuclear weapons?
Mr. Hanley: I am always grateful for giving way to the hon. Gentleman, because it is through him that we hear the authentic voice of the Labour party. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the nuclear deterrent, which is the minimum necessary to deter, is very much in our front line, and that is why we are investing so much training and money in its creation and maintenance.
We are fortunate to have in the British Army probably the most respected army in the world. It is the Government's intention to ensure that, through proper equipment and training, it retains its capability to operate in the full spectrum of military activity from high-intensity conflict to peacekeeping. I believe that our plans will ensure that that is the case.
We are the best peacekeepers in the world, but one becomes the best peacekeeper by being the most credible and best soldier. I believe that our plans will make sure that that continues, and that the Army of tomorrow will be as well able to meet its challenges as the Army of today. It is evident that it is able to confront the challenges of which I have spoken. It is a credible Army, it is a great Army and it is one of the best armies in the world.
4.34 pm
Dr. John Reid: It is a sign of the times that we are debating the Army on the eve of the local elections in Scotland, England and Wales. Ministers have obviously chosen today because they knew that the House would be full.
I have to congratulate the Minister on the attendance on his Benches. Conservative Members have undoubtedly come along here to give him uncritical support for his reconstruction of the British armed forces. Alternatively, I was thinking earlier that, if I was a Conservative Member with the choice between sitting here today or going out and meeting the voters, I would probably sit here.
Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Reid: Perhaps I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question before he asks it. If he was about to ask why so few Labour Members are present, I can tell him that there are good reasons.
One is that there is a political war going on outside, and one of the first rules of war is to concentrate one's forces where one's enemies are weakest. We have done that
738
today, by sending them out to meet the great British people. The second reason is that my colleagues have absolute faith and confidence in my ability to deal singlehandedly with the massed ranks of, as a senior member of the 1922 Committee would say, "that lot on the other side". Therefore, they did not feel compelled to come along today.
If I have not answered the question of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), I shall give way to him.
Mr. Robathan: I should just like to point out that many of us here have already been out canvassing in support of our local candidates, but felt that the debate was an important enough occasion to come back to the House to listen to the hon. Gentleman's pearls of wisdom, which I am sure we are about to receive.
Dr. Reid: Absolutely. I thought that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, having canvassed, had retired to the seclusion of this place in despair.
It is a bit of a cheek for the Minister to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who normally makes helpful interventions in support of those on the Front Bench. If the Minister cares to read the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" issued by his Department less than a couple of weeks ago, he will see on page 19 in paragraph 3 an unqualified, absolute statement about nuclear disarmament:
"Complete and general nuclear disarmament remains a desirable ultimate goal".
I can see no difference between that and the expressions of the Labour party conference. So let us have less of it from the Minister.
Conservative Members may be concerned about the prospect of a Labour Government taking over, but let me tell them that they have an even more worrying prospect ahead of them. In the context of the remarks that I am about to make, I can give a relative welcome to the fact that both junior Defence Ministers are still at their post, and that the Secretary of State for Defence is still at his.
All things are relative. The qualification of my welcome is the rumours now sweeping the House that, as an outcome of the internecine warfare in the Conservative party, the Secretary of State for Defence might soon be replaced. That first hit the leader columns of the newspapers this morning, although it has been doing the rounds for some time.
I notice that, in considering the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), The Guardian has blown the gaff:
"Why not, then, give Mr. Portillo a proper, grinding job? And top of the list, surely, would be defence."
So The Guardian and one or two others are beginning to suggest that the Chief Secretary might be put in charge of defence. That comes as a revelation to me. I thought that he had been in charge of defence for the past two years.
I warn Conservative Members. When we told the Government that they would need to put the infantry back, they said that they would not, and then they did. When we told them that they would cancel the tactical air-to-surface missile, they said that they would not, and then they did. Indeed, in the last debate, when we told them that they would start to purchase cruise missiles to put in their submarines, they laughed. I understand that they are now considering purchasing cruise missiles.
Let me make another prediction: Conservative Members, many of whom consider themselves to be on the

739
right of the Conservative party, will rue the day that the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury transferred to the Ministry of Defence.
I do not know what the Chief Secretary does to the enemy, but he frightens the life out of me, and I know that he will frighten the life out of members of our armed forces. If he assumes that post, it will no longer be a case of someone from the Treasury emasculating the armed forces of this country from a safe distance. He will be stationed at the Ministry of Defence, making it even easier for him to wrap his hands around the neck of the British armed forces. It will be a sad day if that person ends up in charge of the British armed forces. [Interruption.] The Minister thinks that this is a despicable personal attack. I am not concerned about the merits of the individual; I am concerned about the British Army. The only thing worse than lions led by donkeys is lions led by a Treasury hyena who will pick over the bones of what is left of the defence budget.
Mr. Hanley: In no way was I commenting about any attack that the hon. Gentleman might make in his speech. I merely said that it was surprising that, in the first five minutes of his speech about the British Army, the hon. Gentleman should take a small snippet from a newspaper, pile conjecture upon all sorts of guesswork and then try to base the future defence policy of this nation upon something which he had picked up as a fag end from a political journalist. It is not worthy of the hon. Gentleman.
Dr. Reid: Is it not funny how the guesses from this side of the House, based not on the tremendous back-up of 100,000 civil servants but on fag ends and snippets, almost inevitably turn out to be correct; whereas the Minister, with all his advice from across the road—whether it is about the infantry, a strategic nuclear weapon, mismatch, overstretch, continual defence cuts or the lack of a defence review—inevitably turns out to be wrong?
I raised this subject precisely because I believe that the politics represented by the right hon. Gentleman will be bad for the armed forces. Time will prove the Minister or me correct. I will be gracious enough to apologise to him if my guess is wide of the mark, as he will apologise to me. Should it happen, I warn our colleagues on the Back Benches that it is a mid-19th century political trend.
It is a political trend which, unlike the last Prime Minister, is not only committed to the free market but absolutely opposed to any form of Government expenditure. It is particularly opposed to unproductive forms of public expenditure such as expenditure on the armed forces. I place that warning on record. As I said earlier, Back Benchers in the Conservative party will have time to judge that trend when it arrives.
Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman has been on his feet for nearly eight minutes. Is he going to touch on the subject of today's debate at all?
Dr. Reid: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will. Incidentally, the Minister was on his feet for 57 minutes, and said nothing. I hope that I have been slightly more substantial in seven minutes than the Minister was in 57. At the beginning of such debates, it is customary to dispense with party politics.
Mr. Tom King: Ten minutes late.
Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman laughs. I am about to pay tribute to those who have served and died in the British armed forces. In the annual service debate, it is customary for hon. Members on either side of the House to begin their contributions with a tribute to service men and women. I reiterate what the Minister said earlier: I believe that we possess not one of the finest armed forces in the world but the finest, as the British Army continues to demonstrate in Bosnia, Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
We are fortunate to have at our disposal officers of the highest calibre, who command men and women with a sense of discipline and skills that are truly exceptional. It should be a matter of pride for everyone in this country that those qualities of professionalism and dedication are recognised the world over.
That fact was reflected most recently in the decision of South Africa's transitional executive to request British military advice on how to reform its security forces for the post-apartheid era. I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will be able to give that request speedy and sympathetic consideration. I understand that it is being considered at present.
In paying tribute to the men and women of the British Army, it is also important to remind people, as the Minister did, of the human cost attached to the dangerous and demanding commitment associated with serving in the armed forces. Since the last Army debate, about 130 soldiers have died while in service other than from natural causes. In choosing to risk their lives for their country, they deserve our abiding respect and, as the Minister said, our sympathies are with their friends and relatives.
The Minister also referred to the tragic deaths last week of three young soldiers from the Royal Irish Regiment, following a fire at their base in Northern Ireland. I am glad that the Minister was able to assure us today that a full inquiry into the incident has been instigated. I also hope that a safety review of all British Army bases will be conducted in an effort to ensure that there is no repetition of this dreadful incident.
I know that the capital costs of renovation and reconstruction are extremely high—particularly in Northern Ireland, because of threats to contractors and so on—but I hope that, apart from the investigation of the specific incident, a review will be conducted of the construction and fire safety of Army bases throughout Northern Ireland.
I turn from those tributes to Bosnia, a subject which I think will feature most prominently in tonight's debate. It is now 19 months since British troops were deployed as part of the United Nations protection force in Bosnia-Herzegovina. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has just returned from meeting our troops in Bosnia, where he discussed current events with them.
At the beginning of our intervention, the British contingent numbered about 2,300 personnel. It has now grown to about 2,350. The mandate of our troops has been revised to include the protection of designated safe areas as well as the protection of humanitarian aid convoys.
There are many views in the House about the situation in Bosnia. They range from those who believe that we should not intervene in the conflict, to those who think that our limited and carefully defined intervention has been insufficient and would like to see a massive intervention of troops. I know that my colleagues will make their views

741
known tonight, but I will confine my remarks to certain general areas which I think all of us—wherever we stand in that spectrum of views—will agree are important.
It is vital that we think through the implications of our involvement in Bosnia, both in terms of how we can encourage a resolution of the conflict and in terms of how the United Nations should respond to similar conflicts in the future. This process of reflection is necessary because it seems to me that important lessons are not being learned and that some of the serious flaws in the United Nations operation in Bosnia have not been rectified.
The blame for this failure does not lie with the officers and soldiers serving with UNPROFOR. They have done a remarkable job in what are, by any standards, extremely difficult circumstances. The real problem has been a failure of political leadership.
Mr. Hanley rose—
Dr. Reid: It would be helpful if hon. Members opposite did not assume that I was attacking them, either personally or collectively, but listened to what I have to say.
At the most fundamental level, the United Nations has failed to establish a clear and achievable objective or set of objectives for its intervention in the Balkans. It has thus made the formulation of a coherent strategy well nigh impossible. The result is an operation which, for the most part, has been hastily improvised, with the United Nations responding to events rather than shaping them.
Of course, it would be unfair not to recognise the enormity of the challenge confronting the United Nations. It would also be over-simplistic not to recognise that the United Nations is nothing more than the collective will of the international community.
But peace support missions of the kind being conducted in Bosnia are much more ambitious and difficult to execute than the traditional peacekeeping missions of the past, when monitoring forces were deployed after a ceasefire had been established. In seeking to respond to civil conflicts on a more active basis, the international community is, quite frankly, on a steep learning curve. Even so, it is clear that the United Nations has been too slow in adapting to the new environment.
I have two major concerns which affect the British Army and our armed forces in general. First, there appears to be a distinct reluctance to make difficult decisions about the role of the international community in resolving civil conflicts within states as opposed to conflicts between states. At times, the United Nations operation in Bosnia has borne all the hallmarks of an unhappy compromise between those who wish it to remain a humanitarian mission and those who wish UNPROFOR to take sides and assume an active combat role. That tension has been ever present. The most damaging consequence of that confusion is that insufficient resources have been provided to secure the operational objectives established by the United Nations. Nowhere was that failure more apparent than during the attack on Gorazde.
I fully understand the complexities of an issue such as that of the operations around Gorazde. I do not know whether the phrase is "good fortune", but I had the opportunity to visit Gorazde last November to speak to the Serbs on their front line and to the Muslims inside Gorazde.
742
One of the horrible examples of the complexity of that civil war was the fact that the Muslim commander and the Serb commander, who met once a month to try to agree some access to supplies to Gorazde, called each other by first names when they met at that monthly meeting, because not only had they been to the same school and the same class, but they actually played in the same football team. That small illustration shows the complexity and intensity of the conflict.
The establishment of designated safe areas without the deployment of the ground forces required to make them a reality is typical of the wishful thinking and extemporisa-tion that have characterised the United Nations' involvement in Bosnia. First, that is, above all, a failure of the international will, but it is in that context that our soldiers are being asked to conduct their operations.
Secondly, the process of policy formulation is far too incoherent and cumbersome. Military operations require clear, unambiguous command structures, yet it is often difficult to determine who is calling the shots in Bosnia. As an experienced organisation with an established military command structure, it made sense for NATO to assume a role as an operational arm of the United Nations in Bosnia.
However, the paralysis of the UN decision-making process during the Gorazde crisis forced NATO into an entirely different role—that of issuing ultimatums. Even though NATO continues to act at the behest of the United Nations, it is in danger—I put it no higher—of creating an impression of becoming an independent factor in the conflict. We should all be aware of that danger.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Is not the real danger of involving NATO in the conflict in Bosnia that it will be sucked into a war that it cannot possibly win, the result of which will be great demoralisation among the nations who support NATO, and it will then be acting very much against the defence interests of the west? Until now, NATO has never had to declare its hand. It has been the veiled threat—or should I say the mailed fist?—which deterred Russia. As a result of being drawn into the conflict, NATO may be seen as the emperor without any clothes. I will not ask the hon. Gentleman to comment on the effect on our American allies of the lack of determination that is currently being displayed.
Dr. Reid: That was not a unilateral decision on NATO's part. NATO was asked to go in by the United Nations, as an instrument of the United Nations, and therefore, provided that the objectives of the intervention and the rules of engagement and the operational definition are clear, I do not think that that danger exists. However, where there is muddled thinking at the political level in the United Nations, the danger exists.
I shall say a third thing about NATO and its relationship with the UN in Bosnia, which to some extent echoes some of the fears of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). A debate is taking place in Europe about the future architecture of European defence structures, and some of our allies seem to believe that, if the NATO alliance failed to pass the virility test of Bosnia, it would fail to justify its existence in the post-cold-war world. Action at any cost by NATO seemed to be the order of the day.
I believe that the opposite is the case. In the absence of a clear political strategy, clearly defined military objectives, adequate resources and unambiguous command and control structures, it is not non-action of NATO but

743
ill-considered botched action by NATO which carries the greatest risk for the future of NATO, and for its acceptance as an effective organisation.
Sir Archibald Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that, however good the command structure was of NATO in a military adventure in Bosnia, the acid test of whether NATO held together or not would be the number of casualties that were subsequently incurred? Does he believe that there is the political will among nations in Europe to incur substantial casualties in Bosnia and not pull out their troops, which is what I believe would happen?
Dr. Reid: That is one of the imponderables. It is like asking, "How long is a piece of string?" to ask how many casualties NATO would have to suffer before the will of countries was undermined. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. All that I can say to him is that the Opposition fully supported the intervention of British troops, and subsequently the involvement of NATO in pursuit of a clearly defined military objective with clearly defined political objectives.
However, the problem with a complex situation such as that in Bosnia—a fluid and dynamic situation—is that, in the United Nations, especially if there is not an unambiguous command and control structure from the politicians down to the operations, sometimes there are shades of grey between a clearly defined defensive position and a partisan position.
The perfect example of that is safe areas. All hon. Members in the House would be committed to the safeguarding of civilians and the protection of safe areas. It becomes more complicated when, in the safe area, there are not only vast numbers of innocent civilians but significant numbers of military on one side or the other. Without adequate troops on the ground to act as a buffer between the two sides, it is almost impossible to make out, among the propaganda and the fog of war, who is carrying out the initial aggression.
I think that there is a will in the west for intervention to take place, but I do not think that there is a will in the west to go beyond the position in which we are now to a massive military intervention of several tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of soldiers, to impose a peace on a three-way civil war. Should there be a ceasefire between the parties, I think that there would be considerable will in the House and throughout the country to put troops in to monitor that ceasefire. That is quite different from trying to impose one.
Moving away from NATO but still on the subject of Bosnia, on a wider scale it is apparent that some contingents of UNPROFOR are failing to accept the authority of the multinational command structures, and are continuing to take orders from their national Government rather than from UN-appointed commanders. The alleged incident last week—I use my words carefully because it has not been confirmed, although there is allegedly some substance to it—when French forces were reportedly joining a British contingent relieving Gorazde and were apparently unilaterally withdrawn following consultations with Paris, shows an unacceptable degree of political interference. I believe that the integrity of the UN operation and the lives of British service personnel will be in danger
744
unless the command and control procedures are rigorously adhered to. I hope that the Government have been at pains to make that clear.
Whatever the outcome of the tragedy that has been played out in that beautiful but unblessed land of Bosnia, it is abundantly clear that painful military lessons must be learned by political and service decision-makers. We ignore those lessons at our future peril because we may well have to confront many more Bosnias, although not necessarily on the same scale, if we are to play a full part as a member of the Security Council of the UN.
I want to turn to something that is less tragic and more entertaining. I refer, of course, to the "Statement on the Defence Estimates". The publication last week of the 1994 statement was an event of little significance except in so far as it revealed the cynicism of the Government's approach to the management of British defences.
In this connection, I should like to refer to some comments of Professor Keith Hartley. In the case of last year's defence estimates, Ministers told us that we were being presented with the most open-minded, fulsome and statistically comprehensive series of estimates that had ever been issued. We were told in 1993 that we now faced a challenge. Such was the information given in the defence estimates last year that no one with a brain in his head could fail immediately to absorb it and, on that basis, produce his own defence review.
At that time we queried what we were being told. Referring to those estimates, Professor Hartley, who, as some hon. Members may know, is the director of the centre for defence economics at the university of York, says:
"An obvious starting point is the 1993 statement on the defence estimates and the details of expenditure shown in the defence budget. Unfortunately the 1993 defence budget is shown in terms of the new management strategy, compared with the economists' functional costing approach used in previous years. As a result, it is no longer possible to cost specific force elements, such as the Navy's aircraft carriers, its Polaris submarines and its destroyers and frigates. Nor is it possible to cost the RAF's strike forces —they are now combined with transport aircraft—or the allocation of research and development expenditure between major air, land and sea systems.
On this basis it is misleading to claim that the 1993 SDE provides more and better information for economists and for Parliament. It provides less and worse information. Without more information on the costs of different force structures and the various defence roles, it is not possible to have a sensible debate on UK defence and the implication of smaller defence budgets."
That is precisely what we said at this time last year. It is precisely why we criticised the Government for the figures that they produced—this was not done in a meaningful fashion—and precisely why we criticised them this year again. It takes tremendous ingenuity to produce a 105–page statement on defence estimates and say practically nothing. Anyone reading through the statement will find any number of expressions such as "we hope to", "we expect to", "we may" and "at some stage we shall decide". It must be the largest-scale exercise in procrastination that anyone has ever seen.
We said last year that the statistics provided were largely meaningless. Even in the Government's own terms, the figures did not add up properly. Assuming correct arithmetic, however, the method of triple-hatting and the new management strategy manner of presenting the statistics made it almost impossible to carry out any meaningful costing.
Mr. Hanley indicated dissent.
Dr. Reid: The Minister of State shakes his head. I have just read, for his benefit, comments by the professor at the centre for defence economics at the university of York, and I could quote a dozen other defence economists who have said precisely the same thing. There must be something wrong if, on this subject, the Minister is the only person out of step.
I thought of the hon. Gentleman the other night when I was considering ways of handling statistics. Perhaps I should pay the hon. Gentleman a compliment by referring to a similarity that came to mind. I refer to the person whom some people regard as one of the finest Secretaries of State for Defence we have had since the end of the second world war. Certainly, with the benefit of hindsight, people in the military see Denis Healey—now Lord Healey —in that light.
I do not want to be too flattering to the Minister, but I should like to quote from a small piece in a very neat little book called "Brief Lives" by the illustrious correspondent Alan Watkins. Speaking of the early life of Healey, Watkins says:
"He returned to the Army. He ruptured himself on a field training course and, after an operation, was sent to a depot in Woolwich to await posting. He was dispatched from Woolwich to replace a drunken bombardier as a railway checker at Swindon station. It was here that he acquired a distrust of statistics. He was expected, apparently, to count the number of service men and women getting off every train, getting on every train and, for some reason, getting off and back on the train. He decided he would make up the figures. Assailed some weeks later by conscience, he asked the ticket collector at the barrier to give him the numbers of people who were getting on and off the train. After three weeks he discovered that the ticket collector was making the figures up too. He was duly commissioned in the Royal Engineers, in movement control."
Nothing changes. I suggest that both Ministers present—the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and the Minister of State for the Armed Forces—have all the qualifications to be moved to movement control of the Royal Engineers. The statistics given in the current defence estimates are indeed vacuous—though perhaps that is too substantial a word.
With the conclusion of the defence cost studies in July, the simple question is this: why did the Government choose to publish such a vacuous, empty White Paper in April instead of waiting until they had some announcements to make? The answer is quite simple: by publishing the White Paper in April, rather than in July as in previous years, Ministers will be able to get the annual two-day defence debate out of the way before announcing another round of swingeing cuts, thus allowing them to evade the embarrassment of having to explain themselves to Parliament. Every hon. Member knows that that is precisely why the details have been announced now.
Furthermore, by postponing until the July the announcement of further cuts, the Government hope to avoid the wrath of the electorate in the run-up to the local and European elections. In other words, they are running scared both of the electorate and of Parliament.
Mr. Hanley indicated dissent.
Dr. Reid: The Minister shakes his head in denial. Well, he is not convincing anyone.
A couple of weeks ago, I was in the constituency of South Dorset, where everyone suspects—probably because of a suspicious nature—that the current review of sea systems will report in July, not by coincidence but because
746
that will be after the local and the European elections. The situation is exactly the same with regard to the White Paper.
Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to come to my constituency, and I know that he was listened to avidly, as I have been listening avidly to him for about half an hour. But the people of South Dorset are in exactly the same position as myself, in that they do not know exactly what Labour's policy on the Army is. I should be most grateful if the hon. Member would get to that part of his speech.
Dr. Reid: One of the reasons for the hon. Gentleman's remaining in a state of blissful ignorance—presumably by choice—is that he did not come to the meeting in Weymouth that was attended by many of his constituents. He might at least do me the courtesy of saying that I did not attack him personally when I was in the constituency. I can assure him that I shall remedy that omission the next time I am there.
The hon. Gentleman's constituents who came to the meeting not only expressed concern but also, to a man and a woman, went away delighted at the next Labour Government's commitment to a defence diversification agency and to matching resources to commitment, as well as to a full defence review.
Is it not a tragedy that the Tory Member of Parliament for the constituency that has the Portland naval base and sea systems and the Defence Research Agency—the former soon to go; the latter soon to disappear to Bristol —as well as Bovington camp, has to ask a Labour Member of Parliament what his own constituents think about defence issues? If I were in that position, I should not be here; I should be knocking on doors and listening to constituents.
Mr. Bruce: If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will realise that he has been misquoting me. My constituents, many of whom vote Labour, would like to know the Labour party's policy on defence—not on diversification or on criticism of the Government. The hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to state what that policy is.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Dr. Reid: I hear a few "Hear, hears" from Conservative Back Benchers. I thought that I was starting to do precisely what the hon. Gentleman has asked of me. Perhaps I started at too high a level with the United Nations. I am beginning at one side and working across.
I was putting forward what I regard as genuine problems concerning our soldiers and armed services in their United Nations involvement, which over the past two years has been a fairly big aspect. In a previous debate, I dealt with Northern Ireland, and I shall come to a number of other issues relating to the British Army. In response to some comments from the Minister, I have said that there is nationwide concern about the Government's plans. That concern exists in the hon. Gentleman's constituency as well as in others.
This debate is about not the Labour party's defence policy but the defence statement, so it is appropriate that most of my remarks should be on that subject.
Lady Olga Maitland: It would help the House enormously if the hon. Gentleman clarified one point. Given that the Labour party has committed itself to a

747
reduction of £6 billion a year in defence spending, which force will it take a slash at: the Army, the Navy or the Air Force?
Dr. Reid: The hon. Lady will understand that, if one starts with the wrong premise, one inevitably reaches the wrong conclusion. The Labour party has not committed itself to such a cut. The Labour party conference passed a resolution calling for a reduction in defence expenditure. As Conservative Members do not know the Labour party's constitution, they constantly make that mistake.
May I therefore explain that, to get into the party programme, a conference decision must have a two-thirds majority. If it is included in the party programme, it may be selected for the party manifesto by a meeting of the National Executive Committee and the shadow Cabinet, who have the final decision. The results of their decision were contained in the last Labour party manifesto, which represents the decision of the whole Labour party. If the hon. Lady cares to read the last Labour party manifesto or the next one, she will find no mention of a £6 billion cut.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has, however, fortuitously landed on a figure of £6 billion, which happens to be the precise amount by which the Government cut the defence budget between 1985 and 1995–96. So, although she wrongly accuses the Labour party of reaching a theoretical decision at a conference to cut the defence budget by £6 billion, her party has in practice cut the defence budget by exactly that amount. I hope that I have clarified the matter for the hon. Lady.
On the "Statement on the Defence Estimates", it has been suggested that another 25,000 service and Ministry of Defence jobs may be axed as a result of the defence costs study, and that many important military support services will be either cut or privatised. Given the size of the savings that need to be made, sizeable cuts are clearly in the offing.
Conservative Members know that. As they retire to Bermuda, the Bahamas or wherever in late July or August, they will know that more sizeable cuts are coming. I am astonished at the looks of surprise on the faces of Conservative Members. They must have forgotten the last day of school term last year. Suddenly, once all the debates on the defence estimates had taken place, it was announced that another 5,000 jobs would be cut in the Royal Navy. That will happen again this year.
Despite the Government's claim that they seek to put the front line first, it is transparently obvious that they are putting their electoral interests first. The origins of the study lie in the Government's desire not to find more resources for our badly overstretched front-line combat units, but to provide the funds needed to repair some of the appalling damage which they have done to their public finances, and to reverse last month's betrayal on tax. That is the real reason why further cuts are being made to the armed forces.
The defence costs study is fraudulent, for two reasons. First, if substantial savings could be made in military support costs—the Government say that those are less important than the front line—which do not compromise the combat effectiveness of our armed forces, according to the Government's declared reasoning, they should have been the first target for cuts in 1990. If substantial cuts are to be made in non-essential areas, why were not they made at the beginning rather than now?
748
Instead, the front line units of the infantry of the Royal Armoured Corps and the Royal Artillery bore the brunt of "Options for Change", which the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) introduced. Had it been possible to save billions of pounds by cutting ancillary services, cutting a few cars or privatising catering, the right hon. Gentleman would have done it. He would not have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous Back-Bench Members by cutting front-line infantry forces, the Royal Armoured Corps and so on, if billions of pounds could have been saved on non-vital services.
Secondly, the study is a fraud because it is erroneous to draw a simple distinction between the front-line forces and the services that support them. If anything today has symbolised the confusion of the Ministry of Defence, it is the vain attempts of an articulate and able Minister of the Crown to define what he meant by "front line" and "support". If the Minister does not even know the meaning of "front line", how can he put it first or anywhere else?
I should have thought that the Ministry of Defence, which has placed so much emphasis on this matter, would have briefed the Minister on the meaning of "front line". We were told that the Minister and his hard-working colleague, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, had spent months discussing the matter, yet, when the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was asked the simple question, "By the way, what is the front line?", his answer went round in circles. Conservative Back Benchers smile, because they know that what I am saying is true. I do not intend to spoil their careers, so they may straighten their faces again.
If the Ministry of Defence does not know what the front line is, how can it claim that it is putting it ahead of anything else? No one is likely to object about staff cars being leased in future rather than purchased, or medical provision for the three services being integrated. But many of the suggested cuts would have a direct and detrimental bearing on the operational effectiveness and, equally important, on the morale of our armed forces. Reductions in ammunition stocks and spares would be particularly damaging.
During the Gulf war, we managed to keep the Challenger tanks of the 1st Armoured Division going only by cannibalising the rest of the British Army's units for spares. Similarly, the problems that we had procuring sufficient ammunition for operation Granby in the Gulf, even from friendly powers, should alert us to the dangers of becoming dependent on the largesse of others for our military needs.
It must be remembered that that comes on top of market testing and contractorisation. When I was in Cyprus recently, I discovered that the maintenance for our Army trucks is to be put out to the local garage.
Lady Olga Maitland: Quite right, too.
Dr. Reid: Absolutely: let us help small businessmen. I have nothing against small corner garages in Cyprus. I am all for helping them to prosper, but I doubt whether, in the midst of a crisis, they would be prepared to work for 48 or 72 hours or for four days on end.
Sir Archibald Hamilton: They would have to be paid.
Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman takes the words out of my mouth. I also doubt whether they would keep to the

749
initial contract in that situation. We may find that, during a crisis, either we cannot depend on private contractors or that we shall pay through the nose for their services and lose any potential savings. I have nothing against the private sector. I am sure that the quickest and most efficient people are the Kwik-Fit fitters, but I doubt whether they would turn up in the middle of a battle in the Gulf to repair tanks. The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell seems to believe that they would.
Sir Archibald Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman talks about fitters not appearing in the Gulf. There seemed to be no shortage of fitters from British Aerospace and GEC prepared to work in the Gulf at the time of that war.
Dr. Reid: Absolutely, and I pay credit to their courage and the wages paid to them. But they were not exactly in the front line fixing tanks.
Have Conservative Members suddenly abandoned their commitment to the principles of the free market, believing that, no matter how pressing the demand of the customer, the producer will produce at the same price? If they believe that the price will not rise according to market demand and wish to abandon their principles, that is fair enough. I happen to think that they are probably correct. When there is urgency and demand, the price at the very least will go up and the risk may not be taken unless we pay through the nose for it.
Similarly, it has been suggested that, in future, the supply of military hardware should copy the just-in-time method used in the private sector, whereby materials are provided as they are needed rather then held in stock. That idea shows a fundamental ignorance of the realities of military power. The Government have to understand that the British Army cannot be run like a branch of McDonald's. It requires high levels of preparedness, and an ability to respond to unforeseen events at short notice.
In March, the Secretary of State said that military vehicles would in future be leased rather than purchased; he even refused to rule out the possibility that the British Army's tanks might one day be provided on that leaseback basis. Again, that shows a complete failure to understand the practicalities of defence procurement. Items of modern military hardware, such as tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and combat helicopters, are state-of-the-art equipment, made to order. They require large amounts of capital investment and secure orders. They are not like Ford Escorts, rented from Avis or Hertz. It is naive and dangerous to shape defence policy on the assumption that they either are or can be.
Other leaked conclusions of the defence costs study would be equally damaging. The suggested 50 per cent. cut in the size of the defence intelligence staff would be a bizarre move, given that the Government have repeatedly stated that the nature of the security threat facing Britain has become more unpredictable since the end of the cold war.
Let me say one word about those who work in Britain's defence industry. They serve the country no less than those who serve in uniform. They make an essential contribution to our nation's security. Last week, I walked to Downing street with workers from the Royal Ordnance factories, who accept that defence expenditure will be cut and that jobs will have to go, and who ask one simple thing of the
750
Government—that they play some role in intervening, in helping diversification and conversion. The Government sit and wash their hands.
Even if we assume that the Government's free market philosophy applies in every sector of the economy, the one area where it cannot possibly apply is in defence production. The reason is simple: that the only customer in Britain for the purchase of defence goods from our manufacturing sector are the Government. There is no free market inside Britain. For the Government, as the only customer, to say that they will withdraw and leave it to a supposed free market to take over is a complete abdication of our responsibility and our obligations to those who work in the defence industry.
Mr. Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman has referred to diversification. In these debates—I have sat through many of them—we continually hear about diversification and about what the Government are not doing. Why is it that Opposition Members, when their Benches are full, which they are not today, continually attack defence sales and, in particular, the work done by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in selling our goods overseas and creating and maintaining precisely the jobs about which he is talking?
Dr. Reid: There is a brief three-part answer to that. First, we do not attack defence sales per se. Secondly, we are against defence sales to countries that are controlled by dictators. Thirdly, we are even more against defence sales when the British Government sell to countries which are run by horrendous dictators and then lie to Parliament about whether they are doing so, as they did in the case of Iraq. [Interruption.] I cannot be more specific. Machine tools were sent to Iraq. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will say that that is just like selling a screwdriver; they would never sell arms. The Scott inquiry, which was meant to sideline the issue, has been a dripping roast of the Government's perfidy when it comes to the sale of arms abroad.
We are objecting not to the sale of arms, but to the sale of arms to dictators who will use them for the suppression of human rights, particularly when it is done under a cover of deceit, not only to the British people but to the British Parliament. We stand by that.
The Government must give a commitment that the conclusions of the defence costs studies will not be implemented until two conditions have been met—first, until a proper strategic defence review of existing military commitments and capabilities has been conducted, and secondly, until the Government produce a plan for managing proposed reductions in a way that minimises the damage to our industrial base.
Opposition defence spokesmen have stood at the Dispatch Box and tried, until we were—I almost said blue —pink in the face, to demand that the Government carry out, to persuade the Government, to beg the Government to carry out, a full defence review. It is now being said so often from this Dispatch Box that Ministers groan when it is brought up.
We have said that such a review is a way not of avoiding hard decisions but of confronting hard decisions. There are few people left in Britain, inside or outside the defence community, who, after three years, do not agree with what the Labour party has been saying. The Select Committee on Defence has argued for it. [Laughter.] Conservative

751
Members laugh, but I do not know how much more evidence for a defence review I have to put before the House.
Let us take an academic, an ex-field marshal, and a Tory newspaper, The Sunday Times. First, I shall take the academic, Professor John Baylis, of the department of international politics, university of Wales. I shall read only his first and last paragraphs. He said:
"Ever since John Nott's courageous but abortive attempt to re-assess the whole basis of British defence policy in June. 1981, the Conservative government has been reluctant to embrace the term 'defence review'. The embarrassment caused by the Falklands war and the partial reversal of policy has resulted in the term being exorcised from Whitehall vocabulary."
The final paragraph says:
"muddling through, salami-slicing, and increasing 'multiple ear-marking' will increasingly make the task of balancing foreign and defence policy more difficult. Sooner or later, a defence review will become necessary, whatever title it is given. The primary task of such a review will need to be the development of a clear conceptual framework for strategic policy, which at present seems to be absent."
An academic may be easily dismissed, but Field Marshal Lord Bramall, speaking in another place, said:
"When I was Chief of the Defence Staff eight years ago"—
under a Tory Government—
"I led the Defence Staff in a number of strategic studies on all the various parts of the world, trying to establish what was important, what was of special interest and what was of less concern and of lower priority. All that would have been a great help in establishing the sort of guidelines that have been mentioned this evening."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 March 1994; Vol.553, c. 293.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. May I inquire of the hon. Gentleman whether the remarks of Lord Bramall that he is quoting were made in this Session? If so, it is not open to him to quote them.
Dr. Reid: Those remarks were made in this Session, but they have been quoted at considerable length in a newspaper, so I shall continue reading not from Hansard but from a newspaper article which Field Marshal Lord Bramall wrote, where he quoted himself as saying:
"All that would have been a great help in establishing the sort of guidelines that have been mentioned this evening."
Then—this is the significant part—he added:
"Although those exercises were treated with polite interest, no Minister was prepared to sign up to them, so they never saw the light of day."
That is not an academic; that is a field marshal.
Finally, I come to the modern equivalent of Pravda, that well-known left-wing newspaper run by the well-known Marxist-Leninist from Glasgow, Mr. Andrew Neil. I believe that he has gone to somewhere called Fox—I make no further comment. He said:
"A proper defence review is needed."
This is The Sunday Times, not the Labour party. He continued:
"The Foreign Office fears it, because it would mean Britain's withdrawal from areas such as Cyprus, where we maintain a post-imperial pretence. The government as a whole resists it because it fears the political consequences."
[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Hon. Members need not tell me that it is rubbish; they should tell Mr. Neil of The Sunday Times: he wrote this.
He went on:
"The government as a whole resists it because it fears the political consequences."
[Interruption.] The anger coming from the Conservative
752
Benches shows that there is nothing worse than a lover spurned when The Sunday Times turns on the Tory party. Mr. Neil continued:
"France, more historically aware of its vulnerability and fearful of the dangers of Islamic revolution close to home, has carried out such a review and increased its projected defence spending as a result."
Note the words
"has carried out such a review and increased its projected defence spending as a result."
The quotation from The Sunday Times continues:
"Britain should follow suit. We are still a military force to be reckoned with, as Bosnia, the Gulf and the Falklands conflicts show. But the rot in Britain's armed forces has gone on for too long. There are no generals or admirals still in command who believe Britain has the right forces to perform all the duties currently demanded of them. Simply reducing a layer of top brass does nothing to remedy that. This time, a U-turn in policy really is needed."
Admirals, field marshals, academics, leader writers, politicians, pundits, experts, service men, service women, the Select Committee and every major political party all know that a full defence review is needed, yet the Government stand against it.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Reid: I shall finish my point, and then I shall let the hon. Gentleman in, as he is the Chairman of the Select Committee.
I could understand the Government's attitude if making a U-turn was an extraordinary exception to their normal course of action, but U-turns have now become the norm. What is so different about a defence review? The Government have U-turned on everything; the Prime Minister has changed his mind on everything. For the sake of service men and women in the British armed forces, why can he not change his mind on the defence review, and let us make a rational attempt to analyse our commitments and to match them with our resources?
I now give way to the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor).
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want inadvertently to mislead the House. The current Defence Select Committee has not called for a defence review, and will not do so.
Dr. Reid: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the position. The Select Committee has not used those exact words.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): Withdraw.
Dr. Reid: The Minister wants me to withdraw. If what I have said offends anyone, of course I withdraw it.
What the hon. Member for Upminster says means that there are at least four people in Britain who agree with the Minister—or perhaps more; I do not know what the majority on the Select Committee is: there may be six. The fact remains that everyone else has called for a defence review. And anyone who reads the reports of the Select Committee, written by the hon. Member for Upminster and his colleagues, cannot but come to the conclusion that the Committee would at least see a defence review as beneficial.

753
What astonishes me more is the absolute commitment by the Chairman of the Select Committee that the Committee never will call for a defence review. If it is not discourteous for me to say so, that seems presumptuous.
While the Minister sets about dismantling our military support structures, nothing is being done to relieve the growing burden on our front-line forces. I shall not labour that point, because it was made earlier by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). For the Minister to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that there is no overstretch flies in the face of everything that everyone knows, including —I hope that the Minister is listening—the Select Committee, which has probably been the Government's biggest critic on that subject.
According to the analysis produced by General Sir Martin Farndale last October—I presume that Ministers have seen it-48 battalion-sized units would be required to cover the commitments in the emergency tour plot, which at that time did not include the extra battalion sent to Bosnia, and to provide a 24–month tour gap, which the Government say they want.
A further 16 battalions are required to cover other garrison and training duties, and to act as a force reserve for Northern Ireland. That means that a total of 64 battalions are required to meet all commitments. The hon. Member for Canterbury raised the matter earlier, and Sir Martin Farndale laid it out in specific detail.
Although the British Army will have 67 infantry, Royal Armoured Corps and Royal Artillery battalions, only 45 of them will be large enough to complete tours without being significantly reinforced. That will have two consequences. First, the Government's claim to be able to achieve a 20–month emergency tour gap will be little more than a cruel fiction. Secondly, at any given moment, units from each of the British Army's eight brigades will all be in the middle of completing an emergency tour.
In summary, Farndale argues that the minimum number of battalions is 64, and the minimum number of troops required is not 119,000, as the Government say, but 132,000, which I believe is much nearer to the figures suggested by the Select Committee. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the Chairman of the Select Committee agrees with me about that.
Mr. Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is a Labour commitment to add those numbers back?
Dr. Reid: I absolutely confirm that it is a Labour commitment to provide resources to match our commitments. [Laughter.] I should have thought that that was what all hon. Members wanted—to match our resources to our commitments. If we do not do that, the people who suffer will be not Members of Parliament but those who have to suffer the demoralising working practices that the hon. Member for Canterbury, a member of the Minister's own party, has described.
Even the Minister must know that there is a complete lack of morale in the armed forces. It is often said that the Queen must think that the world smells of fresh paint; no doubt, when the Minister makes his visits, his world, too, smells of fresh paint. But during his visits to units of the Army throughout the country, even he must have detected
754
the sense of demoralisation, uncertainty and overstretch. It does not stop the soldiers carrying out their duties in a professional manner, but it is dangerous in the long run.
Mr. Hanley: May I tell the House and the hon. Gentleman yet again—I believe that I have told the House the same thing on five separate occasions during the last six months—that, on the basis of current commitments, we expect infantry tour intervals to be 17 months in 1994–95 and 24 months in 1995–96. That will be after the completion of draw-down.
If the second battalion in Bosnia were not replaced, intervals would be 20 months in 1994–95 and 30 months in 1995–96. On the assumption that the second battalion is replaced—we have not made that decision yet—the target of 24 months is still achievable. When I replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury earlier, I acknowledged that of course certain units and individuals are overstretched, but it is not our policy for that to happen, and we shall continue to investigate every time we hear that it is happening.
Dr. Reid: That is the argument between us. The Minister says that he expects something to happen, or that it is the Government's policy for it to happen, but I say that it will not happen on the basis of the present figures. That is the bone of contention between us, so it is no good the Minister saying, "I repeat what I have said before." I am producing the figures based on the calculation made by Sir Martin Farndale, who goes through all the figures and shows a shortfall of about 12,000.
Perhaps for once the Minister is right; time will tell. If we achieve the 24–month tour interval, I shall accept that graciously. But we both agree that, in the meantime, there is overstretch. That goes without saying, because we have not met the target—and I doubt whether it can be met.
I have spoken at considerable length—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I know that many hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, want to speak. They always complain that few Opposition Members speak on military matters, so I know that they would be more than happy for me to continue for another hour. [Interruption.] Their cries of abuse make me think that perhaps they do not want to tempt me to do so.
It is a cliché to say that we live in a changing and challenging world, but it is true. That world is also fantastic and yet fraught—but it does not pay to be too pessimistic, as we sometimes are. Over the year that has passed since the previous Army debate, two glaring examples have given us reason for optimism.
At the time of the previous debate, in view of the long and apparently intractable problem in the middle east, few would have thought that we should see the Prime Minister of Israel and the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation standing side by side on the White House lawn. We can take heart from the thought that the long struggle to reconcile the security of Israel with the national rights of the Palestinians, while by no means over, is at least now being conducted within a framework of peace.
Secondly, we can take heart from the fact that the long dark night of apartheid in South Africa has apparently ended. Although there are still many hills to climb in the search for full democracy, reconciliation and reconstruction in that country, at least the foothills of freedom have been scaled.

755
There are reasons for optimism, but there are many reasons why we should not be complacent either. Earlier today I saw, as no doubt many hon. Members did, television pictures of what is happening in Rwanda. I was staggered by those photographs. I am also slightly staggered by the apparent indifference in the west to what is going on in Rwanda.
I do not suggest that there is a racial element, but I and my party believe that the appalling slaughter of innocent people in Rwanda must be stopped. We believe that the United Nations and the Organisation of African Unity need to organise the immediate deployment of military forces to try to end the genocide. The death of a Rwandan child is just as tragic as the death of a Bosnian child, and we must not allow either to be ignored.
There are problems elsewhere in the world, such as Somalia and the Maghreb, with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. There are problems in Asia, where there is now a huge arms race, disputes over the Spratney isles, potential conflict with North Korea, and friction between India and Pakistan.
There are problems in the Transcaucasus, such as the forgotten war involving Azerbaijan. It does not reach our television screens, yet hundreds of thousands of refugees have been thrown off the land, supposedly because of the issue of Nagorny Karabakh. There is the problem of Georgia where any spark could once again ignite the civil war between the Georgians and the Abkhazians. All those are indications of an insecure world.
In central America, we are withdrawing troops from Belize. We ask the Government to reiterate our commitment to Belize at every possible stage. There is genuine concern on both sides that we should not make the mistake of allowing the troop withdrawal from Belize to fall into the pattern of the withdrawal of HMS Endurance. There are signs that, once again, Guatemala is flexing its muscles. Anything that can be done to reiterate our commitment to Belize, even if only ensuring that, when Harriers go to South American air shows, they stop over in Belize, would be welcomed by the Opposition and by many Conservative Members.
With all those issues, not to mention Bosnia, there has never been a greater need—I come back to the point about the United Nations with which I starteed—for clarity of thought, definition of strategy, provision of resources and resolution of will. Tragically, none of those qualities has been provided at national level under this Government.
Britain is therefore completely unable to play its part at the heart of international decision-making—where it should be—on these issues. We believe that the Government are failing the House, the country as a whole and, above all, the men and women who are the subject of today's debate—the men and women who serve in the British Army.
5.42 pm
Mr. Tom King: The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) has addressed the House for one hour and eight minutes. I have heard him make shorter speeches; I have to tell him that I do not think that they suffered from being shorter.
I appreciated the anecdote that the hon. Gentleman told about one of my predecessors in office—Lord Healey. It confirmed a lot for many of us when he told the story about the way in which Lord Healey made up the figures when
756
he was asked to count the numbers getting off trains at Swindon station. The story showed the sublime indifference to the facts that marked some of his later utterances in the House, including those made during the period when he was on the Back Benches. The feature that many of us appreciated about Lord Healey was the way in which he boldly faced out any suggestion that there was any tiny weakness in Labour defence policy at any time. Referring to the Labour party conference at which motions that he did not like were passed, he spoke of party members being out of their tiny Chinese minds.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North was speaking in the fine tradition of Lord Healey when he described Labour defence policy as though the decisions taken by overwhelming majorities at Labour party conference were of no interest to the Labour party and the House, and of no consequence to the shadow Cabinet, whose members had blithely dismissed those decisions. Labour defence policy is as hollow and empty as the Benches behind the hon. Gentleman today. I am sure that he is more than relieved that this debate is taking place on a day when most of his hon. Friends—or all his hon. Friends—who profoundly disagree with him about defence policy can be absent from this place. It is symbolic that the Conservative Benches are packed with hon. Members who take a close interest in the defence of this country and that the Opposition Benches are virtually vacant. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday in the House, the issue of a strong defence for our country is one on which Conservative Members are wholly united.
I pay the warmest possible tribute—hon. Members will understand that, coming from me, that is no platitude—to the men and women of our armed forces. As today's debate is on the Army, I pay the warmest possible tribute to the Army. This is a difficult time for the Army's leaders and commanders, it is a difficult time for morale and it is a time of change which poses particular challenges. I have the greatest respect for the professional way in which the Army has addressed the challenges that it faces. I also pick up the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Minister to the way in which General Sir Michael Rose is carrying out his duties in the eye of the storm and under the eye of world public opinion. He is doing no harm to the profession of arms as it is recognised in this country. I had the privilege of having him as a brigadier with me in Northern Ireland when I first went there, so I know something of the great quality and calibre that he brings to his task.
I apologise to the House for the fact that I am about to quote some words that I wrote on 23 July 1991 in the foreword to the White Paper, "Britain's Army for the 90s":
"Our commitment remains clear; an Army for the 90s and beyond, smaller but better-equipped and supported, fully manned and well able to meet its commitments at home and abroad, and to provide for our security in the future as it has done so well in the past."
The assessment on which that foreword drew was the recognition that we had changed from the previous structure of our forces, which was designed primarily to cope with the threat of a massive surprise attack in Europe.
I wrote of our forces:
"Now they need to be designed to respond to a wider spread of risks, normally acting in concert with our NATO or Western European Union allies in a coalition of the kind assembled to deal with Iraqi aggression, or in other ways in support of the United Nations. Our forces can be smaller than now, but they must be flexible and mobile, and well-equipped to deal with a range of military capabilities, including the most sophisticated, both inside and outside Europe."

757
I wrote that, in doing the reshaping, we had taken account
"of our Gulf experience which clearly demonstrated the greater value of all-professional forces and the flexibility they offer … The Gulf also demonstrated the vital roles of the supporting Arms and Services, and the need to maintain a proper balance between them and front line armoured and infantry units."
I resile from not a word of those statements in the White Paper.
I draw attention in particular to the importance of fully manned and properly equipped units. It was not always like that. The hon. Member for Motherwell, North referred to the fact that at the time of the Gulf crisis the units that we had were not fully manned. When the reduction in the number of battalions was announced and the suggestion was that we went from 55 to 38, and then to 36, we had the man-strength only for 51 battalions. We were pretending to have a larger front-line force and a larger traditional line of regiment than we were maintaining. The story of the Challenger tanks and the problems that we had in operating at that time were well known. There were also problems of stretch in finance which led to problems on the training side.
The options programme had two factors that helped its reception among our armed forces. First—this was not always the case—once the changes were made, the new structure was fully funded. I attached great importance to that full funding at that time because I had made an announcement of changes, which, over the four-year period under the options programme, were intended to reduce our defence expenditure by 6 per cent. in real terms. Over the previous five years, our expenditure had been reduced by 11.5 per cent. in real terms, not on the basis of making any changes in structure but by significantly reducing the funds available. That is called salami slicing. I sought to stop that and—I say in all seriousness to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench who are facing very difficult challenges—we must ensure that that problem does not reappear. We may change commitments, we may alter structures and we must define where those economies will fall and how they will fall, but we owe it to our smaller armed forces to ensure that they have the proper level of equipment, the proper level of training and the proper level of resource needed in support of their activities.
We kept our promise on the full funding of the programme. I believe that we kept the promise—it is now in the good hands of my hon. Friend the Minister and I look to him to maintain that promise—of properly equipped forces. We have opportunities today because of the Challenger programme, with the Warrior, with the AS90, with the Starstreak, with important logistic support such as DROPS—the demountable rack offloading and pickup system—which proved itself so significantly in the Gulf, with the new communications system, with the light attack helicopters and with heavier lift capability. Those resources, with their new capabilities and with the new quality of equipment, can make our Army of the 1990s the best equipped that it has ever been. That is an undertaking and a pledge that I know my hon. Friends support and which the Government—I am pleased to see—have continued to maintain.
May I also draw attention to the implication that flows from "Front Line First"? The supporting arms are vital. In
758
opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister referred to the quality of the logistic troops in Split and said that they were vital to our operation in Bosnia.
Let us consider the capabilities shown in the Gulf. Of course media attention focuses on the teeth arms, but the teeth arms know that back-up support is absolutely vital, whether in the signals, the ordnance or in the catering corps —the latter, incidentally, was vastly superior to anything that our allies had, with the possible exception of the French, who were too far away for accurate comparison, and certainly enormously superior to anything that the United States could offer. That combination of proper support facilities comprises both those in uniform and those in civilian clothing. I know that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North studies these matters, but I do not think that he was as familiar as he should have been with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton).
One particular point about the Gulf conflict concerns the amount of good technicians and capable civilian support out there, whether they worked for Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace, Vickers, GEC Marconi or Racal. I told the various companies before the conflict started, when we first saw the possibility of being involved in deploying substantial resources in the Gulf, that there was no point in spending a lot of money on expensive shows, stands and demonstrations and on entertaining those responsible for procurement decisions—or in whatever ways they spent their money on sales promotion after it was all over. I told them that the biggest show of military equipment was about to be launched, that the Gulf conflict was the biggest practical exhibition and that it was vastly in their interests, in the national interest and in the interest of our international responsibilities to ensure that their equipment served our forces as it was expected to do.
That message clearly got home. I said that to the chairmen of all the major companies and they responded magnificently. The people working with them gave outstanding support. That was not a one-off; I judge that it will be a continuing feature. With the increasing sophistication of military equipment, there will undoubtedly be a call for additional support for our forces from the civilian side.
When we consider the structure of our armed forces, it is, I suppose, not very difficult now to be persuaded of the case for flexibility. There is a continual tension over planning in the Ministry of Defence—a tension between the need to plan for high-intensity operations and the constant pull of the more frequent, low-intensity operations. There is the pull of Northern Ireland, which continually draws us into low-intensity operations. We do not deploy artillery in Northern Ireland; we do not deploy tanks there. It is not that sort of operation.
Of course, Bosnia and peacekeeping in its various forms are taking us in that same direction. In that sense, and only in that sense, I thank God for the Gulf war, which reminded us or warned us that suddenly one may find the need for high-intensity conflict and the ability to organise and combine all the arms, which are needed for such a sophisticated military operation. On the day on which the European fighter aircraft is taking its first official flight in Britain and when people may be inclined to challenge the need for more sophisticated equipment, it is worth noting that the Gulf war also taught us and warned us that we may not be fighting or facing the full might of the Soviet Union, with all its sophisticated arms programmes, but that those

759
arms and others like it are sold to many other countries with which we may find ourselves in conflict and which we may need to face.
I listened to the comments that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North unwisely launched into at the end of his speech about the Scott inquiry and I recalled that, at the start of the Gulf war, the French Mirage jets were not able to fly in the opening aerial exchanges because the French had already sold Mirage jets to the Iraqis. The hon. Gentleman referred to the arms that we sold to Iraq. We do not sell a single weapon to Iraq and he knows that. Yet other countries did. It is no secret about the Mirage jets. I have a photograph of myself standing on the dock in Al Jubail next to a large load of missiles marked with the label Aerospatiale and stamped with the date February 1990 and the code number AM38. Any Conservative Member who is familiar with the military will know that they are Exocet missiles which had been recovered from the Iraqis.
That warns us that sophisticated weapons can fall into other hands and is why we must always ensure—it is a heavy responsibility for my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench—that our service men are not at a disadvantage if we ask them to stand up for international peace and justice. We must ensure that they have the equipment to give them the protection which they need and which is able to compete against anything that they may meet.
Mr. Eric Martlew: We shall wait for the outcome of the Scott inquiry. However, there is no doubt that at my local airport, we trained Iraqi pilots who flew against us during the Gulf war.
Mr. King: There were Iraqi Airways pilots. I flew with them. That was the only way in which, as I remember, one could get in and out of Baghdad. Over the years, we traded with Baghdad businesses when we did not have sanctions. Many British companies were actively involved in trade with Baghdad and we certainly trained Iraqi pilots. When I flew into Iraq at that time, I was slightly reassured by the fact that their pilots were well trained. They were civilian pilots doing their work. The hon. Gentleman is trying to use that diversion to excuse the casual description and quite incorrect allegation of his hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North that we sold arms to Iraq. I am glad that we have made that point quite clear.
The Ministry of Defence and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State have produced a document that sets out helpfully the way in which commitments arise and the way in which they are met. There is a trap in that approach because, if some of the commitments come to an end and there are changes—Belize is one example, Hong Kong is another and Germany, and numbers in Germany, could be another—the inference might be drawn that it would be right further to reduce the level of our armed forces.
In terms of the options programme, I always regarded the end of the cold war as a move to the position in which we now find ourselves. Broadly speaking, we are where we should be in peacetime post cold war.
We would be foolish to anticipate or expect an end to the violence in Northern Ireland. We all know of the British Army's commitment and of the tremendous role that it has played in Northern Ireland. If there were a ceasefire and a permanent cessation of violence, some voices would no doubt suggest that there was an
760
opportunity for a further significant reduction in the Army. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends would not be so foolish as to anticipate in any way a change in Northern Ireland. The future is far from clear, and the responsibility, as it were, for change lies elsewhere: it is for the IRA and Sinn Fein to cease their campaign of violence. Were there to be a cessation of violence, I would strongly urge my right hon. and hon. Friends not to see that as an opportunity for a further significant reduction in our armed forces.
The approach of the Government and of individual Ministers in seeking to identify savings where they can be made is the right one. I urge them to announce the results of their investigations and examinations as soon as they conveniently can. We heard the flippant remarks of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North, but he has never had the responsibility of government. He does not know the range of considerations that are involved in the massive exercise that the Government are undertaking.
It will be an impressive achievement if the results of the exercise can be produced as early as July. It is important that the Government strive for that early date, precisely for the reason outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier).
We are entitled to expect from our armed forces discipline and good co-operation at difficult times. In all my dealings with the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence I found that they understood the need for change, but they looked for guidance. They needed to know where they were going—where their path was leading and where it would end. Given the need to make further savings, and bearing in mind the changes that are in hand, I urge that an announcement should be made as early as possible so that those involved know clearly how things stand.
I stand second to none in my admiration of the way in which our forces have coped. I recognise the problems in relation to adequate tour intervals and the related problem of stretch, which I realise will arise during the period of change and with the amalgamation of some units and the reforming of others. The problems raised by Bosnia are less than welcome because they are clearly an additional burden. I understand that the present situation is extremely difficult and places a heavy responsibility on our forces —a responsibility greater than I would have wished them to carry. It would not be acceptable if we did not see an end to the present state of affairs. As I see the period of change coming to an end, I hope that we shall move towards the tour intervals that are essential for our forces.
As I have said, we ask much of our forces and they discharge their obligation superbly. We owe it to them to provide the clearest possible programme for their future. They should know that they have the overwhelming confidence of the House and that we support them in the tasks that we ask them to undertake.
6.4 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I yield to no one in the importance that I attach to single service debates of this sort. I cannot resist the view, however—it may be shared elsewhere—that to some extent our discussions take place in a vacuum. We know, for example, that in July further announcements are scheduled to be made which may well affect the Army. However, I do not propose to go down the road followed by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. I am content to wait until the

761
announcements are made. We shall then be better able to test ministerial assertions that capability will not be affected.
On this occasion, as on virtually every occasion since the "Options for Change" announcement was made in the House in July 1990, there is a dispute about whether a defence review is desirable. The hon. Member for Motherwell, North cited several authorities—academics and others—in support of his proposition. I can add to them the Financial Times of 27 April 1994. Perhaps it is not quite the compelling authority that it once was in the view of Conservative Members following the position that it adopted shortly before the general election, but we find in a leading article on 27 April the following:
"In short, there is no cohesion of European thought or action, and little underlying agreement on the future presence in Europe of US forces. A proper white paper would set out the foreign policy options and the defence decisions that flow from them. The starting point would be to focus British eyes on both Nato and the European Union. That is more important"—
the writer continues with a degree of cynicism that I would not necessarily support—
"than the defence of Tory seats in a borough or two."
An article in The Economist of 30 April 1994 stated:
"With the world changing fast, and war apparently as popular as ever, Britain sorely needs a fresh review of its military commitments. Such a review, for instance, would decide whether Britain should continue equipping itself for every type of warfare. A possible alternative would be for Britain and its NATO allies to plan together so that each specialised in particular strengths. Thus Britain might maintain a sizeable fleet and amphibious ability, but leave heavy armour to others. In any case, much deeper Treasury cuts would probably make such specialisation inevitable."
It is inevitable that the intellectual argument will continue about whether what the Government are proposing to do is based on a rigorous analysis of commitment. In due course we shall have a debate on a White Paper—after the defence costs study announcements have been made, I hope—and there will be an opportunity for a more wide-ranging discussion of strategic issues of the kind to which I have referred briefly. Today, however, I shall concentrate—I consider this to be appropriate—on the Army. I am surprised that so far—to some extent this was contradicted by the right hon. Member for Bridgend—
Mr. King: Bridgwater.
Mr. Campbell: Yes—the right hon. Gentleman would not make much of a Welshman at Cardiff Arms Park.
I am surprised that we have not concentrated more on procurement. If flexibility and mobility are truly to form the basis upon which our Army is equipped to meet future tasks, surely procurement lies at the heart of that approach. I believe that there is an overwhelming moral obligation on the House to ensure that when we send men—and, increasingly, women—into circumstances in which their lives are at risk, they are properly equipped.
As the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said, there are practical considerations. Events in the former Soviet Union have brought significant amounts of military equipment—some of it highly advanced—on to the market. That equipment has become widely dispersed. One of the factors is the effect of the conventional forces in Europe treaty, which has only added to the volume of equipment coming on to the market. I think that no one in
762
this place would depart from the principle on which the right hon. Member for Bridgwater took his stand—that it is essential that United Kingdom forces are never at a disadvantage, wherever they have to be deployed.
We have not always acquitted ourselves well in procurement policy. There should be a sign reading, "Remember the SA80" above the desk of every civil servant and every service man or service woman in the armed forces with responsibility for procurement. We can hardly be proud of the history of that weapon's development, production or experience under battle conditions. It is generally accepted that it has become an extremely effective weapon, but there is little doubt—the report of the Select Committee on Defence made this eloquently clear—that it could hardly be regarded as a paradigm of good procurement.
I hope that the Minister will tell us how close he is to making an announcement on the attack helicopter and the support helicopter. If flexibility and mobility are to lie at the heart of the Army that we seek to fashion for the remainder of this century, early decisions on those two important projects, which have considerable consequences for employment and the leading edge of technology, would be highly desirable.
Some hon. Members have referred to the lessons of the Gulf. I agree with the right hon. Member for Bridgwater about the civilians who assisted the effort in the Gulf. The hon. Member for Motherwell, North might have been on stronger ground if he had told the House that the civilians who assisted in the Gulf were British citizens and were taking part in an operation which had almost universal political support in the United Kingdom. He might have said that it would be unwise to rely on local support in Cyprus, just as some of us feel anxiety about the need to rely on merchant shipping sailing under flags of convenience for the transport of equipment in time of war.
The whole of the 1st British Corps had to be stripped to field the armoured division in the Gulf. I hope and trust that we have learnt the lesson of that experience. In addition, we had become so committed to the central front that much of the equipment was suitable for a land battle in western Europe but unsuited to the climate or terrain in the Gulf. In the procurement of equipment, therefore, one should bear in mind that equipment may have to be used in various scenarios and theatres.
The United Kingdom has command of the rapid reaction corps. I think it is fair to say that that appointment was accorded a considerable amount of political significance. Certain obligations go with that command. The UK has an obligation to provide most of the corps' headquarters staff and to contribute substantially to its forces. A strong body of opinion believes that the decision to accept that command and its obligations has to a substantial extent shaped the size and nature of the Army for the foreseeable future. If we are engaged in a radical review of commitments, as I believe that we should be, we should ask whether the continuing command of that corps is justified.
Events have moved on since September 1990, when the UK was first asked to take up that command. The original anxiety about the Eurocorps has substantially diminished and its commitment to NATO now seems unequivocal. As the NATO summit in January authorised joint task force operations, whereby European members can use the full facilities of NATO without the involvement of the United

763
States, one must again ask what is the justification for the rapid reaction corps and why Britain should continue to command it.
Another feature is the continuing deficiency in strategic uplift capacity, which has an effect on the potential effectiveness of the corps. The fundamental question to which the House and, I hope, the Government should address themselves is whether it is right that the shape of the Army should be so dependent on the fact that the United Kingdom has command of that formation.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) speaks with great authority on defence matters and I am sorry that he is no longer in the Chamber. I had to disagree with him on the issue of the tactical air-to-surface missile, but there have been many occasions when I have agreed with him. He made a telling point when he raised the issue of the continued presence of the British Army in Germany. I wonder whether he feels so strongly and so radically about the Royal Air Force. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement will remember that I raised that subject in the Royal Air Force debate earlier this year.
The Government should embark on such radical thinking. Unlike others, I do not lay great stress on what appears in The Sunday Times, but there was a hint of such radical thinking in that newspaper last Sunday. If that hint reflects what is being thought in the Ministry of Defence, I applaud that thinking because it is the type of radical thinking that is now required.
In the course of his observations, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood referred to what seemed like a possible amalgamation of the Gurkhas and the Gordons. I do not know the Gurkhas that well; knowing the Gordons, however, I think that it would be a pretty curious amalgamation. To some extent, the hon. Gentleman's argument was borne out in the figures quoted by the Minister. It is notable that if the second battalion continues to be deployed to Bosnia, the effect will be to neutralise the withdrawal from Belize.
We all want the 24–month interval between emergency tours—that is generally accepted by the Army as being a suitable period—but even on the figures produced it seemed to rest on a pretty fragile foundation. For that reason, the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that those who are anxious to preserve the Gordons and the Queen's Own Highlanders are arguing, even at this stage, for a reprieve for both regiments. The amalgamation is scheduled to take place on 17 September this year, so the Government still have time. If that reprieve were granted, it would go a long way towards assisting the fragile basis on which the 24–month figure is proposed. Far be it from me to offer political advice to the Government, but it would also do no harm to their political reputation north of the Tweed.
Mr. Gale: I fear that I have to take the hon. and learned Gentleman back a little. I was waiting for a natural break in his speech, but it did not happen; it has been a seamless speech. He referred to the allied rapid reaction corps and he read from an article in the Financial Times which seemed broadly to suggest that there was no cohesive European approach to defence. As the allied rapid reaction corps represents probably the epitome of what is regarded as modern response to modern needs, is the hon. and learned Gentleman seriously suggesting that the ARRC is not
764
necessary? If he is not, it is surely right that it should be led by one of the best generals from the best Army in the world.
Mr. Campbell: The military academies in France might dispute the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's comments. If he is saying that, within a common foreign and security policy leading a common defence, to echo the words of the Maastricht treaty, there may be something approaching a rapid reaction corps, there is some substance in his view, but I argue that the British assumption of the responsibility of command has had the effect of substantially skewing the Army's shape for the foreseeable future.
When we are considering radical and long-lasting decisions, the continuing responsibility for that and the consequences for the British Army must be the subject of considerable review. I believe that there are military and political implications. It may be, for aught yet seen, that there is no military justification for that. However, there may be a political justification. If that is the case, we should have that debate so that we understand precisely why such a substantial part of our resources is being moved in that direction.
In the past 12 months, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, who I am sure will endeavour to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I had the opportunity to visit Northern Ireland and the former Yugoslavia and I want to say a word about each.
One of the things that struck me in Northern Ireland —I am not sure whether others have had the same experience—was the maturity of the relatively young men and women who were essentially in the front line of the Army's operations there. As one might expect, I was impressed by the quality of leadership of the senior officers. However, I was particularly impressed by the quality of leadership at non-commissioned officer level. Very frequently, the NCOs leading patrols on the street face the most difficult decisions which require judgment, maturity, common sense and good humour. We rely substantially upon those people. One of the features of my visit to Northern Ireland was that I came away lost in admiration at the quality of people whom we are still able to find to fulfil dangerous and demanding tasks of that kind.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater was right to say that if there is a political settlement it will have consequences for the Army's commitments in Northern Ireland, though for my part I find it difficult to envisage circumstances in which there would not still be the resident battalions, but perhaps that is a discussion that we can have on another occasion. As the right hon. Member for Bridgwater rightly said, the consequence of a political settlement should not be the justification for yet another financial raid on the defence budget. Instead, it should be the means of providing greater flexibility on the emergency tour plot and, if necessary, of enabling us to meet further calls upon us, as a permanent member of the Security Council, to provide forces for United Nations operations.
In the meantime, I repeat a point which I believe will find some sympathy with the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton). There is surely an extent to which some of the tasks currently carried out by the military in Northern Ireland could be undertaken by the civilian authorities without prejudicing security. That must

765
be the determining factor. If steps could be taken in that direction, that could well have the consequence of creating greater flexibility.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces very properly drew attention to the fact that, while much is made of the quality of the infantry battalions in Bosnia, the quality of the logistical support is not often sufficiently recognised. Having visited Split with the Defence Select Committee, it was clear to me that a substantial part of the success that the infantry battalions have enjoyed has been due to the quality of that support. While we were in Split, we were told of a battalion, offered by a country whose anonymity I should preserve, which Brigadier Reith was unable to accept or to deploy because it came without support and, as a consequence, would have been not an advantage to his effort, but a disadvantage. The importance of support and the point at which support and the front line run together are clearly matters of considerable significance.
I welcome the fact that reserves will be deployed to the Falklands. If we argue that such deployment is a contribution to the overall defence of the United Kingdom, we must allow people of sufficient quality who are sufficiently well equipped and trained the opportunity to deploy in the kind of circumstances in which we might ask them to deploy if an emergency arose. I hope that the Government will take as many opportunities as possible, consistent with the civilian obligations of members of the reserves, to allow people that experience.
I understand that an effort is being made to extract something from the budget of the War Graves Commission. If that is true, I do not care much for the timing of the proposal, given that we are about to celebrate the 50th anniversary of D-day.
The two principal war grave cemeteries that I have visited are Arnhem and Alamein. There is no doubt that the quality of maintenance of those graves and cemeteries is remarkable to behold. One could argue with some justification that that is intrinsically right and proper. There is another more practical and perhaps less theoretical argument. When the friends and relations of those who died in battle visit those cemeteries, they derive some comfort from the fact that their sons and husbands and friends are still being properly looked after. I hope, therefore, that the Government will think very carefully before embarking on any argument about a reduction in the War Graves Commission budget which might be seen as cheeseparing and an insufficient reflection of the fact that in this year, of all years, there is a considerable sense among the citizens of the United Kingdom that many people gave their lives so that we could continue to enjoy our freedoms.
On these occasions, there is a ritual of congratulation in respect of our armed forces and, in particular, in respect of the Army. However, we should never forget that every day, somewhere, men—and, increasingly, women—in the Army are at risk of their lives. It is sometimes easy to forget that fact in our abstract discussions of concepts such as force structures and deterrence. If the risks run by those who serve are not constantly in our minds, they are surely constantly in the minds of their families—and those who serve are entitled to expect of us not just good wishes but sound judgment as well.
6.26 pm
Sir Archibald Hamilton: May I begin by declaring an interest in that I work as a consultant to Litton Industries which, among other things, makes navigation and guidance systems, and for Saladin, which is in the business of personal protection and security.
I pay tribute to the soldiers who serve in our Army across the world. We undoubtedly have the finest soldiers of any country today. They put themselves at very great risk and one is full of admiration for the discipline and very high professionalism that they demonstrate.
I want to refer to the defence cost studies which are now under way and about which we hope, as this was expressed earlier in the House, we will hear an announcement before we rise for the summer recess. I must confess that I was a rather doubting Thomas about those cost studies. It struck me that much too much money would have to be found. As the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) observed, we have tried to find savings before. I thought that it would be very difficult to find the quantities of money that were being talked about.
I am happy to say that I have probably been proved wrong and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on the way in which he has managed to get the services to work with him on what has amounted to a quite significant review of our support elements in the three armed services. He has managed to do that quite subtly. He is using their ideas. There is no doubt that an awful lot of the initiatives have come from the services themselves and that makes them that much more acceptable to the people who will ultimately be affected. He has also taken advantage of the fact—under the "Front Line First" measures—that the service boards have always been made up primarily of front line people. So there is not much affection for the support units but there is a great deal of affection for the fighting units, and if it comes to a choice the service boards will be more than happy to look stringently at what economies can be made in support areas to preserve front line units.
We have been over this ground before, and some of the old excuses are probably starting to slip away. One of the difficulties that we always used to face was the idea of transition to war, which was the reason given for keeping large numbers of men in uniform. The idea was that if we started thinking of going to war it would be possible to call up these men and to ensure that they came under military discipline if we entered a war zone—there would be no problem with people refusing to go. That problem can be finessed by changing the Reserve Forces Act 1980, and I sincerely hope that the Government will introduce legislation to that effect as soon as possible.
If the Act is updated, there is no reason why any civilian company performing the task of maintaining aircraft or tanks should not have a reserve liability. Then, if we went to war, these people could be called up and subjected to military discipline just as if they were in uniform all the time. That would be a significant step forward. The Gulf war showed the readiness of civilians to operate in support roles. The hon. Member for Motherwell, North need have no anxiety that tanks could not be maintained by civilians close to the front line, because their reserve liability would be invoked. That is a way around many problems.
In the past we faced enormous difficulties because the single service ethos often meant that people fought their own corners. I attempted to get the Royal Naval technical

767
college at Manadon moved to Shrivenham, so that all three services could undergo their technical training there. I encountered a certain resistance from the Navy, which explained to me that the move was not possible because people at Shrivenham all wore plain clothes and went around like civilians, whereas there was a great naval tradition that everyone should wear uniform.
I took the idea back to Shrivenham and asked what could be done about it. I was told, "No problem; we will ensure that everyone here wears uniform from now on." I went back and told the Navy, but the Navy said, "We must go away and think about this." In the end the Navy returned and agreed to Manadon being closed down but suggested that the alternative should be a technical course at Southampton university, where all naval trainees would be in plain clothes.
I should not have thought, either, that there was too much problem about bringing all the padres together. They could all be trained in the same place, surely. It is not too presumptuous to think that they all believe in the same God, although they may serve different arms of the forces.
The same can be said of doctors. I am greatly concerned about the costs associated with the military hospitals around the country—and they are even more expensive in Germany. A hard look should be taken at those costs. We do not need very many doctors to go off with our units abroad; we do need doctors if ever we go to war. So the whole idea of reserve doctors should be looked at carefully. I question whether we need the massive medical corps that we have in the Army and the number of military hospitals that go with it.
I am glad that it is proving possible to take a look at the staff colleges. In the past people felt strongly, in the single services, that they had to be preserved at whatever cost. The RAF never stops telling me about how unique Bracknell was, although there was no shortage of money men to remind us of the development potential of the significant number of acres in Berkshire on which it sat. I hope that the Government will carefully consider consolidating the staff colleges in one place. Admittedly, Greenwich presents a maintenance problem; it has so many preserved and listed buildings. But perhaps it can be moved to some other Department.
There are rumours in the newspapers, which I have no reason to disbelieve, to the effect that a close look is being taken at the support elements of the RAF. I should like to enter a caveat as follows: if they are civilianised—I am sure that there will be opportunities for that—the MOD should not allow a monopoly to a civilian supplier so that it becomes difficult to conduct subsequent competition for the work. It is most important that the work be put out to tender again in a few years' time, and that there should still be a viable competition for it.
Mr. Brazier: May I put an allied point to my right hon. Friend? When we consider contractorising military functions, with sponsored military units, both for that reason and because of the lack of surge capability in civilian industry, is it not essential that units should not be sponsored by the very defence suppliers who supply their equipment? That could lead to a monopoly in peace time, exercised by a supplier which, in time of war, will be exceptionally busy producing spare parts and so on.
Sir Archibald Hamilton: That is certainly a viable point: there is probably a case for splitting the two functions. What is important is maintaining competitiveness so that there can always be competitive tenders.
I recall the fact that, for a very long time, there were serious problems in the MOD over agreeing about the training of dogs. The RAF maintained that its dogs had to be trained completely differently from Army dogs—it was impossible to bring them under the same roof. I gather that an agency deals with the training of dogs now, so it is highly likely that they will all be trained together at last. It just goes to show what problems there can be.
I must tell those who talk of bringing back the Rhine Army that, although there are theoretically enormous savings to be made, we must face up to the fact that there is not a great surplus of barracks in this country. A massive building programme to house the Rhine Army in the United Kingdom would render any savings illusory for a long time to come, while the capital costs of rehousing the men were absorbed.
I must also tell the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) that there are 300 tanks in the Rhine Army. I am not sure how their return would fit in with the environmental concerns of the Liberals. If they trained in Britain, they might cause a certain amount of difficulty. [Interruption.] Perhaps Fife is the place to put them. I have always taken the view that there are large areas of Scotland where more training could be done.
We have to accept that a third world war is becoming much less likely. Most of NATO's structure and organisation was based on the idea that we might be pitched back into a massive European war—our support structures certainly reflected that possibility. Now, warning times are very much longer, and we cannot dismiss what is happening in Russia either. Today no one believes that Russia's economy will allow it to rebuild its armed forces to the point where they threaten our security—at least, not for a long time to come. It is thus possible to take some risks with the amount of support that we keep, and it is right to examine it in a draconian way, as the Government are doing.
It seems to me likely that savings will be found, and that is extremely encouraging. Let us ensure that they are ploughed back into better equipment and into all the things that lead to "smaller but better", just as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has always advocated. We must accept that the role of our armed forces is changing, and that there is a much greater emphasis on peacekeeping. When we consider what role we should be playing in other parts of the world, we must never forget that we have a massive peacekeeping commitment in Northern Ireland which, I think, is standing at some 18,000 troops.
I was unhappy when the decision was made in 1992 to send two extra battalions to Northern Ireland. The reason for that has been well rehearsed. Those were two enroulement battalions, so we were not just talking about another two battalions, but about eight to 10 battalions which are needed to support them. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will have an opportunity to give an answer when he sums up, but does he have any statistics in terms of terrorist incidents or what has happened in Northern Ireland which prove that those two extra battalions have achieved anything in military terms?

769
I have yet to meet any general who does not want more troops for whatever it is that he happens to be doing, but it is important that we weigh up the effectiveness of those troops. They are not just a free and easy option. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces made clear, we may—if we are lucky with our existing commitments—get to a two-year interval between tours. On the other hand, if there is the slightest change and extra commitments are taken on, we will not get to the 24–month interval. The whole situation is being held tightly.
I was glad to hear that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East backs my view that we should be looking strongly at the civilianisation of a number of jobs which are taken on by the military in Northern Ireland. One classic example is the Maze prison, where an extremely boring guarding job must be done which could easily be done by locals recruited in Northern Ireland where unemployment is astronomically high.
I must tell the hon. and learned Member that it will never happen as long as the job is carried out on the defence budget, as it is at the moment. I cannot see the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland volunteering to take the cost of hiring people locally on to his budget, and that is one of the great difficulties. I have been laughed out of court in the past by saying that the whole of our Northern Ireland commitment should come on to the Northern Ireland budget, and should not be part of the defence budget. There would then be some financial incentive for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to look at a reduction in the number of troops. The Secretary of State wastes no time in ganging up with the GOC in Northern Ireland and demanding more troops and, if he gets them, he knows that they will not cost him anything because they will not come out of his budget.
That leads one to Bosnia, where once again there are two enroulement battalions. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces said that there is every intention of getting one of those battalions back. I was glad to hear that, but I have a great suspicion that in years to come we will still have at least two battalions in Bosnia. One knows the nature of the UN—it is extremely easy to put troops into those areas, but it is very difficult to get them out.
Once again, those are enroulement battalions, so it is not just a question of the two battalions but eight to 10 battalions which are needed to support them. We want flexibility to carry out any tasks relating to peacekeeping or the defence of our interests anywhere in the world, but that flexibility does not exist today. Therefore, we must look hard at our commitments.
I would like to pay great tribute to General Sir Michael Rose for doing absolutely miraculous things with very limited resources in Bosnia, and he has shown enormous courage and resourcefulness. However, I do not think that it would have made any difference to Gorazde if, instead of the maximum of 150 UN troops which were there, there had been 1,500 UN troops. The fact remains that the Serbs had every intention of taking that town back.
We must not believe that there is some magic number of troops which we can put into Bosnia which will stop the Serbs from doing what they want. The great problem is that those who know absolutely nothing about defence, both in
770
the House and particularly in the media, are the ones who tell us that there is a military solution to the problems of Bosnia.
Mr. Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend has touched on an extremely important issue. During the Gorazde affair, there was a garrison of Bosnian Muslim soldiers in the town who were constantly making forays. Not once was that reported, as far as I could see, in the press. Does not that demonstrate that the situation is much more complex than is so often touted both here and in the press?
Sir Archibald Hamilton: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. The press has a great responsibility in this, and there has been enormous pressure for us to deploy troops in Bosnia. I do not think that anybody could know what the final outcome of that would be. I find it worrying that there are still people talking in terms of a massive deployment of troops, as if somehow there was a military solution to the problems.
There is a direct comparison with the 500,000 American troops who were put into a not totally dissimilar situation in Vietnam. There was a civil war, and the troops incurred enormous casualties, got nowhere and had to come back totally defeated. Exactly the same thing happened to similar numbers of Russian troops in Afghanistan. We must learn that we cannot impose solutions on countries which are at war.
We also must accept something which is extremely unpalatable, and it is not something that one wants to say. However, the fact is that since we went into Bosnia we have fed some starving people, but we have also fed the fighting forces in Bosnia. We have kept soldiers alive, and they have been able to continue the fighting. If we had deprived them of food, maybe the whole conflict would have come to an end quicker and maybe fewer people would have died. We may have prolonged the conflict and made it worse.
There are people who say that we should use NATO or lose it. I think that that is the most incredible nonsensical rubbish that I have ever heard. The fact is that NATO has never been used—thank God it has not—but it has acted as an effective deterrent and has maintained peace in Europe for a long time. If we were move to the opposite scenario which some are suggesting of a massive deployment of NATO troops in Bosnia, one can imagine what would happen if serious casualties were incurred there.
What would happen to the NATO alliance? There are many partners in NATO who are not in the business of having large numbers of casualties and bodies coming home because of their involvement in a civil war somewhere in Europe which in no way threatens their security. If we were not careful, the NATO alliance could disintegrate if those troops were deployed.
I hope for heaven's sake that we avoid massive deployments. I have every sympathy for President Clinton who is showing reluctance to get American troops involved on the ground, and we must be wary before we become more involved than we are today. I hope that we do not have to see a ghastly accident involving the deaths of a large number of our service men before the decision will be taken to withdraw.
Dr. David Clark: I wish to associate the Opposition with the right hon. Gentleman's comments on and tributes to General Rose. Will he join me in paying tribute to Brigadier John Reith, the commander of BRITFOR, who is

771
just retiring, for his magnificent work—far beyond his military role—in banging together the heads of the Bosnian Government and the Croats to get peace in central Bosnia? Now, 1.6 million of the population live in relative peace. I believe that he has done a brilliant job there as the commander of BRITFOR. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in that?
Sir Archibald Hamilton: Of course, and I also pay tribute to the diplomatic efforts which have gone into ensuring that that peace is maintained. We must do everything possible to ensure that the Serbs eventually agree to some form of peace also. However, that seems regrettably to be some way off.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: The right hon. Gentleman has made clear his view that European and British forces should not be involved in trying to impose peace in Bosnia. Does he therefore agree with those who advocate the lifting of the arms embargo so that, at the very least, the people of Bosnia can defend themselves? If we will not defend them, surely they have the right to defend themselves.
Sir Archibald Hamilton: The arms embargo makes total sense so long as there are UN troops on the ground. If UN troops were withdrawn, there would be little justification for maintaining an arms embargo against one of the factions in Bosnia, bearing in mind that the Croat and Serb elements have less problem in obtaining arms.
One should not imagine that there is some simple solution to the problem in Bosnia. If the Muslims were to be supplied with arms, the arms would have to come through Croatia. There are certain logistic problems in getting in any more heavy armaments than can be brought in by aircraft.
Let us deal with the question of a review. It is a little facile to believe that some wonderful review could be carried out which would identify all the future threats to the United Kingdom, tell us in what wars we would be involved in the future and allowed us to plan the armed forces as a result. Of course, we carried out the Nott review, which somewhat emasculated the Navy. The next thing we knew, we were involved in the Falklands war, which no one had foretold. If we are to rely on defence intelligence to tell us where the next war will come from, let us remember that it got the Falklands wrong and the Gulf war wrong. People swore that Saddam Hussein would never invade Kuwait.
I do not know on what premise we are to work out where the next war will come from, so it seems sensible, in broad terms, to keep a wide range of technologies and capabilities that one might need in any sphere of life. The only way in which we would undermine that position is by being drawn into more and more peacekeeping activities around the world. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater alluded to that. If we did so, there would not be any more money for the defence budget. We would end up with a larger and larger lightly armed Army and we would sacrifice the Navy and the Royal Air Force to pay for it. We would also sacrifice the Army's capability to fight high-intensity conflicts. If we did that, we should ultimately undermine the defence capability of the United Kingdom. That is something that we should not entertain, whatever happens.
772
I pay tribute to our Army and our soldiers. I know that they want to be a professional, superbly equipped force. They do not want to incur casualties all round the world peacekeeping in areas where little can be done.
6.51 pm
Mr. Calum Macdonald: I begin with a constituency point. I do so without apology because, as both the Secretary of State and the Ministers are aware, the Royal Artillery range at Benbecula in my constituency is of vital economic and social importance to the southern isles in terms of the work that it generates for the local population and in wider general terms—the income that it brings into the islands.
The Secretary of State knows that I have made representations over the past months about the future of the artillery range at Benbecula. Concerns continue to be expressed, particularly in the present climate of talk of swingeing cuts in the defence budget which will affect bases up and down the country.
I shall not rehearse the arguments that I have already put to the Ministry of Defence and the Government about the economic and social importance of the range. I merely make the point that in my seven years as a Member of Parliament, I have never once had to approach any Defence Minister with any complaint from my constituents about the range at Benbecula.
The relationship between the range and the people of the southern isles is excellent. It has always been extremely good. It is a tribute to that relationship and to the people who work at the range that never in seven years have I had to take a complaint to the Minister from a constituent about any individual or anything that has happened at the range.
The same is true of the recent large-scale exercise at Lewis involving the Royal Marines. The exercise normally takes place each year in Norway, but, because of the winter Olympics this year, it had to take place in the United Kingdom. The location chosen was in my constituency. Thousands of soldiers made amphibious exercise landings near Stornoway. I have not received one complaint from my constituents about the scale of the exercise or the behaviour of the soldiers. I pay tribute to the Royal Artillery and the Royal Marines in both respects. It is my hope that, at the end of the extensive accounts exercise that the Government are undertaking, the relationship that has been established over past decades will continue for an equal period of time to come.
I shall not rehearse the arguments about the merits of the Royal Artillery range from a defence point of view. As the Ministers and the Secretary of State know, the deep range is a unique facility which cannot be duplicated anywhere in the United Kingdom or, indeed, in Europe. I also emphasise that the short range, which provides the bread and butter of the work of the range, cannot easily be added on to ranges elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It provides a specific type of training and practice for the teams who train there. Such single-purpose training facilities are vital. I know that the Royal Artillery wants it to be retained. I hope that the Ministers who make the decision will listen to the voices of those in the Royal Artillery.
Although I appreciate that the Ministers involved have to make some tough choices in the months to come about where expenditure can be deployed most effectively from an overall defence point of view, an essential element in such ministerial decision making is the thought that, wherever possible and everything else being equal, defence

773
spending should be directed to regions of the country that face serious economic difficulties and have high unemployment rather than to regions that do not face such deep-seated economic structural problems.
The Government can use defence expenditure to achieve two goals. One is the immediate goal of defence value for money. The other goal, given that the expenditure will take place in any case, is to bolster the regions that are economically depressed. If the Government can marry those two objectives—I believe that it is possible—they will genuinely achieve value for money. I hope that that perspective informs the thinking of Ministers and the Secretary of State when they come to take their important decisions.
A wider theme appears in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994". I am struck by the references in the statement to the European dimension. It has not crept into the debates thus far. None of the speeches that we have heard from Conservative Members touched on it.
The European dimension is becoming more and more apparent in defence thinking. The "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994" contains striking paragraphs and phrases which would have been inconceivable a few years ago. For example, on page 15 of the paper in a section entitled "The European Union", paragraph 210 states:
"We have declared … our intention to contribute to work towards a common European defence policy which may, in time, lead the European Union to a common defence."
I know that such aspirations are expressed in the Maastricht treaty, but I am pleased that the Government have seen fit to include that phrase in the statement. A major change has occurred in Government thinking in the past few years and I welcome it.
Another reason why we need to think along these lines is given on page 11 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates". Paragraph 207 states:
"The Combined Joint Task Forces"—
which were broached at the last North Atlantic Treaty Organisation summit—
"will be able to operate under the control of the Western European Union"—
not just under the control of NATO—
"in circumstances where the European NATO nations perceive a need for action but the United States and Canada, for whatever reason, do not wish to be involved."
That is very important recognition of a problem which has arisen in the former Yugoslavia, and I believe that we are likely to see it elsewhere in Europe beyond NATO's immediate area of operations in the years to come.
I warmly welcome the Government's recognition that there will be circumstances when members of the Western European Union will need to work together without the immediate direct assistance of the United States or Canada in the form of ground troops. I hope that they will provide assistance in other forms, such as logistical intelligence and so on. We will need to operate outside NATO's immediate area of operations in order to achieve objectives which are important to European interests, but which may not be important to the United States or Canada.
I believe that the statement will be seen as a seminal statement, as it recognises the necessary European dimension in British defence thinking. Given the sentiments expressed in the statement, I regret that the Minister did not refer to the European dimension in his speech, although he talked about many other topics. This is
774
an absolutely crucial issue because it is a fundamental perspective which conditions all other thinking. I hope that the Minister who is to reply to the debate will address it.
The statement refers to how various European countries will work on the European dimension through the combined joint task forces and through the WEU planning cell, which is now up and running. Page 16 of the statement says:
"The WEU Planning Cell … is drawing up lists of forces which could be made available by nations to the WEU for operations on a case-by-case basis."
I do not find the last point encouraging. I do not think that we should bring together forces on a case-by-case hasis, but should seriously try to develop, in an integrated way, European defence capability which will be able to respond to a broad variety of situations.
The United Nations has had difficulty in responding to the crisis in Yugoslavia in an ad hoc way. When a crisis occurs it tries to pull together the forces it needs to respond to that crisis. Likewise, I think that that is one of the lessons that we learnt from the Gulf war. Because of a lack of anticipation and thinking about developing a combined European force, there was a last-minute scramble to put together the forces necessary at the time of that war. Some countries, such as France, were plainly not adequately prepared for such a deployment.
I urge the Government to talk to our partners in the Western European Union and begin to organise more systematically the planning of European defence capability. Future generations will be astonished to learn that each member of the European Union undertook major cuts in its armed forces, while subscribing to the notion of a common defence capability. European Union members are making defence cuts in isolation; there does not seem to be any co-ordination of the cuts which they are implementing.
In the current climate, it would surely make sense for European Union countries to sit down and plan together the kinds and shape of forces that they will need to meet future emergencies. We do not need just a British defence review; we need a European defence review. A review of British defence made in isolation is inadequate, given our commitments in the Maastricht treaty and the challenges that we are likely to face.
I welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) about the situation in Rwanda, which has been largely ignored by the media in the past few weeks. Carnage has occurred in Rwanda on an horrendous scale and it should concern us deeply. I welcome particularly what my hon. Friend said about the need for the United Nations and the Organisation of African Unity to get together to consider the urgent deployment of military forces to Rwanda to try to stop the slaughter in that country.
Obviously, we need there, and shall need in similar situations in the future, not only peacekeeping, but peacemaking. It is also clear, as my hon. Friend implied, that when that type of crisis occurs in different regions of the world, although there must be a UN dimension and a UN authorisation of international action, we should look to those countries most closely involved—the countries in the region—to be in the front line in resolving the problem.
I believe that the same is true in Bosnia, which is for Europeans as Rwanda is for African countries. We, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North, are willing to call on African states to intervene

775
militarily to stop the slaughter in Rwanda. We should be equally willing to call on European states to intervene to stop the slaughter in Bosnia. The moral imperative is obviously the same, the interests of the international community are the same, but the interests of those countries bordering the trouble spots are obviously much greater than the interests of countries at a large distance from them.
Therefore, I believe that Bosnia must be regarded as primarily a European responsibility, and that in the future we shall need to develop a European defence capability to intervene in places such as Bosnia much more effectively than we have been able to on this occasion.
7.11 pm
Sir Jim Spicer: When I look back on my military service, I count myself fortunate to have served at a time when there was always an identifiable enemy and we usually knew what we were about and the dangers that we were walking into. That is why I should like to echo all the tributes that have been paid to our service men today.
Going into action, seeing the enemy in front of one, is quite a different matter from going out on the streets of Belfast or going down those roads in Bosnia, and many other places where our service men are now committed. They never know how long they will be there. What is more, they are under restraints under which only an Army of the quality of ours would possibly operate. No other army in the world would behave as well as our Army has behaved, and suffer the casualties that we have suffered over the years, yet hold back from action which many of its members, I know, from time to time would wish to take.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has made it clear over the years that change was inevitable. I do not think that anyone in the House would not accept that it is time for change, against the background of the events that have taken place in the Soviet Union, or what was the Soviet Union, in the past five years.
No one can defend the need for an army or armed forces at the level at which they were required before the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was followed by the splintering of its armed forces and, in my view, by an almost total collapse of its morale. I would not wish to be engaged in the Russian army today, against the background of what has happened to those armed forces over the years.
I have a fairly long memory in the House. I sit here through every defence debate. I watch, and I have listened to what has been said from the Opposition Benches over the years. Throughout the cold war period, when this country and the NATO alliance were under threat from the Soviet Union, we never heard anything from the Opposition parties in the House except the need to cut our defence forces. Most hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—only five are present tonight—know that, throughout that time, they were being led by people who supported CND and its aims and objectives.
I am very sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) has left the Chamber, because I should especially like to draw attention to the role that the present leader of his party played in 1985 when he turned the Liberal party, against the wishes of then leader, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and, I am quite sure, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, against the deployment of cruise missiles in this country at a crucial
776
time when the future of the country hung in the balance. Let us never forget what was done by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) at that time and the damage that it did to the credibility of his party.
Therefore, we should take no talk from Opposition Members about what they want to do and the way in which they would maintain our armed forces. This is our debate because through those dark years we kept our armed forces intact against the attacks that were being made on them by Opposition Members.
We all know that change and cuts are inevitable, but they must be soundly based and in line with long-term strategic priorities, not based on annual Treasury demands. I am anxious that decisions may not be taken quickly enough—that there may be a blurring of "Options for Change" into putting the "Front Line First", without the right action being taken quickly and rationally.
Probably the most unhappy time that I spent in the Army was in the canal zone from 1951 to 1954. We had thousands of service men locked into that canal zone and they were all in a no-win situation. The result was inevitable. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of them—always the best—junior officers and NCOs, said, "Enough is enough; I am off." They left the Army in droves at that time and it took us many years to make good the loss of that hard core of people who were the best in our armed forces.
I have to say to the Secretary of State that morale was brittle then and it is brittle now. Once again, many of our brightest and best feel insecure and they—the ones whom we can least afford to lose—will always bail out first. So my first message to the Secretary of State is to ask him please, please, please to end the uncertainty as soon as possible, live up to the slogan that he has rightly put before us, "Front Line First", and ensure that our Army, and especially its leaders at all levels, regains its confidence and morale. Uncertainty about the future destroys morale most, and that is the anxiety that I have now.
That means more than providing a good and worthwhile career structure. It means ensuring that the best Army in the world has the best equipment in the world, is not starved of proper training, and has ammunition and spare parts always available. In pursuit of that, radical changes can, and should, be considered.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) made an argument about the difficulty of bringing back the Army from Germany because of the cost of finding barrack accommodation here, but I would say that the same does not always apply with the Royal Air Force. Air stations here are being vacated by the United States air force and our air force as they retrench, and I cannot think of any reason why we should not redeploy the RAF stations, or some of them, back here, leaving only an essential small element in Germany. Why do we need the RAF in Germany now, when even the most likely potential armed forces lie about 760 miles to the east of the German border? We have airfields being mothballed or decommissioned, so why not bring them home?
I was delighted to hear that the Devon and Dorsets are to go to Poland. We could not have a finer regiment making initial contact with the Poles. I hope that this is the forerunner of trainee exercises in Poland. I do not see why much of our training should not be translated to that country, with its marvellous training grounds, which I know it would love us to use following their vacation by the Soviet army. I imagine that they are in a pretty messy

777
state and that a hell of a lot of cleaning up would have to be done. A good deal of money could be saved, however, and we would be welcoming back on board our allies of the last war. I know that they would welcome our being there.
No one can predict where our Army will be called on to serve in the future. However, we can say with absolute certainty that any conflict will be based on this principle: "Come as you are, not as you would like to be." Never again will there be a situation of slow build-up in which we can mobilise. In future, when there is action anywhere in the world we shall have to go as we are. Thus, we need balanced forces, properly trained and equipped— not for a slogging match over years but for rapid deployment anywhere in the world. Many hon. Members have already said that, to that end, we need air mobility, rapid deployment capability and the right sort of air support. These are essential ingredients of such a British Army.
I end as the Secretary of State and, in particular, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement would expect me to—with a plea about equipment. First, will Ministers please get on with ordering some attack helicopters now? We need them desperately. Secondly, will they press ahead with a firm order for the utility EH101 to replace the totally inadequate support helicopter force?
The current helicopters were all designed in the 1950s or the 1960s. It is quite frightful that, with our capability and with the best Army in the world, we should still rely on helicopters that were designed in the 1950s or the 1960s and are really not up to the job. I realise that an order is on the way. It is grinding forward, and the Minister of State will want to push it as much as possible. Let him give it a little extra shove and, in particular, make sure that it goes to Westland.
I have great confidence in the Secretary of State and his team. On many occasions, I have pulled my right hon. and learned Friend's leg about what a joy it is for serving personnel and ex-service men to have at the Ministry someone who does not pretend to be a military man. He brings a clear mind to the job, and he and his team are the best people to build up the Army that we need in the 1990s and beyond.
7.22 pm
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I welcome the return of the SDE programme to its proper timetable. It is very good to have the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994" before us. I welcome the fact that the programme is back on schedule, and I hope that this will apply to future reports.
What we have this year is, of course, something of an interim report, as we are waiting for the results of the defence costs study, which I hope will be before the House early in July. What is presented to us will be the result of the work of 33 study groups, which I understand have already reported to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and of some 5,000 extra recommendations from within the services and the Ministry of Defence.
Sieving through those recommendations, adopting the sensible ones and rejecting the bad ones, is a mammoth task, and I wish my right hon. and learned Friend and his ministerial colleagues well in their decisions. I shall not try to anticipate the conclusions of the study groups, but I want to make some general points.
778
First, with regard to "Front Line First", it is essential that the front line be extended behind. It must not be merely a thin red line, with no support and no replacements. My hon. Friend has already acknowledged the truth of this assertion, but the Select Committee on Defence will be looking very closely at the way in which it is put into effect when the defence costs study groups' recommendations are put to the House.
As I have said, I hope that this will happen in July. I have written to my right hon. and learned Friend to remind him that the Select Committee on Defence will sit during the recess if necessary. I hope that my reminder will help the timing of the report's production in such a way that it will not be necessary for us to do so. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues have taken well on board the underlying message of my letter.
I do not intend to reiterate the many points that have already been made. However, I shall try to add to them and, in the case of some, express thorough disagreement.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr Reid) is very keen that there should be a defence review. I have told the hon. Gentleman that the current Select Committee on Defence has never recommended such a review and that it will never do so. That will certainly be the case so long as I am Chairman. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Committee has an admirable record for unanimous reports. We do not air our disagreements in public, and I think that I can guarantee that the Committee will not recommend a defence review.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) and other hon. Members have said, certainty and continuity are very important to our armed forces at present. One reason for the low morale is that we have had so many changes over such a short time.
A defence review at this time would increase and prolong uncertainty. It is unthinkable that such a review could report within 18 months. It would simply elongate the uncertainty suffered by our troops and other service men.
If the hon. Gentleman has not already done so, he ought to read the paper on defence reviews that is obtainable in the Library. That shows in great detail the shortcomings of all the defence reviews of the past, and illustrates very nicely a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton)—that defence reviews are wildly inaccurate and do not help forward planning of defence structures.
Dr. Reid: I have read the paper to which the hon. Gentleman refers, as he recommended during our last debate on the subject. The fact that we have always got it wrong in the past should not prevent us from trying again. [Laughter.] When I said "we", I was being generous; I should have said "they". I do not claim that we can predict everything, but that does not mean that we should not make an intelligent attempt to analyse what might happen.
This is not a question for polarisation. I believe that all hon. Members share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the uncertainty and the undermining of morale caused by the continual process of piecemeal review. I understand why the hon. Gentleman, like service men and women, does not want another 18 months of this. However, there will have to be a review. Eighteen months will be added either at the end of this period or in two or three years' time. There is no way out of that.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That was a rather long intervention. Sometimes, a period of 18 months seems quite short. The hon. Gentleman was wrong to correct himself for having said "we". His "we" was perfectly correct. However, I do not want to get dragged further into a debate on the question of a defence review. My opinion is that, at the moment, such a review would be very damaging to the morale of the forces. In any event, I do not accept that it would assist us in our forward planning.
I should like now to deal with some general points arising from SDE94. I very much welcome the reiteration of the division of the role of the armed forces into three separate categories. This first occurred in the last review. The armed forces' first task is to protect the security of this country and that of our allies when there is no major threat. Their second task is to protect us when there is such a major external threat; and their third task is to represent this country's wider security interests through the maintenance of peace and security internationally. I wish briefly to consider whether our current forces can fulfil those three tasks, or whether a shortfall needs to be addressed.
On the major external threat, I profoundly disagree with both my right hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), who were the architects of "Options for Change". I opposed that move, because I felt that it was wrong to assess the threat from the former Soviet Union as diminished by the changes that occurred there. I now believe that my fears were fully justified.
The Select Committee on Defence is currently undertaking a study of the role and strength of NATO and where it should go in the future. I shall not try to pre-empt what the Committee's report might say, but in the course of that study we have met leading defence experts and politicians, particularly Defence and Foreign Ministers, from most of the countries that border Russia—Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the Baltic states and Georgia—and we shall shortly visit Russia and the Ukraine. Everything that I have seen and heard so far leads me to conclude that this world is much more dangerous than it was five or six years ago.
We cannot discount the threat from Russia just because its current leadership is benign and the strength of its forces has been run down. A brief look at SDE94, which compares the level of equipment and resources still available to Russia today with what is available in the west, shows that, whatever the rundown may have been, we still have a formidable potential enemy that is equipped in such a way that Europe could not resist it, were the threat to be renewed. Mr. Zhirinovsky may or may not come to power in Russia; but if he does not, some potential dictator may do so.
As an hon. Member has already said, the Russian economy is extremely weak, but it was concluded that that lessened the risk of Russia becoming aggressive again. My conclusion is that Russia's economic weakness is a real reason why we should fear her most greatly.
Mr. Gill: When my hon. Friend's Committee studies those matters, will it look at how the network of interlocking bilateral treaties signed between Russia and western Europe constrains the defence capabilities of individual and independent states of western Europe?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. He has already drawn my attention to the treaty between Russia and Spain. He is right. The Russians are diplomatically trying to network bilateral treaties in order to undermine western security, which is another reason why we should fear their long-term intent.
Sir Archibald Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend accept that a main component of the deterrence provided by NATO that stopped the Soviet Union invading western Europe was nuclear weapons? Given that we still have nuclear weapons today, why should not that deterrence be as effective tomorrow as it has been in the past?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Because there is now an area of total uncertainty that did not exist in the past. So long as there was a stand off between the west and the east with no middle ground over which we were likely to fight, the nuclear deterrent, backed up by a substantial conventional capability, was adequate. If Russia were to fall into the wrong hands, I fear that she would not be content merely to reconstruct the old Russian empire of the Ukraine, Byelorussia, Georgia and the Baltic states, but would look again at the "near abroad"—Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
If Russia does that, it will be for the west to decide whether to go to war to defend those countries. I do not know what the future holds, but, given the instability of central Europe and the fact that it is now open for them or us to compete over, the position is infinitely more dangerous than during the cold war.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I intrude on the speech of the Chairman of the Select Committee, of which I am a member, with all due deference. He seems to argue that treaties between western countries and Russia were destabilising. What, then, is his response to "partnership for peace", which we understand the Russians are willing to sign?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: "Partnership for peace" is a treaty between the west collectively and individual eastern states. The idea is to have a partnership of defensive alliance. The difference between the partners is that the west does not intend to attack eastward. But if that position is reversed and an aggressive Russia attacks westwards, and alliances prevent a western European country from acting against Russia in such circumstances, that would be a much more dangerous position. The Defence Select Committee should look at that matter, and I reserve my final judgment on the treaties until we study them in detail.
Sir Archibald Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am sorry, but I must move on, as I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak. Perhaps we can debate the matter later outside the Chamber—[Interruption.]—over a drink, not in a boxing ring.
NATO must remain the linchpin of western strength. For the foreseeable future, this country must look to NATO for our security in terms of major external threats. Many matters flow from that, including our presence in Germany, which is an important part of our commitment to NATO and of maintaining America's commitment to NATO, and many other ways in which we become involved in

781
defensive alliance action, such as Bosnia. Were those matters left entirely to our national Governments, we might not necessarily wish to become so involved.
On protection and security when no major threat exists, we have already heard a great deal about Northern Ireland. The fact that I do not propose to add to what has been said on that topic does not reflect my view of its importance. I endorse what has been said. It is unlikely that we shall be able to reduce the strength of our forces in Northern Ireland in the near future, except perhaps in marginal areas where we could safely hand over jobs currently done by military personnel to civilian or Northern Irish personnel. We cannot, however, substantially reduce the number of troops currently deployed there, which stands at 19,000.
On the Army's peacetime use, the main weakness is in our training schedules. I hope that that weakness is temporary. It is the result of emergency tour plots that are very close to each other, so that our troops can never train at brigade, divisional or substantial strength level because somebody is always busy doing something else. When my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement winds up, will he say something about our plans to send troops to BATUS for training in the near future? I seek his assurance that we shall be able fully to use the UK's allocation of time in that training area.
Will my hon. Friend also say something about an exercise called First Crusade, which took place in March? I hope that it was more successful than the exercise after which it is named. It was supposed to be at brigade strength, but there was a substantial shortage of infantry. The 1st Duke of Wellington unit, which had been allocated to that exercise, was not there because it was in Bosnia, and there was a shortage of both Saxon and tank regiments because of other operational duties which they were either engaged in or training for.
Will my hon. Friend assure us that, in future, brigade-strength exercises will be planned as part of our regular training exercises, so that we do not reach the stage where we can operate only in small groups, and lose the vital cohesion that gives our Army such potential strength in times of substantial conflict?
The third heading is the wider security interests, about which I have spoken before, so I can be brief. I am profoundly concerned that Her Majesty's Government do not seem fully to deploy the great ability of our troops in the national interest on the wider scale. Our presence abroad is not given the value that it has outside purely security reasons. When we deploy troops, trade and goods will follow, and our international diplomatic relationships are tighter and closer. The way in which we exercise and deploy our troops should be considered on a much wider basis than merely whether there is an immediate defence need or an immediate training benefit from their presence.
We have deployed troops in many cases, particularly in Nepal when we helped with the hurricane, and in Guatemala, when we helped with a natural disaster, in both cases earning substantial good will.
However, the withdrawal from Belize was wholly wrong, taking it on the broad base of national interest. On page 40 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994" the Government report on the excellent anti-drug work done in that region by the West Indies guard ship. I am glad
782
that there is no current intention to remove that ship from station, as it would be disastrous for our presence in the West Indies and that part of central America.
But the troops on the ground could also have a useful role in anti-drug operations. More importantly, they have become vital again for the security of Belize itself. The justification in the defence estimates for the removal of the troops would be described by my—I almost said right hon. Friend—ex-right hon. Friend Alan Clark as being economical with the actualité.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: We all knew what he meant—not telling the truth.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: There is a lot about a bit of the truth and all of the truth.
Page 48 of the defence estimates says:
"At the request and with the agreement of the Belize Government, the British military presence in Belize will take the form of a jungle training operation for troops from the United Kingdom."
On the face of it, that is not untrue. The Belize Government did ask for, or did agree to, the removal of British troops. But the Belize Government were then replaced in an election and the new Belize Government asked us please to stay, to which the answer was no. At the same time, there was a revolution in Guatemala, just as the Government were announcing what a wonderfully safe place Guatemala had become. Ever since, there has been an increasing threat to Belize from the Guatemalans.
The outrageous conduct of the Greeks, backed by the Guatemalans, to the high commissioner of Belize during the conference over Easter in Greece was something about which I hope Her Majesty's Government made a vigorous protest, not least as the high commissioner for Belize also happens to be a viscountess in Britain. The insult to this country and to Belize was intolerable, particularly from a country currently purporting to be President of the European Union.
I deeply resent what happened to the high commissioner at that conference. We shall be making a grave error if we fail to give backing to the Belizean Government and to the security of Belize. The Guatemalans are becoming more and more aggressive. There is a settlement within Belize of Guatemalan citizens which the Belizeans cannot currently get rid of, and the situation out there is looking increasingly bleak.
The response of Her Majesty's Government, again on page 48 of the defence estimates, is to say that the Belizean Government
"have been assured that the British Government is fully prepared to play its part in consultations which would lead to the appropriate response should the security of Belize be threatened in future."
Frankly, if the Guatemalan forces invaded Belize, we would not have time to call an international conference to see what the appropriate response would be.
We are in grave danger of repeating the error we made in the Falklands, of showing an apparent weakness where, in the event, there would be strength. I have no desire to see British forces sent to Belize in order to defend it, but I would rather see that than see Britain's name in the mud for having betrayed yet another of our friends.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will review the way in which they approach the whole Belizean issue and, if they do nothing else, at least ensure that there is in place,

783
not in future as a dream, an alliance which would guarantee the security of Belize against any aggression from Guatemala or any other neighbour.
There are other examples of our withdrawing when we should not be. We have taken the platoon from South Korea. There cannot be any great defence saving in removing a platoon from South Korea, but the Americans, to whom I spoke, deeply resented the symbolism of the withdrawal of support that we were giving to the American effort in South Korea.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will not need reminding that the position in North Korea is becoming increasingly hazardous, and the whole of that area is looking dangerous. I accept that a platoon, even of our splendid British soldiers, will not make an enormous difference to the defence of South Korea if invaded, but it is a symbol of the backing we give the United States m that part of the world and, as such, I believe it to be valuable.
We have also withdrawn prematurely from Hong Kong. In the same way, we are sending signals of weakness when there is no need to be weak, and we are withdrawing our troops when their presence there would be a continual reminder of Britain's determination to stand up for the rights of the Hong Kong people up to 1997 and, by diplomatic means, thereafter.
We have prematurely withdrawn the troop levels that we had in Hong Kong. The House knows perfectly well why. It is because the emergency tour plot had become unsustainable without overstretch, so we have reduced our commitment, or at least our presence, in such places as we ought to be committed in order to relieve the emergency tour plot overstretch.
That has been done, but it is the wrong way round. The hon. Member for Motherwell, North gave a slightly parsimonious answer to, I think, my hon. Friend the Minister, when asked whether he would guarantee a higher level of troops in Britain, saying that he would match troops with commitments. Of course it is important to match troops with commitments, but if that is done simply by discarding all commitments, that is not the answer In the interests of the nation.
What my hon. Friend was seeking from the hon. Gentleman, and did not get, was an assurance that the commitments would be continued, and that the troop levels necessary for those commitments would be provided in the terms that the hon. Gentleman himself says are necessary. I await with interest the hon. Gentleman's future speeches —preferably not now—in which he will feel able to give the assurances that were sought.
I do not intend to say a great deal about Bosnia, but my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) made one critical point. NATO has been conned by the Muslims in Bosnia into a position where we are in the gravest danger of moving into that war on a partisan basis —Muslim against Serb. It is well known that, in many instances—particularly, probably, the marketplace mortar —the Muslims have deliberately committed acts of appalling cruelty to their own people and have acted in a way that is against the rules of international conduct—for example, by placing artillery in hospital grounds, as my Committee was told early on in the conflict, and by other means—in order to bring NATO and the United Nations into the conflict against the Serbs.
Sir Michael Rose expressed his fury when he got to Gorazde and found that what he had been told about the
784
Serbian attack on that town was bluntly untrue, that it was Muslim propaganda. That is just one example of a series of ways in which NATO is being drawn into a partial action.
It is my firm belief that, if we are to have safe havens and to threaten to bomb in order to secure them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and the hon. Member for Motherwell, North said, they must not be used as bases for Muslim sorties, from which they can come out, raze a few Serb villages, go back, put their hands up and say, "This is a NATO-guaranteed safe area. You cannot attack us here." If we are to have such safe havens, they must be policed on the ground so that Muslims cannot go out and in with armed forays, and secured by air support and, if necessary, air attack. If we cannot do both, clearly we should do neither.
I view with some concern future plans for extending and widening the areas to be given air cover, backed by threats of air action, especially by our United States allies, in places where we have either no troops on the ground or, worse still, a small number of extremely vulnerable troops, who may suffer the consequences of retaliation.
My message to my right hon. and learned Friend and his ministerial colleagues is to ask them to use all the influence that the Government have in NATO and the United Nations to ensure that the impartiality of UNPROFOR is maintained and secured. Will they please try to ensure that we do not get drawn into the war in such a way as to become a party to it, with all the dreadful consequences to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell rightly drew attention? Those consequences would ensue if we had to expand our forces and effectively entered a war—quite conceivably with us on one side and Russia on the other.
I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak, so I shall finish by making four brief points to my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues. My first point concerns the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which has already been mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). It must have sent a dismal signal to our veterans to see that the War Graves Commission had 5 per cent. cut from its budget this year, just as we are commemorating D-day.
Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to assure the House that that can be done with the full consent of the commissioners—
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind)rose—
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: If my right hon. and learned Friend will let me finish my point, I shall certainly give way to him.
I hope that he will be able to assure the House that the cut can be made in such a way that the wonderful standard to which the war graves are maintained can be sustained with the lower funding.
Mr. Rifkind: It would be helpful if I responded to that question. My hon. Friend and the whole House can feel entirely assured that we recognise the need for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to have all the funds it requires, both to maintain the graves in its usual excellent fashion and to carry out various other new projects.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will be relieved to know that, when representatives of the commission came to see me about the proposed reduction in its budget, they

785
accepted that the only consequence would be a reduction in its operating surplus. They gave me a categorical assurance that there would be no effect whatever on the maintenance work or on the projects that the commission wishes to implement.
The cut will simply mean that the operating surplus that the commission has enjoyed, which is carried forward from year to year, will be slightly less than it would otherwise have been. On that basis, and that basis alone, I felt it proper and responsible to accept that the commission could absorb some modest reduction.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I am sure that all who share our concern that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission should continue its valuable work will be equally reassured by what he has said.
I cannot resist adding that, a few years ago, I took my young son out to see the first world war graves and memorials, and in particular the grave of my great uncle, which I discovered with the aid of his father's memoirs. We found the grave, beautifully maintained, at Vimy ridge; it was a moving moment. Incidentally, hon. Members can see my great uncle's shield now; it is the fifth from the right as one goes out of the Chamber towards Central Lobby. I believe that almost every family in the country has a similar tale to tell. The value of the work of the War Graves Commission is inestimable, and we should pay tribute to it.
Secondly, representatives of the Royal British Legion have recently been to see the Defence Select Committee, and they are keen that there should be a Minister with a sub-department to look after the interests of the people whom we call ex-service men—in the United States, they are called veterans. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider that proposal closely.
Ex-service men have to register their interests with many departments, usually immediately on coming out of the services rather than many years later. They do not have the direct links that civilians would have, especially in matters relating to local authorities, because they are not attached to a particular local authority for the purpose of getting the benefits that people who live in a particular area can claim. Many such detailed problems could be alleviated by a sub-department of one of the Ministries, designed to look after service men's interests. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to revisit that possibility.
Thirdly, I must mention the reserves. There will soon be a report before the House on that subject, so I shall not dwell on it for long. However, my opinion, which I believe is widely shared, is that, as the Army is cut, the reserves should be increased. Reserves are a wonderfully cheap form of extra capacity to back up the limited resource that our small number of soldiers, sailors and airmen can provide.
I hope that, when the report on the reserves appears, there will be no attempt to cut them in line with the front-line forces. Were that to occur, our overall strength would be well below any reasonable capacity, especially for the first of the commitments that I emphasised at the beginning of my speech.
I finish as I started, by saying that, unfortunately, the morale of our armed forces is low. The Minister of State
786
for the Armed Forces said that, whenever he made visits, he was always greeted with joy, and that everyone was extremely happy with what the Government were doing.
Mr. Hanley: I would not have put it quite like that.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am slightly paraphrasing what my hon. Friend said, but I am sure that that is what he meant. Indeed, I am sure that, whenever he arrives somewhere, there is joy. None the less, morale is generally low, because of the uncertainty and the feeling that, for the past two or three years, we have been overstretched. There is not the certainty that I should like, that that overstretch will now come to an end.
I hope that, when my right hon. and learned Friend produces the defence costs studies, he will ensure not only that the front line remains as capable as it now, and is properly backed up with logistics and encompasses adequate and substantial reserves, but that there is no further threat of cuts to our forces in the foreseeable future. I am not confident that, once my right hon. and learned Friend has succeeded in making the present round of cuts, the Treasury will not try to impose yet another. Any such attempt would be unacceptable, and were one to be made, there would be enormous resistance to it.
7.56 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen rose—
Mr. Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that I am relatively new to the House, so I should be grateful for your advice. I understood that in this debating Chamber the idea is to listen to the whole debate before contributing to it. I do not understand how hon. Members can drift in, make their speeches and then drift out again—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not uncommon in this place, whatever is supposed to happen.
Mr. Cohen: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If that point of order was an allusion to me, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I was here for the opening speeches, and for some of the speeches that followed.
May the fourth is an appropriate date for a defence debate. My researcher, who is a bit of a wit, said that it should be called national star wars day. He was talking about the film "Star Wars" rather than President Reagan's defence fantasy, and he added, "May the fourth be with you." That is a very bad joke; he deserves the sack for making it, but he is a good researcher.
The Army is all about force. The potential for force is of course necessary, but I want to pay tribute to the humanitarian peacekeeping effort, especially in Bosnia, which is of the highest quality. I add my tribute to those already made by hon. Members on both sides of the House to that aspect of the Army's work.
In any debate on the Army there will be an amalgam of issues that hon. Members want to mention, and that applies to me too. I shall try to deal with all those issues quickly. First—I shall try not to take up too much of the time of the House on this subject—I missed the Navy debate because I was on a parliamentary trip to Kazakhstan, where I was examining matters relevant to defence. So this will be my only chance to put the record straight on my exchange

787
about Trident with the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. During Question Time on 8 February I said that there had been a doubling of strategic warheads—
Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman may have failed to attend any more of the debate than the first 20 minutes or so—I noticed him here then—but he must realise that this is a debate on the Army. However much he would like it to happen, the Army is not yet reduced to being armed with tridents. Trident is a naval project.
Mr. Cohen: I am amazed that the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) has elected himself in your place, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall have plenty to say about the Army. I was here for much longer than 20 minutes; I heard the bulk of the opening speeches and the subsequent speeches as well.
I said to the Minister that 96 strategic warheads for Trident submarines had replaced 48 for Polaris submarines. The Minister replied:
"the hon. Gentleman has got his figures seriously wrong."—[Official Report, 8 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 131.]
I wrote to the Minister, who replied courteously on 10 March. He said:
"Malcolm Rifkind did indeed announce on 16 November 1993 that each Trident submarine would deploy no more than 96 warheads"—
the figure I mentioned—
"a revision of the previously declared maximum of 128 … As regards Chevaline, we have stated publicly that this upgrade to the Polaris system did not involve any increase in the number of warheads associated with the Polaris force, and we have also made clear that when Polaris entered service each submarine carried 48 warheads."
Again, that is the figure I mentioned in the debate. Far from being seriously wrong, I was seriously right. I want to make that point for the record because it is my last chance to do so.
I now turn to the scandal of the PINDAR bunker which the Ministry of Defence is building under Whitehall. The Ministry has spent more than £120 million on that hole in the ground. The Government are revealing information about the full extent of that scandal—that waste of money. As usual, the information that they have given is full of paradoxes. I give the House an example of how two pieces of information from the Ministry of Defence are contradictory.
A memorandum deposited in the Library front the Ministry to the Public Accounts Committee states that one of the reasons for the cost escalation of PINDAR was that there was only one access point of any size to the bunker. The Comptroller and Auditor General said:
"The difficulties were compounded by the relative inaccessibility of the site which resulted in all the equipment having to be lowered through an aperture, at ground level, which was just 12 ft by 6 ft."
It has been said in the press that there is only one entrance.
However, in a written answer to me only last week, the Minister said that a variety of routes existed which would enable the occupants to escape from the facility in the event that the building above it had collapsed. The Minister may query my figures on Trident and on other matters, but he can agree with me on this matter: one is not the same as a variety. Were more access points built since the work began? If so, why were the additional access points not built to take the larger equipment which had to be forced down the small hole, as the Ministry described to the Public Accounts Committee?
788
I have one suggestion about the future use of PINDAR now that £120 million has been wasted on it. The Ministry's bill for overnight accommodation in London for members of the armed forces and civil service personnel based elsewhere who are visiting headquarters is not inconsiderable. Why not save that money and use PINDAR as the Ministry's guest rooms—bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Perhaps bed and breakfast for the homeless would not be too bad there. The bunker is supposed to have sufficient beds already to support a complement of 400 to 500 personnel. I am sure that more beds could be added, especially now that there are additional access and egress points, to which the Minister referred in his answer.
While I am on the subject of the waste of money, I draw the Minister's attention to an article in The Guardian on 22 April which is entitled:
"Rhine Army withdrawal 'in chaos"".
I shall read it to put it on the record. In my experience, defence reporters often get their information from sources within the Ministry of Defence. In this instance, the information came from last month's National Audit Office report on the Ministry of Defence, the British Army in Germany, and the draw-down of equipment and stores.
The Guardian article says:
"Britain's Rhine Army withdrawal from Germany—the largest peacetime movement of troops and equipment in modem times —is at 'risk of serious breakdown in control"".
The article is quoting the National Audit Office report here. The article continues:
"Perfectly usable equipment is languishing in fields, records of potentially dangerous ammunition and detonators have gone missing, and vehicles are being cannibalised unnecessarily … As a result, promised savings of £177 million to the Treasury will not be met."
That is a waste of money. The article continues:
"The auditors discovered 1,800 surplus vehicles stored in the open with no plans on how to use them. Some 1,100 were unserviceable, a third had been left on site for a year, and 23 had been stored there for seven years … The report reserved its strongest criticism for closure of a base workshop where £65 million of stores were held. One third of the items stored there were missing … the auditors expressed concern that missing equipment included firearms and ammunition … The report points out that of 116 units which had been closed, only four accounts have been cleared".
The report describes a scandal which the Minister did not even address in his opening speech. Millions of pounds have been wasted, as outlined by the National Audit Office. Before Conservative Members start talking about their objections to cuts, they should get their own house in order and stop wasting such sums—and more.
We are to have a defence costs study. I shall not say much about that; I shall wait until the report comes out. However, I shall refer to the fact that one person involved in the study—he has been brought into the Ministry of Defence as a special adviser—is Mr. David Hart. It has been pointed out in a written answer to me that he has access to classified information. David Hart is the man who, for the previous Prime Minister, coined the phrase, "the enemy within". That phrase was aimed particularly at the miners. In effect, the phrase launched a war against the miners and anyone who opposed the Government at that time.
I shall give one quotation from the book "Misrule", written by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), which raises many issues about David Hart's role. I refer to the occasion when a notice was to be served on Arthur Scargill. As the book says, with a Daily Express photographer lined up, the lawyers

789
"sneaked into the Labour Party Conference with a borrowed press pass (a gross abuse), and I saw the notice of motion and legal documentation being served on an astonished Arthur Scargill, to the sheer fury of delegates at the Party conference. What would Mrs. Thatcher have said about the activities of anyone, after the Brighton bombing, who got into the Conservative Party Conference under false pretences? Yet David Hart was doing her general bidding."
A man with that record has access to classified information and may change Ministry of Defence policies. He is an unwelcome character in this delicate study and in the Ministry of Defence. The Ministry of Defence has considerable power, both real and potential, in our society and such a person should not have power within it.
I received a letter today from Mr. Mick Jones, the national chairman of the Defence Police Federation. He refers to an article in The Times on 10 March which had the headline:
"3,000 MoD police may lose jobs to redundant troops".
In his letter, Mr. Jones says:
"If approval is given to this"—
the creation of an armed home guard battalion, known as the military home service engagement, using the troops that the Ministry of Defence is getting rid of to replace the Ministry of Defence police armed guarding role—
"up to 3,000 MoD policemen—some 75 per cent. of the Force —could lose their jobs. Needless to say, we are very concerned about the implications of this 'favoured option', in terms of both the threat that it holds to standards of policing and security at MoD establishments and bases and, of course, our members' jobs.
… the option has not been favoured for financial reasons, as the interim report claims, but because service chiefs have been placing pressure on Sir John"—
Sir John Blelloch, the man in charge of the report—
"to come up with a solution to provide jobs for some of the 13,000 servicemen and women facing redundancy over the next twelve months."
Obviously, some sort of provision must be made for those service men and women, but it should not be done at the expense of the Ministry of Defence police. By doing that, the Government would, in effect, be saying to the MoD police that they are second rate. That is a deplorable thing to say and I urge the Government to think again.
The next point that I want to make is on the issue of pay because I think that it is an obscenity that the Government are to award a 4.4 per cent. pay rise and beyond for the top brass, while other public service workers are limited to a 1.5 per cent. rise or, for many, even less. Some workers will not receive anything at all. Again the Government are giving big pay-outs to those who are already well paid, while cutting back on other public service workers and those at the lower end of the scale. The excuse that the Government are using to give even more money to the top brass is that they are applying performance-related pay.
Some Members of another place have referred to that idea of performance-related pay. Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone said:
"performance related pay would be inconsistent with the general ethos to be attached to a uniformed and disciplined service".
Baroness O'Caithain also made the point:
"the whole concept of performance pay, will it take note of the experience in the private sector? To my certain knowledge, the whole concept of performance related pay has been brought in as a buzz-word to hide a certain amount of avariciousness."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 April 1994; Vol. 554, c. 660–61.]
That is what the noble Lady said and that is what it is about. In even considering that, the Government are
790
dealing in avariciousness for the top brass. How does one judge performance-related activities in the armed forces? Is it by how many people one shoots or, while on peacekeeping duty, by how many one does not shoot? How does one compare the performance of soldiers when they are given entirely different tasks? The Government should abandon that idea and abandon those differential pay rises which are just a blatant fiddle.
I shall now turn to the issue of landmines— anti-personnel mines—because they cause death and mutilation around the world, including areas in which British soldiers are on peacekeeping duties. There have been moves for a worldwide moratorium on the export of such mines, including a resolution accepted by consensus at the United Nations General Assembly calling for the trade in those foul weapons to be halted. The Government say that they export mines to countries that will use them reasonably. I do not quite know how countries use such landmines reasonably. We have exported cluster bombs, which have an anti-personnel mine element, to the Yugoslavian army in the past. Those bombs are now in the hands of soldiers who do not have a reputation for reasonableness—the Serbs. That is one reason why UN forces in Bosnia have been told to watch out for cluster bombs. The Government should realise that such mines have a life expectancy much greater than those of the Government to which we export them. Until they recognise that basic fact, civilians across the world—not to mention British troops on peacekeeping operations—will be vulnerable to those weapons.
The Army legal department also had a hand in drafting another United Nations convention on the use of inhumane weapons. I have been pressing the Government to ratify that convention. They have announced an intention to ratify it in due course, but are dragging their feet about bringing the legislation before the House. They should get on with it and do it immediately. Again, that would act as a safeguard for many of our troops from things such as napalm and phosphorus bombs.
I shall make two more brief comments before I sit down. One is to ask the Minister about medals. I have tabled a parliamentary question, but, while the Minister is here, perhaps he can answer it. What is the difference between EC and UN medals for our troops serving in Bosnia? What is the difference in the rules for wearing those medals? I have been told that there is no problem in our service men wearing UN medals, but that they are not allowed to wear EC medals publicly, openly or on ceremonial occasions. I put that down to the Government's muddle over the EC and their not having a proper policy. It is ludicrous. Those soldiers have served with distinction in Bosnia. If they get a medal from the EC, they should be able to wear it openly and publicly in exactly the same way as UN medals may be worn.
Secondly, I want to comment on the D-day anniversary. I shall not make a long comment because the muddle that the Government got themselves into spoke for itself. There should be a number of lasting tributes to our soldiers who fought and fell in that war. One lasting tribute that I want to bring to the attention of the House pertains to what those soldiers fought for and what those who came back had on their minds—to change the world and to change Britain to a better place. They were determined to create a health service, a welfare state, public education and put an end to unemployment and that it would be enshrined in our society. The one fitting tribute to those who fell on D-day

791
that this Government or any Government could pay would be to ensure that those principles of free health care, free education and full employment are properly maintained. The Government are sorely lacking in providing such a lasting tribute.
8.16 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I hope that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will acquit me of any discourtesy if I do not follow the many points that he has raised or if I do not pick up on one or two, which I would dearly like to do, as I know that some of my hon. Friends want to take part in the debate. I always find his speeches interesting, including those at the North Atlantic Assembly, of which we are both members.
There are two points that many hon. Members have made in the debate. First, they have paid tribute to the quality of the men and women who serve in the British Army and, secondly, they have suggested that morale is not as good as it ought to be. In fact, there has been quite serious criticism directed in that way. The two points may seem somewhat incompatible. How can we have such a good Army if morale is not so good? However, the points can be reconciled. There is no doubt that my hon. and right hon. Friends who form the ministerial team and who are very assiduous in their duties must be aware that cuts in defence, however carefully phased, are bound to have a down side. There is no question of that. In their early phase, cuts mean disbandment, amalgamation, a loss of well-tried skills, and a sense of loss and I suspect that if they go on for long enough, they lead to a feeling and state of mind of "where will it all end", which is bound to be depressing. So I add my voice to those of Conservative Members who spoke earlier. The time has come to end that uncertainty.
Much of the blame, of course, has been attributed—and still is by some people—to the "Options for Change", the defence White Paper published in 1990, which set out clearly the changes in the structure and strength of our armed forces in response to the change in the political scene following the end of the cold war. It was immediately criticised for being Treasury-driven. Of course, financial savings came into it because "Options for Change" rightly recognised the profound changes in foreign security policy following the end of the cold war, the imminent collapse of the Warsaw pact and the withdrawal of Soviet forces from eastern Europe, which threatened—of course—the security of the west.
The analysis that was set out in "Options for Change" in 1990 was carefully followed and accepted. It anticipated NATO's new strategic concept of 1991. There was no disagreement about our approach to the security and defence needs of our nation and the approach of our allies through NATO's new strategic concept. That concept emphasised—this is still accepted—the need for more flexible conventional forces that would be well armed and well equipped. NATO stated the need to develop a European security and defence identity within the NATO alliance. It accepted at the same time that with the withdrawal of much of the threatening posture of the cold war there would be a reduction in the size of the NATO forces.
The message for the United Kingdom was of particular interest. It spelled out that our forces in future would rarely be expected to act alone. The job will be to contribute to
792
multinational formations with forces equipped to face high-intensity conflicts. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, expressed his views about how he thought that Russia could pose a serious threat to us. I do not want to go into the matter and debate the issues with him—but there is no doubt that Russia, although economically weak, has strengthened its armed forces considerably. It still manufactures extremely powerful weapons, some of them with the most advanced technology.
I strongly endorse the view that has been expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends that a British Army that is to carry out its duties to the nation along with international responsibilities must be equipped to fight high-intensity conflicts.
NATO's stategy meant that allied forces—not only British forces—would be smaller. Everyone expected some sort of peace dividend. I make no apology for that. We all felt the same way in this country. The same goes for Europe generally and for north America. Every treasury in the countries in those areas responded to the deep wish that expenditure on defence should be reduced. The question we must ask ourselves is whether we have gone too far and too fast. It is worth considering what that means in terms of our own expenditure.
In the years 1980–84, our average expenditure on defence ran at about 5.2 per cent. of gross domestic product. By the end of 1992, we had reduced that expenditure by about 23 per cent. There was a fall from 5.2 per cent. to 4 per cent. For some, that was the peace dividend. Of course, we have gone further. The White Paper that is before us tells us that in 1992–93 expenditure will fall by a further 14 per cent., ending up at 2.5 per cent. of GDP. It is that further reduction that has caused us so much concern.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, referred to General Sir Martin Farndale. I have heard him speak on one or two occasions, and as a master gunner his is a voice to be respected. He is a man who, along with others with experience of the Army, has gone into some detail to study the impact of expenditure reductions on the efficiency of our armed forces, and especially the Army. It is particularly interesting, in view of our command of the rapid reaction corps, which has a valuable role still to play in NATO, that he could say that we already have a generation of brigade commanders who have never experienced the full pressure of hard, all-arms training. He has stressed that those officers will soon become generals. He observes that brigades, let alone divisions, seldom train together with their own units. He takes the view that the capability to conduct combat effectively at short notice at the higher level is quickly being lost.
If we do not have training at the higher level, as time passes our fitness to command the rapid reaction corps will be challenged. If we are to be equipped with high-tech weapons and equipment, all-arms training is vital. As the general pointed out:
"It is a complex business to bring together on a widely-spread, fast-moving battlefield, armour, artillery, armoured infantry, helicopters, engineers and high-tech communications and logistics, not to mention the need to train with the Royal Navy."
It is possible, of course, that as we look to the future we may not feel that it is necessary to have a rapid reaction corps. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East

793
(Mr. Campbell) talked about that. Somewhere along the line, however, there must be a unified force within the NATO alliance with a European identity. If it is to carry any conviction, it must have the necessary degree of acceptance and unity of command. Surely there is no point in our playing our part unless we all have the same objectives. If it is thought that we should bail out of the commitment, we shall contribute to the downfall of the NATO alliance and the weakening of European security, and confine ourselves to having a seriously reduced Army.
It is useful that we should be able to show the flag, as it were, and to have Royal Engineers contributing to the welfare of people in under-developed countries. No doubt there are responsibilities in Belize and elsewhere that we can carry out. In my judgment, however, it is a fundamental mistake to confuse the real role of a well-led, well-armed and well-trained British Army.
Unless we are reaching the end of the road of cuts, there will be increased concern among those who normally would expect to support us.
Mr. Martlew: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to come down to 2.9 per cent. of gross domestic product is too great a cut?
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: No. I am saying that if we move down the path of cuts we are in great danger of finding that it will be too little. That is what I am suggesting. I do not see how we shall be able to meet some of our responsibilities if we continue on the present path unless, of course, there is an increase in GDP. If that happens, the problem will, to some extent, be solved.
I do not want to go into too much detail because I am aware that others wish to speak. However, in a letter that I received about the Territorial Army from Colonel Sir Greville Spratt, who is in command of the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association for greater London, he emphasises that if the TA is to carry out extra responsibilities when there has already been a cut of about 30 per cent., its numbers should not be further reduced. That should not happen unless, of course, it can be argued that efficiency will be increased and there will be better equipment and more training. In my judgment, there is no cheap option.
As for cuts in the tail, it would not surprise hon. Members to know that there are those who wonder whether we are rigorous enough in cutting the civilian side of the Ministry of Defence. A letter that I received today referred to what the author described as the "delaying tactics" of a Minister. The letter states that the savings that have so far been introduced or proposed in the "MOD Civil Service" amount to only nine redundancies in what is described as the
"Open Structure MOD Civil Service staff'.
The gentleman who wrote the letter suggests that there are no fewer
"than sixty five Civil Servants in the MOD who are ranked and paid as generals; fifty at 2 Star, eleven at 3 Star and four at 4 or 5 Star."
I do not know whether that is true, but if people who are normally well informed think that that is the position—those who are in the TA or those who are no longer connected with the armed forces—their criticisms need to be answered. I hope that that will happen when my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate.
794
Many hon. Members have expressed concern about the impact that uncertainty can have, especially during a period of running down our armed forces. We all understand why that process had to be implemented. However, if we believe that we have some special skills within our nation that we can call upon—some special resolve or some special characteristics in our national make up—that makes us proud of our military history, I hope that we can recognise too that during the course of our history there have been tremendous lapses that have let down those who would willingly sacrifice their life for the cause of protecting our country and helping to preserve peace. That happened in the 1930s.
I recall the troops returning from Dunkirk. If anything, Dunkirk certainly was a demonstration of national resolve and resilience, but it was hardly our most glorious military achievement. On the whole, the Army was badly equipped, badly trained and not well led. It took someone of the calibre of Monty, and others, to get hold of the British Army and pull it together again. It took some years to build up the quality that made possible the successes at Alamein and on D-day.
It is easy to run something down, but very difficult to pick up the pieces. The message, therefore, is that we understand that, like other Governments, the Government had a job to do, but a line has been drawn in the sand, which signifies that after Ministers have completed the tail and front-line exercises we want no further cuts that may undermine the efficiency of our armed forces. I suspect that, given their quality, Ministers will come up with the right answers.
8.31 pm
Mr. Ian Bruce: I rise to speak unashamedly about my constituency, which has felt the sharp edge of what has happened to the armed forces and to the Army in particular. Many hon. Members will have heard me speak about the Navy in my constituency, which has experienced many cuts in recent times, but just as many of my constituents are with the Army at Bovington and Lulworth and many of them work at the signals establishment at Blandford.
We have been pleased by the recent concentration on achieving efficiency in the tail. The 18–base workshop has shown that it can refurbish tanks much faster and cheaper. People often overlook the fact that, if the workshop takes in one tank a week, which is the norm, instead of taking nearly 40 weeks and having 40 tanks out of service at a time and doing it in 18 weeks, about another 20 tanks are available for the front line; that shows the efficiency savings that can be achieved.
I have always supported Ministers' efforts to ensure efficiency and value for money, but nothing lowers morale among my civilian workers and within the armed forces, who want to achieve efficiency, more than waste. It was disappointing, therefore, to see the Opposition deploying their usual tactic. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)—I know that he is not in his place at present—who is clearly a man of the new Labour party. He could take any portfolio without being criticised by the Labour Treasury team because he did not make a single commitment that would cost a penny or save a job in my constituency. Interestingly, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), contemplating government before the last election, said that cutting the

795
armed forces in the 1990s would match the bonanza that the Conservatives had from oil in the 1980s. That really is the truth of what Labour is saying. It wants to hide behind the fig leaf of the defence review.
Another fig leaf behind which Labour wants to hide is the diversification agency. The Employment Select Committee investigated how we should regenerate employment once the defence work has gone. It said specifically that a diversification agency was not the right route and that we must seek new industries and new jobs, which is what we are doing in Dorset.
I pay tribute to the excellent work of the front-line and tail forces, but their morale is at its lowest point. Dorset, like the rest of the country, is about to remember D-day. All the political parties in Dorset, and people of no political party, spent much time compiling a D-day brochure and planning other events in the area only to find that the Labour party was trying to make party political capital out of unfortunate remarks made by The Sun. We were all criticised for describing D-day as a celebration. I have the NEC's action advice note dated March 1994—circular 14/94, headed "D-day Celebrations"—in which Larry Whitty, Labour's general secretary, writes to all Labour council leaders on the imperative of the Labour party being involved in the D-day celebrations. I am sure that the Labour leaders wanted to be involved in the D-day celebrations for the right reasons, but the only reason Larry Whitty gives is that such involvement would be politically significant, as the date falls three days before the European elections. Yet the Labour party has tabled an early-day motion condemning the Government for trying to do the right thing by our forces and our home front by commemorating events on D-day.
Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Royal British Legion was upset by the Government's proposals?
Mr. Bruce: It got hold of the wrong idea. It believed that people might suggest that the street parties did not have a serious purpose, but the "Kilroy" programme showed that the organisers of the street parties are doing exactly the right thing. They asked veterans and widows, "Would you like us to arrange for you to get out on the street and to meet our children so that they can find out what D-day was all about?" The educational effect would have been extremely good, and a number of my constituents wrote to me, especially those who were out in Burma, asking, "Are we being forgotten?" They wanted to ensure that something was happening for everybody. That is what we have done in Dorset, and I believe that we have done it particularly sensitively.
Defence employees working in my constituency, especially those in the Procurement Executive, have grave concerns. Initially, the Procurement Executive had about 12,000 employees—clearly, that was too many—but now 10,000 are employed. It was suggested that 7,000 of them could be located in a Procurement Executive headquarters north of Bristol. Newspaper reports now suggest that the figure might have fallen to 5,000. We need to find out what is happening. Those employees are not happy to hear that shops, swimming pools, gymnasiums, landscape gardens and ornamental lakes will be available when they get to their new high-tech headquarters; they are even less happy to hear that the budget for the ASPECT computer system, which was to be installed to ensure that everybody could
796
work together, has not been approved or might not be proceeded with. Computer people in the armed forces to whom I have spoken suggest that no new money will be found to install the system for the Procurement Executive.
It is perhaps even more surprising that the MOD decided to spend £250 million on CHOTS—the corporate headquarters office technology system. That system was designed specifically to allow departments scattered around the country to talk to each other. About £300 million is to be spent to put the Procurement Executive on a single site, and I believe that that is a waste of money. If we are to keep morale high, we must demonstrate that we can save money. We should not waste it.
When I consider the professionalism of our armed forces, I am reminded of my attempt to windsurf off Weymouth last weekend. I was up to my neck in the waves wondering how I could get on to a windsurfer which kept going in the wrong direction while the experts whizzed past me. The MOD headquarters is probably up to its neck in it as I was then.
We have excellent people in the armed forces. We should tell them that we have to trim our budgets. However, we should have targets for them. Perhaps we should even give them incentive pay to get the results. We should certainly tell them not to spend more money than they are going to save. We must ensure that our armed forces are left with their morale intact and that they save money, but that our armed forces have the teeth that we require.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I call the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).
Sir Jerry Wiggin: Oh.
8.40 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I am conscious of the fact that other hon. Members wish to speak and that one of them has just exclaimed in frustration. To them, I apologise for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate. I was attending a sitting of the Transport Select Committee and have come straight from there to participate in this debate, in which Labour Members have a legitimate interest.
I join in the tributes paid to the skill and dedication of our armed forces and particularly to the skill and dedication of members of the Army who continue to face peril in many parts of the world. In particular, I pay tribute to the Royal Anglian Regiment which is associated with my constituency and which is currently serving in Bosnia, where it has made great sacrifices.
A Conservative Member claimed that change is inevitable. That is true. Hon. Members on both sides of the House may find uncomfortable the fact that there is, to a large extent, a convergence between the policies of the parties on defence and foreign affairs—in contrast to the position a decade or more ago.
Although Conservative Members ridiculed and dismissed Opposition suggestions for a major defence review, it was clear from the content of Conservative Members' speeches—and particularly those of the hon. Members for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)—that they had

797
grave concerns about the development and direction of our armed forces. They emphasised the need for a major review of our defence commitments.
I was particularly impressed by the hon. Member for Upminster. He demonstrated that need when he referred to an apparent arbitrary withdrawal of a platoon from Korea. He also expressed grave concern about our withdrawal from Belize. That shows that, no matter how much Conservative Members protest, there is clearly a need, which was reflected in their speeches, for a review of our commitments and resources.
The situation is changing rapidly around the world and particularly in Europe. We must recognise that if we are not to be stretched and so ensure that we can meet military and political commitments, we must have the armed services resources to match those obligations and commitments. That is clearly not the case at the moment. The MOD is making knee-jerk reactions and interim decisions by deploying stretched military resources. That is not healthy for the armed forces or in the best interests of the United Kingdom.
I have referred to the dynamic situation in Europe and other hon. Members have referred to their perception of a dangerous situation in central and eastern Europe. There is a danger of over-exaggerating the problem. However, we must recognise that some very fragile democracies are emerging in central and eastern Europe. There are historical anxieties in those democracies. Many see a threat from the east, from what was the Soviet Union and what is now Russia.
We in the west are not doing enough to buttress or reassure those democracies. In parenthesis, we are not doing enough for their economies either. I am particularly concerned about the Visegrad group of countries—Poland, Hungary and the Czech republic—which clearly have a legitimate claim to admission to NATO. The partnership for peace programme was a sop. We in the west have been somewhat dishonest. For 50 years we said, "Look over the wall." After the collapse of communism, the wall came down but we still have not allowed them to join the club.
It is argued that the armies of those countries are not equipped to western standards and that there is no democratic control of those armies. It is argued that their technology and armaments do not match NATO standards. Those are feeble and bogus excuses. We should do much more to help those countries to join the NATO club. I deeply regret the fact that we have not fulfilled our commitments to them.
Many corners of the globe have been mentioned in this debate but there has been no reference to Gibraltar since I have been in the Chamber. I am deeply concerned that the Chief Minister of the Gibraltar Government has had to flag up the anxiety of his state that its economy would be greatly jeopardised if, as he fears, there is an arbitrary and fairly immediate withdrawal of MOD resources and personnel from Gibraltar. He legitimately fears that that would have an enormous impact.
We have obligations to Gibraltar. In addition, the defence and political interests of the United Kingdom are such that we should maintain commitments there. There should certainly be no arbitrary withdrawal which would
798
jeopardise the economy in Gibraltar. That would send the wrong signais to other countries with an interest in Gibraltar.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) referred to the Blelloch review of the MOD police. It is appropriate to raise that point today because we understand that Blelloch and the Minister are contemplating replacing or reducing the MOD police by a new force referred to as the Military Home Service Engagement. That would be a way of diminishing Government embarrassment at the cost of making redundant members of the Army, Navy and Air Force. It would keep them in uniform. They would have to fulfil duties currently carried out by MOD police.
It would be wrong to go down that road for several reasons. We must be much more sensitive to the needs of our armed forces personnel who the Government decide they need to shed. If the Labour party's view of a major defence review were adopted, many of those redundancies would, in any event, be put on ice.
To go down that road would also be to misunderstand the role of the MOD police officers. They are constables. They are specially trained and have special skills. They are civilian police officers. They need to be in terms of legislation passed by this House such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and that governing the police inspectorate. Their role cannot be fulfilled sensitively or according to existing legislation by service men who would be under the control not of the MOD or a police committee, but of the generals. I do not mean any disrespect to the generals; it is just not right to put the new force under the control of anyone besides the existing police committee.
I hope that the Minister will reassure the public, who are concerned about policing policy, and the MOD Police Federation on this score. I trust that he will not adopt the suggestion of the Blelloch committee.
The Government need to instigate a thorough review of all non-Home Office police forces. It is not good enough to ignore such forces, including the MOD police, while passing legislation relating to Home Office police forces.
Soon after we elected Madam Speaker I tabled early-day motion 2, which called for a veterans Minister. I am pleased to say that interest in the subject was renewed in this Session of Parliament in the form of an early-day motion which attracted many more signatures and which has been fully endorsed by the Royal British Legion. Recent events have shown that this country is out of kilter with others in this respect—we lack a Minister with a responsibility dedicated to promoting the interests of veterans. Not surprisingly, there has been a considerable increase in the number of people claiming war pensions of late, and that trend will continue as those who fought in the second world war reach old age. In the next decade, therefore, the needs and interests of those who fought in that war will become more apparent, and we will need a Minister dedicated to looking after their interests, not to mention those of the war widows, orphans and dependants. Some of the embarrassment—I put it no more strongly than that because I do not want to score points—and misunderstanding that surrounded the events marking D-day might easily have been avoided had there been such a Minister in post.
The cut in the grant for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission also bears on this point. Earlier, the Secretary of State intervened in an endeavour to reassure his hon. Friends that the cut could be absorbed by the commission.

799
That did not satisfy me. Frankly, I was amazed to learn of the cut. All the evidence suggests that it was done without consultation with the other principal participants m the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. That was discourteous to say the least. The underlying fear of those of us who frequent the war graves is that if the Government get away with cutting the grant this year, they will follow that up with more reductions in future years. I would deeply regret that.
I should also like to mention the disappointment felt by those who did national service at the fact that they are not allowed, if they work in any uniformed public service, to wear the medal struck by the Royal British Legion to mark their national service. This is no small issue; I and others have raised it with the Ministry. The Ministry seems to have adopted a rather petty, mean-minded attitude to this issue—or was it the Prime Minister? It should and could have been recommended to the Queen that a medal be struck for people who did national service, enabling them to wear it when on duty in a uniformed service; there are many such people in the police force, the traffic warden service, the ambulance and fire services, and in voluntary organisations such as St. John Ambulance, who should be allowed to wear a medal and ribbon because they gave this country dedicated service of which they are justly proud. Alternatively, if a new medal cannot be struck, the Queen should be advised that they should be allowed to wear the one that the Royal British Legion has already struck.
The Government should recognise the widespread view of hon. Members—no matter how Conservative Members dress it up—that we should stop making piecemeal decisions about our armed forces and related political matters, and should step back and look at them in the round. Such decisions are foolhardy in the extreme.
Secondly, hon. Members on both sides of the House have drawn attention today to the need for a Minister who will be dedicated to promoting the best interests of war veterans, and of their widows and dependants. Such a Minister would also be responsible for commemorating their service on behalf of the Crown in years gone by, and for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, inasmuch as the Government contribute to it. The new Minister could also deal with the VE-day and W-day celebrations, and would marshal resources on behalf of former service men and women and liaise with their organisations. He or she would promote all these interests at arm's length from those in charge of operational matters, which should clearly remain the responsibility of the defence team.
8.56 pm
Sir Jerry Wiggin: I have been attending Army debates for more years than I care to mention. Unfortunately, in some respects they always seem to take a similar form: very lengthy opening speeches, lasting well over two hours today, and far too little mention of the Army.
I noted with interest that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) hinted that our Army is too small in some ways, but that he refused to commit the Labour party to any increase in its size. Nor would he be drawn on defence expenditure in general. Of course I understand his dilemma; he handles it skilfully if somewhat lengthily.
800
I am anxious not to fall out with the Minister of State, but I strongly suspect that somewhere in the MOD there is a computer program marked "Minister of State's opening speech for Army debate". It seems to come up on the word processor fairly often—I have heard it many times. It would certainly do no harm if the official concerned were to suggest a few more matters pertinent to the Army of today—perhaps less self-congratulation and a little more explanation.
Morale in the Army unquestionably is not at its height, and the Government should have addressed that today. Recruitment is a matter of concern, and the redundancy programme has been grasped with such enthusiasm by many of those who have been made redundant that the Army has been short of certain grades of officers and NCOs. That is a fault in the Army, and is not the fault of Ministers.
Training areas are already being ground up by the increase in the weight of equipment and because there are more training regiments in the United Kingdom at present. There is a lamentable shortage of barracks, which is an historical failure by the Army to provide its own home in the United Kingdom. Meanwhile, large sums of British taxpayers' money are spent on building expensive barracks in Germany to a higher standard than we have here.
I hope that, as the Army considers its withdrawal from Germany, there will be a substantial financial settlement. We have put a great deal of money into works programmes in Germany and it would be wrong for us simply to give that away because there been some change in the strategic scene.
Another subject about which my constituents are bothered and which I would have expected to be mentioned is the ridiculous payments made to women who joined the armed forces on the strict condition that if they became pregnant they would leave. They are now going to tribunals and subsequently being awarded huge sums of money. The taxpayers and the armed forces resent that. I would have expected some explanation from the Government on some of those subjects.
I am one of those who take the view that we have no business being in Bosnia. I also acknowledge that I was wrong in imagining that little good could be done, as I believe that a great deal of good has been done. Many of the convoys would not have got through without the assistance of our troops. No doubt there are plenty of different arguments about the subject, but the British public are certainly not being given an all-encompassing view of the complexities of the situation. The media have been incredibly one-sided without giving the historical facts and the detailed knowledge of what is going on. I believe that that view is shared across the Floor of the House.
With regard to the length of time which troops may spend in Bosnia, I recall that when troops first went into Northern Ireland it was to be a short police operation. Twenty-five years later, they are still there. Not only that; they are there in much larger numbers. Unless a firm decision is made shortly—it will have to be shortly—we will find ourselves in exactly the same quagmire in former Yugoslavia as we have in Northern Ireland, as the Americans did in Vietnam and the Russians did in Afghanistan. It is a historical fact, and we never ever learn. We really must recognise the problem.
I read with pleasure a report in The Sunday Times—my experience of that newspaper is that much of what it prints

801
is not necessarily accurate—on "Front Line First". It seemed to have several commendable points. The first was the subtle, but long-overdue, request to serving personnel to "tell us how you think we can be more efficient". I am delighted that that exercise has been carried out and I only wish that "Front Line First" had come before "Options for Change". I think that that would have been the right way round.
There were so many subjects where things could be done. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) will not be happy with the suggestion that there should be a co-ordination of the teaching of music. I tried to do that when I was at the Ministry of Defence and my hon. Friends may care to discover the Gale report on the teaching of music. The Army and the Navy hire marchers and teach them to play music. The Royal Air Force hires musicians and teaches them to march, and that is much cheaper. If the music school is to be under the flight path of London airport, so be it. One music school would be better than three.
It has been suggested that the three staff colleges should be put together. I tried to argue in favour of that also, not just for cost reasons but for military reasons. If my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces reads Sir Peter de la Billiere's book on the Gulf war, he will see Sir Peter comment on the fact that many of the senior officers who were coming together in his tri-service headquarters had never met each other before. That is totally inefficient and wrong. However, the question is—where do we put the staff college?
Greenwich is a nice place, but it is expensive to maintain and contains a small nuclear reactor—believe it or not—which is expensive to move. The Army has been carrying out exercises from Camberley for so many years that it did not think that it could learn new ground, and the RAF—as was pointed out in the debate—is very fond of its base at Bracknell. Ministers must put their foot down and say that the time has come for tri-service training at that level. It should be possible to find a home for that training.
As to the question of medical resources, the British Medical Association makes it an absolute requirement that a limited number of doctors are trained each year, and that is a long-standing practice. There is a finite medical resource, whether in or out of uniform, and the same applies to a large extent to hospitals. At the time of the Gulf war, a lot of soldiers went off as Territorials to work as medics, and having a large number of uniformed medical officers in all three services is a complete waste of money.
I give much encouragement to my hon. Friends in those exercises, which are long overdue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) went over many of the things which I did 10 years before him, and I hope that at last somebody will tackle many of those things.
As to the Procurement Executive needing 7,500 civil servants, I am bemused as to what they do. The fact remains that there are three people watching one to make sure that one does not pinch anything. The actual cost is completely uncommercial and unrelated to the practice in every large company. It is time that there was a huge shake-up in simple terms of numbers. Although we
802
welcome the idea that the civil servants should come together and that they are coming to Bristol, there is a case for reducing the numbers.
My favourite hobby horse is the Territorial Army. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) was not entirely right when he referred to the TA. The proposition is that there should be a further cut in the numbers. The TA has already been reduced from its target figure of more than 70,000 to 63,500. I repeat, as has been oft repeated by anyone who has given any thought to the matter, that at a time when we are cutting our Regular forces, we should improve, increase and strengthen our reserves. They are a cheap alternative. Common sense demands that that should happen.
I give credit to my hon. Friend the Minister. I know that he has questioned the advice that he has been given. I assume that that is the reason for the delay in making his announcement. I am rooting for him in the hope that he is battling with the Regular soldiers, who are only too keen to cut out the reserves for all the wrong reasons. I hope that he is winning his battle to retain the TA much as it is today. It is already too small.
I also want to know what has happened to so much of the equipment that has been drawn out of Germany. Radio sets have been taken out of tanks. Yet my Yeomanry have radio sets that are out of date and cannot communicate with other units. The equipment must exist because it was in Germany. I suspect that it is sitting in some warehouse and that it is beyond the capacity of the Army's administration to move it from Germany or wherever to TA units.
I am not as enthusiastic as many other commentators about the pronouncement that Territorials should go to the Falklands to take part in that garrison. I have consulted some senior officers in the TA and they are extremely worried about it. The only men who will be able to find a month, or more than a month—
Mr. Brazier: Four months.
Sir Jerry Wiggin: I am sorry, four months. It will probably be four months for the first manoeuvre. The only men who will be able to find that amount of time will be the unemployed or those who feel that it is possible to give up their civilian job. They will go at platoon strength so they will not operate as part of their unit. I suspect that the Regular Army will judge that particular platoon and apply their judgment to the whole of the Territorial Army. That is a worrying point.
Mr. Brazier: Surely the point is that we should look for much shorter commitments such as providing the enemy in BATUS. We need commitments that could be done over a period of, say, two, four or six weeks by a formed sub-unit or a sub-unit from a formed unit.
Sir Jerry Wiggin: That sounds an excellent idea. The other point is that the Falklands in the relevant months are extremely unpleasant to be in. The rain raineth every day. It is the middle of the winter.
Mr. Mackinlay: It is bloody cold.
Sir Jerry Wiggin: As the hon. Gentleman says, it is bloody cold. It is likely that that training could not be carried out for about half the time. Ministers should have a look at the timing of the move of Territorials to the Falklands. In the margins of that, will they also have a look at the infrequency of the RAF service to the Falklands?

803
Obviously, I can only ask questions about the flights that are available to the public, but the reliability of the RAF airline is so poor as to be deplorable.
"Front Line First" is the message, and I think that we would all support that. It means that the Territorial Army —our reserves—[Interruption.] "Front Line First" means that we have to keep our fighting forces in good order. The truth of the matter remains that if the Territorial Army is abolished—the naval reserve has already been abolished and the RAF reserve has effectively been abolished—we shall not carry out the "Front Line First" policy which the Government rightly propound.
In referring in a previous debate to the EH101 helicopters, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said:
"The saga of support helicopters for our armed forces has been Wagnerian in its length and Shakespearean in its complexity." —[Official Report, 26 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 919.]
If it goes on much longer it will soon be like a Gilbert and Sullivan opera. I suggest yet again that, as we watch our forces immobilised by the fact that they have not received these helicopters which were promised 10 years ago, we are seriously reducing the fighting effectiveness of our forces. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) propounded the views that he put forward at the time of "Options for Change"—which I did not vote for —and said that the idea was to have our equipment as up to date and as good as any in the world. That means mobility and it means helicopters. It is time that a decision was taken.
I welcomed the Secretary of State's intervention on the subject of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. The commission costs as much as it has to cost. As I understand it, at present the various Commonwealth countries concerned—a large number contribute to funding the pool—are simply told what it costs to pay the gardeners and keep the gardens and graves in order, and that cost is borne in an agreed percentage by all of the countries concerned.
I should be very alarmed if that principle were to be breached in any way. I have visited the cemetery at Lae in Papua New Guinea—one could not go much further away than that—and it is a beautiful place. Anyone who has spent the night in the Commonwealth War Graves Commission hut on the beach at Gallipoli will know that it is an emotional experience. I do not think that I or anyone else would tolerate messing with that marvellous organisation.
Mr. Toby Jessel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I give notice that I wish to apply to raise on the Adjournment a matter which is of great concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) and myself—British Army bands, military music and Kneller Hall.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair to deal with now.
9.11 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: I share the frustration of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) who has been trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that we could speak for as long as we liked in the debate, but at the end of the day someone has lost out.
I register my dismay that the Government business managers decided to schedule the Army debate for today.
804
It was obvious that the debate would be poorly attended, but it was agreed to by the usual channels—I suspect that the Opposition Whips Office may have had something to do with it as well.
We always thought that more Tory Members than Labour Members would be present for the debate—obviously those people who have been out on the streets realise why that is so. This is a very safe bunker for Tory Members at the moment. They would all like to say, "I can't get back to my constituency—I'm speaking in the army debate". But we have managed to bring out enough troops to keep many of those on the Benches opposite tied up.
It is obvious that Government Ministers do not like debates about the services. I suspect that they will use this experience to say some time in the future that because such debates are not well attended they should perhaps be axed. They have axed everything else and I think that they would now like to axe service debates. Another reason why they have these debates on such days is that the Government do not want any publicity about what they are doing with the armed forces.
I want to chide the Minister of State for the Armed Forces a little. I am glad to see that he has been present for the debate today. During the debate on the Royal Air Force he made a speech, then left the Chamber and did not return. I am sure that that will not happen again.
Mr. Hanley: Just to set the record straight, I could not stay to hear the closing speeches on that occasion because I was attending an Army function and the people at that function would have been extremely disappointed if I had not been there. I asked the permission of the House for that to be taken into account and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman finds it unacceptable.
Mr. Martlew: I understand that members of the RAF were not too happy about the situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) has knowledge and enthusiasm. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) said that my hon. Friend could adopt any brief, but I do not think that that is true. My hon. Friend has a genuine affection for, and knowledge of, the subject. I suspect that in many ways he is a frustrated soldier, but the Army's loss is the Labour party's gain. He will make up for that when he becomes a Minister. I think that he will make a good Minister for the Armed Forces in the next Labour Administration.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), rather sadly, seems to spend his time haunting the Back Benches, defending the policies that he made when he was in charge of the Ministry of Defence. He possibly has a feeling that history will not treat him well in terms of his stewardship of the Ministry of Defence, and he is probably right.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) again made an excellent speech, with which we could not disagree in any detail. My only suspicion is that if his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) had made a speech it would have been very different. That tends to be the case with the Liberals: we all know that one says one thing while another says something else. However, it was a good speech and it referred to what will happen to the troops who are brought back if we have peace in Northern Ireland. I shall discuss

805
that later. The hon. and learned Gentleman also made an argument about the War Graves Commission, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).
I was glad that the Secretary of State was here. I thought that we were going to have an Army debate at which the Secretary of State would not be present, but I understand that he was at the public showing of Eurofighter 2000. Many of us regret the fact that it was scheduled for today and we could not go. I am not sure that the Minister said that the budget of the War Graves Commission would not be cut: I suspect that he actually said that it would be cut but that it would not make any difference. He should have obtained the view of the House on that, which is that it would not be tolerated. Any reduction in standards of war graves will not be tolerated by either side of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) made a good constituency speech about the firing range in his constituency and the need to keep Benbecula open. He has great knowledge of it. He took the opportunity, as always, to remind us of the need for European defence security, on which he is an expert and for which he is an enthusiast. He seemed to be saying that Europeans should intervene in Bosnia and Africans should interfere in Rwanda. I do not agree with that. If one gets into that situation, it could be dangerous.
The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), who had a distinguished service career from 1943 to 1957, was rather churlish about the Labour party. He gave no credit to the Labour Governments from 1974 onwards, who looked after the armed forces very well. He let the cat out of the bag when he said that his worst time in the Army was when he was serving in the Suez canal zone between 1951 and 1954. That was under a Tory Administration. He said that the situation was similar to that today, which again is under a Tory Administration.
I always tend to agree with the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, but today I thought that he was being a bit of a political dinosaur. I hope that what he said about the power of Russia is not correct. His speech gave one the feeling that if we still had troops in India he would want them to stay there. He is known as one of the best friends of the armed forces in the House and on some occasions that can be a disadvantage.
On the question of Belize, I agree with the hon. Gentleman—as, I believe, does the Labour party. I agree also with much of what he said about the very difficult situation in Bosnia. There is a great deal of disinformation coming out of Bosnia. I do not believe that we can rely on the British media, and I do not expect that the hon. Gentleman will be called to discuss the Bosnian situation on the "Today" programme.
Regrettably, I was not in the Chamber to hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), which I understand was very entertaining. Indeed, one of my hon. Friends has said that it was better than the speeches that he made from the Dispatch Box. The reason could be that today he was saying what he believed, whereas on other occasions he was expressing Government policy. I see that the right hon. Gentleman has just arrived in the Chamber. For his benefit I should repeat that, while I missed his speech, I understand that it was very enlightening and entertaining and that one of my hon.
806
Friends thinks that it was better than the ones he made as a Front Bencher. The point is that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman was saying what he believed.
When history comes to be written, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will be credited with putting down the questions which resulted in the Scott inquiry. There is no doubt that my hon. Friend is very diligent. Ministers know how many questions he puts down. It is one means of securing information that Ministers do not normally divulge in debate.
I disagree with my hon. Friend's remarks about the pay of the armed forces. There has been an increase of about 4 per cent., but the Government have welched on it to the extent that only 2.7 per cent. was paid on 1 April and personnel will have to wait until next January for the rest. In fact, there will be no more money in their pay packets this month. Indeed, there will be less, by virtue of increased national insurance contributions and the extra income tax imposed by the Government. The truth is that, so far, people in the armed forces have had no increase at all.
The hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who is not in the Chamber at present, made a strange speech. I thought that my intervention would be helpful. I asked the hon. Gentleman whether he thought that a cut from 5.2 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1990 to 2.9 per cent. in 1996 was too great. He said that it was, in fact, too little. I do not know whether he did not understand my question or whether he was advocating further defence cuts. If he were in his place now, he could perhaps explain himself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock carried on his campaign with regard to the health and welfare of war veterans. He also mentioned the War Graves Commission and brought up the issue of the wearing of medals. A Member of Parliament who takes such a specific interest in these matters is to be congratulated.
I have a great deal of affection for the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin). I always remember the favourite words that he said to me when, as a member of the Select Committee, I was to go on a foreign trip: "Young man, we never go anywhere that isn't civilised." Unfortunately, since taking on the Army brief I have been to both Macedonia and Bosnia.
I took exception to the hon. Gentleman's attack on women. Women in the armed forces had to agree to the conditions. There was no option: the duty was imposed by the Government. I shall return to that matter later. I found myself agreeing with the hon. Gentleman, however, when he pointed out that the Government are not increasing but cutting the numbers in the Territorial Army. No one listening to the debate would have thought so.
In some ways this debate has been too wide ranging. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare was right when he said that we do not often talk about the Army. Perhaps I should now try to concentrate on that aspect of the subject. In his opening remarks in the debate on this year's defence estimates, the Secretary of State for Defence said that we have world-class armed forces who are held in high regard throughout the world. Although that statement is still true, it is in spite of, not because of, Government policies. If it is to remain true, how long can we continue to have a Ministry of Defence that is run by the Treasury and takes defence cuts every time that it is asked?
In last year's debate on the Army, it was said that further redundancies would be made. The Army took the brunt of those, with 7,000 redundancies in the armed forces this

807
year, 1,000 of which were compulsory—despite the phantom army of 3,000 troops that have appeared. I was not convinced by the Minister's explanation on that. The Government were criticised for making compulsory redundancies because they are an easy way to destroy morale. Other options were available, one of which was to look at the redundancy package. That package may have been considered generous, but with nearly 3 million unemployed and redundant soldiers facing years on the dole queue it was not generous enough.
When I asked the Minister of State for the Armed Forces how many people had volunteered for redundancy, he answered that those records were not kept centrally.
Mr. Hanley: Perhaps I may help the hon. Gentleman. More people volunteered for redundancy than there were redundancies available, but the redundancies were not necessarily in the right places for the particular skills. On the replacement of jobs, 80 per cent. of those made redundant in the second phase were in jobs within two months of leaving the armed forces.
Mr. Martlew: First, the Minister is complacent about the fact that 20 per cent. of those who left the armed forces are without a job. Secondly, although I am grateful to him for that intervention, why did he tell me that the figures were not available when I put down a written question? The reason must be because there were many more volunteers than the Government wanted to admit, which was a measure of morale in the armed forces.
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman could not run a whelk stall.
Mr. Martlew: The Minister says that I could not run a whelk stall. When I worked in the private sector I ran a better redundancy and personnel policy than the present Government.
Mr. King: Although "Options for Change" involved redundancies, we set in place the most generous package that the armed forces has ever had and the services took terrific trouble over the arrangements for resettlement and retraining. What the hon. Gentleman said is a gross affront to the people in the services who have devoted tremendous effort to that and have had considerable success. Instead of scoring cheap political points, will he pay tribute to the people in the services who have done that work?
Mr. Martlew: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was not here when I referred to his speech. I said that he spends most of his time justifying the decisions that he took when he was Defence Secretary. When he intervened, however, I was discussing the decisions of the present Defence Minister.
Northern Ireland has been discussed and I pay tribute to the work of our soldiers there. My local regiment, the King's Own Border Regiment, is just completing a two-and-a-half-year tour in Deny, where it has no doubt kept up the regiment's fine tradition. We hope that there will be peace. We sometimes see a glimmer of hope, but then there is a false dawn. Last November, some people hoped that peace would come by Christmas, but that: has not happened.
If we have peace and the soldiers are brought back, the defence statement says that they will return to a peacekeeping role. After 25 years, I am worried about the peacekeeping role of those extra troops. Might not the
808
Treasury see that as an opportunity to say, "We have won the peace—here is your P45." I do not want to make a political point out of that, but Ministers must bear in mind that peace in Northern Ireland would mean perhaps another 20,000 troops made redundant.
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) made fun of defence diversification. There is no mention of it in the defence estimates. They mention the fact that the Army has discovered a way of freezing blood plasma. That was done for military purposes, but it will now be used for commercial purposes. The Ministry of Defence has signed a contract for that work with a Dutch company. The process was invented in Britain, but the product is to be manufactured abroad. Nothing changes, does it?
I am glad to see that the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), is present. I am sure that he will agree that if one wants a success story of defence diversification one need go no further than Cumbria. On the west coast, there was a royal ordnance factory called Sellafield. It was used after the war for making plutonium for nuclear bombs. Now it employs 12,000 people, only 5 per cent. of them for a military purpose, the rest for peaceful purposes. Whether or not one agrees with nuclear power, that is a success story of defence diversification and it was Government directed.
We need a defence diversification agency so that we can start to exploit the peaceful aspects of the defence industry rather than giving such work to the Dutch, as the Government appear to do.
I have done some research on the position of women in the armed forces. I know that Conservative Members are upset about women being compensated for unfair dismissal. I contacted our NATO allies. The French said that they had never dismissed women because they were pregnant. The Greeks have not replied, which may have something to do with the fact that I went to Macedonia. The Italians said that they do not have such a problem because they do not allow women in their armed forces. The Netherlands said that it never dismisses women for being pregnant, as did Canada. The Norwegians said that it is illegal to dismiss women for that reason. The Portuguese said that they have never dismissed women because of pregnancy and the Belgians said that it is illegal for them to do so. The Danes said that female personnel had never been dismissed and the same situation applies in the Republic of Germany.
Mr. Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Martlew: I am sorry, but I will not give way. I have only three minutes left and I want to wind up.
Spain does not dismiss women because of pregnancy and even Turkey does not do it. The United States does not do it. In 1990 a European judgment required the United Kingdom to change the law. The bill is coming in now and it will be £20 million, £30 million or £40 million. The Government are to blame. They should have taken the advice of their NATO allies and changed the rules.
With regard to the D-day debacle, we were in great danger of changing a ceremony to honour the 10,000 people who died into some sort of fun day. Now it is back in kilter. I wrote to the Secretary of State on 16 November on behalf of the veterans in Carlisle asking for financial help and received a reply from the then Under-Secretary of State, Lord Cranborne. They were given £500 by Carlisle

809
city council, but nothing by the Government. The letter from Lord Cranborne mentioned the Royal British Legion once, but gave the Southern tourist board's address. There were six more references to tourist boards, but only one to the Royal British Legion. The Ministry of Defence gave the job of organising the affair to the tourist boards of Great Britain. That is where it went wrong.
We now have a Government who do not want a policy review, a Government run by the Treasury and its Chief Secretary. Not only that—they have been played about by the tourist boards. We now have the weakest Ministry of Defence for many years: it is a good job that the Ministers who are there now were not there when the original landings were being organised, or D-day would never have got off the ground.
9.35 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): Running like a silver thread through the six and half hours of the debate has been a steady flow of tributes from hon. Members on both sides of the House to our Army and to its service men and women. I am glad to add my own accolade and that of the Government to the high and well deserved praise already expressed. I shall return to that theme at the end of my speech. In the meantime, I am happy to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) at the beginning of his speech, when he said that our armed forces are the finest in the world. They certainly deserve that proud title.
However, that was the only point on which I agreed with the hon. Member for Motherwell, North, who spent 68 tedious minutes boring the pants off the House with the most feeble of knockabouts and the most flaccid of knocking copy. The only interesting moment came when he took a leaf out of someone else's book and read us a great encomium of praise for Lord Healey. I found that rather illuminating. Labour's most disastrous Secretary of State for Defence has suddenly become an icon and a guru for the new Labour Front-Bench spokesmen.
In his career as a politician, Lord Healey defied the law of averages by always getting it wrong. He predicted disaster for our armed forces in the Falklands. He was wrong about that. He predicted disaster for our forces in the Gulf war. He was wrong about that. Lord Healey scrapped the TSR2; let us remember that on the day when Eurofighter is flying proudly. He was wrong about that too. It was Lord Healey, too, who inflicted the most savage defence cuts in recent history between 1964 and 1970. He was wrong about those too. And he is the new source of inspiration for Labour Front-Bench policies.
The Opposition spokesman fell back on two slogans, both pretty familiar. One was, "Give us a proper defence review," and the other was "Down with the Treasury-led exercise, 'Front Line First'." Then he dug out a polished phrase from the Walworth road admen and said that the Government were running the British Army like a branch of McDonald's. All I can say is that when I have finished with him tonight I hope that he will feel like a sliced hamburger.
After the monotony of the opening Opposition speech, it was refreshing to hear a much shorter, more serious and statesmanlike speech from my right hon. Friend the
810
Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who reminded the Government of their promise to give the Army adequate resources for first-class equipment. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) touched on that subject too, and spoke of our moral obligation in that regard.
I shall return to the subject of the Army's equipment programme later, but we can be quietly proud of the fact that we are placing a Challenger 2 order and negotiating a further extension to it, we have the AS90 order, and the Warrior order is completing. The attack and support helicopter bids are also now under negotiation or evaluation. That all adds up to a first-class equipment programme.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater was right to remind us of what can fairly be called the tension in Ministry of Defence planning between resources for peacekeeping duties and those for high-intensity conflict. It is important to realise that we are equipping our Army with a careful eye on the long term, so it is a wide-ranging capability-based Army, which has to balance its manpower-intensive peacetime operational commitments with its more fundamental role involving war-fighting capability.
Mr. Brazier: I share the concern that was eloquently expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), to which my hon. Friend the Minister is referring. I put it to my hon. Friend that, while the individual orders he mentions are welcome, we are now spending the lowest proportion of the defence budget on equipment since shortly after we took office. It is difficult to see how that can be compatible with a better-equipped, high-intensity capability.
Mr. Aitken: I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is letting his understandable frustration at having sat through the debate for six and a half hours without getting called make him say things that are rougher than are justified. The Army is pretty satisfied with the equipment programme, as I know from all levels. It is important that, whatever the money spent, we give the Army the equipment to run a high-intensity, all-arms capability at formation level—a formation that can go to war as part of NATO or some other coalition, as was the case in the Gulf.
Without that war-fighting capability—perhaps this is what my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury is afraid of—the British Army would become a mere gendarmerie, capable of providing a battalion here or a battalion there, but without the ability to go to war in a high-intensity conflict. That latter scenario is no part of the Government's vision. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) eloquently reminded us, the world is a dangerous place and the British Army must be prepared for the most serious of conflicts, as it has been in the past.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) asked me about the new Reserve Forces Bill. We hope to introduce legislation in the 1994 Session. He asked whether the two battalions in Northern Ireland were really necessary. They are required by the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland, although, as my right hon. Friend well knows, force levels in Northern Ireland are kept under constant review to match the changing nature of the threat.

811
The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) raised a constituency point about Benbecula. He will know from my visit to his constituency and from the fact that I was glad to receive a delegation of his constituents that I am well informed on the issue and I take his points seriously, as will the Government before reaching any decision.
My hon. Friends the Members for Upminster and for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) raised the issue of training, which is most important. If the Army is not well trained, it will not have high morale and it will not for long keep its position as top of the first division of premier fighting forces of the world. Proper resourcing of the programme of Army training is a high priority for the Government. We have a major package to develop our two key training areas of Salisbury plain and BATUS. I assure my hon. Friends that we shall continue to make full use of the excellent training facilities at BATUS and to utilise all the slots available to us.
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) made points about what went on in the miners' strike and about Polaris; he said almost nothing about the Army. I can make one point to him. There is no question of our finding posts for redundant service men by dismissing Ministry of Defence police, and I am glad to set the record straight there.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) did the House a service by revealing the exciting contents of Mr. Larry Whitty's circular. It did, indeed, prove that the Labour party has been making an extraordinary amount of political capital out of D-day, both outside the House and inside the House, where it has tabled early-day motions criticising the Government. That is a real case of facing both ways and of humbug, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for revealing that. In response to my hon. Friend's exhortations about being more businesslike at Ministry of Defence headquarters, I can tell him that we are doing just that in the defence costs study, to which I shall turn in a moment.
I was grateful for the compliments to the Royal Anglian Regiment made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). I agree with his point about the importance of extending the hand of military friendship and co-operation to the emerging democracies of eastern Europe, including Poland and Hungary. We are trying to do that through the partnership for peace programme.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) feels that there can be reductions in the Procurement Executive and rationalisation of the medical services. That point was also raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell. However, I thought that my hon. Friend was being unfair when he spoke of the unsatisfactory nature of the new Territorial Army commitment to the Falklands. Contrary to his gloomy forecasts, recruiting for that particular TA platoon is going extremely well. There have already been more than 53 volunteers for the 40 places available. That is a signal that this is quite a popular move.
Many speeches tonight have dealt with the defence costs study exercise, known as "Front Line First". Indeed, almost every speaker touched on that in some way. I am glad to tell the House something about it and to turn, with some relish, to the Mutt and Jeff act on the subject from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. Their speeches were so bereft of constructive criticism, let alone originality of thought, that we can safely assume that Labour's shadow ministerial team has spent the past few months deeply
812
immersed in an ideas-cutting internal exercise known as "Front Bench Last". Even further behind are their own Back Benchers. When the debate started, there was the amazing total of three Labour Back Benchers in the House, compared to 32 Members on this side, indicating that we take defence 10 times more seriously than do the Opposition.
As a substitute for any sort of understanding or comprehension of what we are about, the two Opposition spokesmen performed predictably as a couple of rather loud-mouthed, old sailor's parrots. They opened up their beaks to screech out two tired old cliches that we have heard 100 times: give us a proper defence review and down with the Treasury-led exercise. I shall deal with those two hoary, old, ornithological squawks once and for all.
As for the parrots crying "Give us a proper defence review", let me remind the House that we have had our policy review. It was called "Options for Change". My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater reminded us, in a fine speech, that our policy is just as valid today as it ever was. We keep those policies and commitments as set out in "Options for Change" under review and the results of our analysis have been published in greater detail than ever before in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994". That White Paper shows that the "Options for Change" policy remains fundamentally valid, although, of course, there are changes in the plans and in some of the plan details in accordance with changes in the strategic environment.
Turning to "Front Line First", I am amazed at the noises from Opposition Members suggesting that they are totally hostile to the study. Surely they do not oppose our efforts to study new methods for saving the taxpayer money and for spending it more effectively on the front line. Surely they are not opposed to the principle of trying to concentrate resources at the sharp end of defence—the front line. When they demand instead a wider defence review and they go on about the need to review our commitments, does that mean that they want to give up certain policy commitments? In which case, let them say which ones they want to give up. We wait with bated breath to hear the announcement. Or do they want to use the cloak of a defence review to fulfil their conference resolutions to make cuts in the front line? In which case, we need to be told which cuts in the front line they have in mind.
As usual, we did not get a single policy idea, except one. We did get one policy. Here it comes. Was it a bird? Was it a plane? Was it a missile? No. It was a defence diversification unit. That was the only new, original idea that the Labour party had for defence policy. For the Government, the whole point of "Front Line First", as the very name makes clear, is not to cut or diminish the operational military capability effective as the front line. I believe that we are going to succeed in that objective.
That is why I feel confident in also dismissing the Opposition's second parrot cry, which simply denounces the whole exercise as Treasury-led. Anyone who has been following "Front Line First" from the inside would gladly give credit to the best and brightest minds in the services and in the Department for the radical and lateral thinking and new ideas that have led the whole exercise internally from within the system.
I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell was well informed on that point and paid tribute to those internal efforts. It was our own idea to take

813
an across-the-board look at the way in which we do business in the support and administrative areas of defence to see whether we could not only makes sensible savings, but shift resources from tail to teeth.
It was our plan not only to hand pick 33 study teams, but to invite suggestions from individuals, service men, service women and departmental officials who felt that they had proposals to contribute. Those individual contributions provided the teams with a rich harvest of reforming ideas. That is not surprising because it is our own people who best understand the need to cut the costs of administration and support, to put the greatest possible resources into the front line.
Dr. Reid: May I remind the Minister that the definition of "Front Line First" and of the front line was asked for not by a Labour Member but by one of his hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who is now here? Perhaps the Minister can explain to his hon. Friend, as his colleague could not, what the Minister means by the front line.
Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend gave a very good answer and I shall give my own answer later. I was saying, to remind the House, that it was our internal people who seized the opportunity to tell us about the things that they thought that we were doing less than efficiently. Well over 3,000 individual suggestions have been received from within the services and the Ministry. Those range from suggestions about packaging standards and better uses of fax machines and computers to proposals for tri-service rationalisation, civilianisation and privatisation.
All those suggestions were passed on to the appropriate study team and many of the suggestions will be followed up in the normal course of business. Those 33 teams have been looking across the board at the defence environment and at every aspect of the way in which we manage and support the front line to see whether we can do it better and more economically.
The teams have been considering big issues such as the management of spares, on which we spend £4 billion each year, and the central organisation of the Ministry, but, at the same time, they have been examining more routine activities that do not normally receive high-level scrutiny, or certainly did not during the cold war. There are a multitude of examples, but I shall give only one or two. I have mentioned such matters as staff travel arrangements, the provision of fire cover to the three services, internal financial management, the management of our scientific research and development budget and new information technology systems.
Many clear messages have emerged from the evidence that has been given to the teams. Message No. 1 is that the Ministry of Defence and headquarters at all levels were widely seen as excessively bureaucratic, despite recent reductions in bureaucracy. Several teams have been addressing the problem in different areas and have proposed significant reforms.
Message No. 2 is that future defence operations, and hence command, training and support, are seen as being increasingly carried out on a joint service basis. In many areas, therefore, the proposed programme of reform and
814
rationalisation will follow from that. Emerging from the studies is the prospect of scope for savings and better defence solutions.
Message No. 3—
Dr. David Clark: What is the front line?
Mr. Aitken: The parrot is on again about the front line. Let the hon. Gentleman listen to the messages and he might learn some new cries.
Message No. 3 is that reductions in the state of readiness requirements following the end of the cold war could be further and safely exploited to achieve important savings in some support areas.
Message No. 4 is that we need greater delegation. The process of delegating responsibility from the centre has not yet reached as far down the chain of management as we intended. We need to give our commanders and managers more freedom about how they meet defence objectives.
As the summarised messages from the study group show, the sheer depth and weight of the in-house activity gives the lie to the Opposition's parrot cry, "Treasury-led exercise."
Dr. Clark: Where does the front line begin?
Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman keeps on about the front line. It is extraordinary that he does not know where it begins.
Dr. Clark: Perhaps the Minister will tell me.
Mr. Aitken: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman exactly. In essence, the term "front line" refers to the overall operational capability that our fighting units—warships, battalions and combat aircraft, for example—need to fulfil the military tasks placed on them. They are set out in detail in the White Paper. For that capability to be maintained, our fighting units have to be properly supported, directly or indirectly, by the remaining parts of the services and by the Ministry of Defence itself.
Support areas make a vital contribution to front-line capability. That contribution is, by and large, distinct in its nature and susceptible to separate analysis. That is precisely why we set up the defence costs study. We wish to ensure that front-line units receive the essential support that they need, but with the best value for money and at the least possible cost. I think that that is a pretty sensible definition that meets the points raised by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith).
I have been asked a great deal about timing and when we shall make our announcement. I understand that there is a natural impatience and a natural urge to end uncertainty. Those points were well made.
A massive study that aims to improve efficiency and administrative support areas to enable our armed forces to discharge their military tasks to the full surely deserves a welcome in principle from the whole House, as it has received a welcome in principle from the services and the Ministry of Defence. They understand what we are trying to do and, on the whole, the exercise has been well supported. It certainly does not deserve to receive the sort of parish-pump whingeing and parrot cries that we have had from the Opposition. I recognise that the House will be disappointed—I hope that it will be understanding—that I am constrained from giving further details tonight. That is because the study process has not yet been completed.

815
I must emphasise that, contrary to some speculative press reports, no final decisions on "Front Line First'' have yet been reached by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
The final phase will take a few more weeks to complete. I expect my right hon. and learned Friend to announce the outcome of the study well before the summer recess. We shall make the announcement as early as possible to end the uncertainty that my right hon. and hon. Friends have mentioned. I am confident—
Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Aitken: No.
I am confident that "Front Line First" will achieve the objective of making substantial savings. It will achieve the objective of improving the efficiency of defence support and administration while not diminishing—it may even succeed in enhancing—the front-line capability of Her Majesty's armed forces.
Mr. Martlew: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that the results of "Front Line First" will be announced before the recess. Does he agree that the House should have an opportunity to debate that announcement before the House rises?
Mr. Aitken: I have no doubt that the "Front Line First" proposals will be debated by the House, but: the arrangement of such a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. It does not help good relations between parties when, after the usual channels have arranged a debate on a date suggested by the Opposition, an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman repudiates his own Whips and says that it is unfair that the debate should be held today. That was a deplorable performance by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew).
It follows from what I said that the "Front Line First" process will not have a negative impact on the Army. One positive aspect of our financial restructuring is that the Army's equipment programme is in robust shape. I refer particularly to the Challenger 2 tank order. I remind the House that 127 of the new, impressive Challenger 2 tanks are on order from Vickers. In December, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced that we expected to place an order for up to 259 more, subject to contractual negotiations. The tender for Vickers has been received and is under negotiation.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East asked me a specific question about attack helicopters.. Six companies have responded to our invitation to tender with strong bids and we expect to place a contract with the winner in the middle of next year.
Several hon. Members, notably my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) and for Weston-super-Mare, asked the familiar question about support helicopters and the EH101 helicopter. The invitation to tender has been issued to Westland for the EH101 helicopters and to Boeing for Chinooks. We hope to have a mixed fleet, but its number and composition must depend on prices, which are under negotiation. We hope to make an announcement before the end of the year.
I am not able to go through the full equipment programme, but I should like to say that we have ordered the AS90 and that we are coming to the end of an order for about 750 Warrior vehicles. We have placed a £200 million
816
order for long-term orders of ammunition, which has been a great boon to Royal Ordnance, although one would not think it from the comments of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North.
We shall introduce the high-velocity missile for the Army's close-air defence capability and we hope to introduce the new Rapier field standard C short-range missile system, which is expected to enter service in the Army next year. The comprehensive equipment programme for the Army is impressive and it fits the Army for the high-intensity conflict scenarios that I mentioned.
Vital though the Army's equipment programme is, its service men and service women most deserve the compliments and congratulations of the House. Some of us have had the privilege to see the Army on active service in recent months, particularly in the often perilous environments of Northern Ireland and Bosnia. I was privileged to travel with General Michael Rose for some days just before Christmas. We know that the superlative professionalism and dedication to duty of our forces earns them their unequalled high reputation and respect.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater that, even if the Northern Ireland commitment comes to an end, the Army is at its right strength. I do so not least having recently read David Fraser's fine biography of Rommel, in which he mentioned that the German army, even at the nadir of its fortunes after the first world war, had to stay at a strength above 100,000 because that was the minimum required for it to be able to revive and increase in number at a later date. The Army is at the right level today.
I remind the House about one particular episode that to me, and I think to many others, caused a lump in the throat and symbolised all that is finest in the ethos and achievement of the Army. I am referring to that astonishing moment on Sunday 20 March this year when the band of the Coldstream Guards, immaculate in full dress uniform, marched out in the football stadium in Sarajevo playing "The Peacemakers."
That scene was not only an imaginative and colourful initiative by a remarkable general, General Rose, about whom many tributes have rightly been paid tonight; it was a signal that peace and normality were beginning to creep back to the hitherto bombarded and beleaguered city of Sarajevo thanks to the fine generalship of General Rose. Above all, it was a spectacle that shone around the world because it symbolised the British Army's long tradition of military excellence and its proud record of getting difficult tasks well done.
Here at home, the British people responded instinctively with uplifted hearts and spirits at that Sarajevo episode because it reminded us that in today's international turbulence and strategic uncertainty—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

AGRICULTURE
Ordered,
That Mr. Andrew Hunter be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Mr. Roger Knapman be added to the Committee. —[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

EMPLOYMENT
Ordered,
That Mr. Richard Spring be discharged from the Employment Committee and Sir Ralph Howell be added to the Committee. —[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Ordered,
That Sir James Kilfedder be added to the Liaison Committee. —[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Bryan Ruppert
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
10 pm
Dr. Lynne Jones: Today I wish to raise the case of Bryan Ruppert. Bryan Ruppert is an American citizen. He first met his partner, David Green, in the autumn of 1989 in a translation class in Germany where they were both studying for a year as part of their degree courses. Their relationship began within a few weeks, taking them both by surprise. By the end of the year, they had already visited each other's homes, met families and friends and travelled together in Europe.
Bryan spent the last few weeks of the 1990 summer vacation with David and his family before they had to part to complete their studies. With the exception of 10 days at new year, when Bryan visited David in the United Kingdom, they were separated for 13 months. That was a most difficult time for them both as they tried to cope with the separation and their studies, as they wondered how they would be together again in the future.
David stayed at Birmingham university to do a postgraduate degree, and Bryan arranged to go to Birmingham on a British universities north America club scheme, which allowed him to work in the United Kingdom for six months. By the time they met again after the long separation, they had no idea whether the relationship would be able to last but, within a couple of weeks, everything was exactly the same as it had been in Germany. They were absolutely sure of their commitment to each other.
They decided to apply for Bryan to be allowed to stay on the basis of his relationship with David, and submitted their application in March 1992, including photographs, letters from their families and even copies of telephone bills. They were very optimistic.
The refusal came in June. They had not prepared themselves for that devastating blow. While they were trying to come to terms with it, their solicitor filed an appeal and they knew that they would have a very long wait ahead. Bryan's temporary work permit had expired at that point, and he was not able to work for 30 days, and David's studies took a turn for the worse. They had been stressed since the application was originally submitted, but this was worse still. They decided that the best way to face up to their situation was to keep busy and to gather as much support as possible for their application. They contacted me as I was their local Member of Parliament.
From the first time that I met them, I was impressed by their straightforward honesty, integrity and commitment to each other. I was not the only parliamentarian who felt that way. Bryan and David began a letter-writing campaign to peers and MPs of all political persuasions. They received many sympathetic letters of support from hon. Members and noble Lords and Ladies, and they were able to meet several of them in Westminster.
The year-long wait before their appeal was heard dragged slowly. Bryan could not leave the country even when his uncle died in January 1993. Both men were under considerable strain. It could be argued that this was a good test of the relationship, and so it was, but what a horrendous way to have to prove that a person loves someone.

819
The appeal was heard in September 1993. The men's submission agreed that their circumstances were not covered by the immigration rules, but pointed out that the Home Office Minister had discretion to allow leave to remain, outside the rules. The men felt confident that, if their case was examined on its merits, Bryan would surely be allowed to remain. Fortunately, the adjudicator at the appeal, Dr. Popper, agreed, and wrote a strongly worded recommendation that the Minister overrule the previous decision. The men felt that Dr. Popper argued their case so well that they simply could not see how anyone could refute it: they were overjoyed.
Clearly, Bryan and David had an established relationship that had lasted for some time, and there was no suggestion that it would not continue permanently. Their relationship is stable and loving and it was not entered into primarily to enable the appellant, Bryan Ruppert, to enter the United Kingdom. David Green owns his own house, and both men are well able to maintain themselves—there is no question of recourse to public funds.
At the appeal, reference was made to the considerable support for the application from their respective parents; it was noted by the adjudicator as genuine and warm. More support came from Bryan Ruppert's employer, from Members of all parties in both Houses of Parliament, and particularly from Lord Scarman who, in a hand-written letter, wrote:
"I cannot believe that this"—
referring to the gay relationship—
"is any reason why the application should be refused. A homosexual relationship between two consenting adults is, in itself, perfectly lawful. I know of nothing scandalous, disreputable or criminal in the conduct of either Mr. Ruppert or Mr. Green."
He went on:
"I would think that these two young men have much to contribute to their country if this application be granted."
If Bryan and David had been a heterosexual couple, they would have been able to marry. Even if they had not been, their application would have been considered outside the rules in accordance with Home Office guidelines, which state:
"Although there is no provision under immigration rules for a person to be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of a common-law relationship with a British citizen (or person settled here), it is policy to consider granting leave to remain to such persons on the same criteria as those for married cases. In general, removal will not be enforced when the relationship appears genuine and has lasted for two years or more."
Bryan and David's relationship has lasted for four and a half years and survived a year's separation shortly after they first met. Clearly, the Home Secretary and his officials have power to grant leave to remain, outside the immigration rules, to those in heterosexual, common-law relationships. Cannot the Minister accept the sense of grievance and injustice that my constituents feel when the basis of rejection is that their relationship is homosexual?
Dealing with its own staff, the Home Office accepts the validity of same-sex relationships. In 1993, it issued a notice to staff regarding transfer allowances:
"The Department will consider paying the married staff permanent transfer allowances to single staff on the basis of an established relationship (including same-gender partnerships)."
The Home Office defines an established relationship as one in which
"the member of staff and the other person or persons have been permanent members of the same household for a period of six months".
So the Home Office recognises same-gender partnerships
820
and has a policy for dealing with common-law relationships. Surely there is no reason why it cannot apply its own policies to gay men and lesbian women who currently have to find alternative methods of remaining together.
Although the Minister has argued that English law does not accord any legal status to those in homosexual relationships, and immigration practice merely reflects the general position, the same logic is obviously not applied to those in heterosexual common-law relationships. This policy of discrimination can only further alienate the gay community and encourage deceptions—as we saw in the case of the gay immigration officer Mark Watson, who is now in gaol simply because he wanted to be with the partner he loved.
Tonight, the Minister can respond to the debate in several ways. He can simply read out a statement prepared by his officials reiterating the view that Bryan Ruppert's circumstances are not comparable with those of a heterosexual couple, or are not sufficiently compelling to warrant the exercise of discretion outside the rules. That would again mean dismissing the adjudicator's recommendation that leave to remain be granted for Mr. Ruppert in the light of the relationship which those men have and the distress which a separation would surely cause.
Bryan and David are here tonight to watch the proceedings, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will not lightly dismiss the strong arguments in support of their application. Will he not at least offer to have another look at the case?
The recent case of Javier Lizarzaburu—which I understand may be on his desk at the moment—gives grounds for a review of the whole policy, as it governs same-sex immigration cases. Mr. Lizarzburu's appeal tribunal found that the most appropriate context in which claims for a person in a same-sex relationship should be considered was through the adaptation of the married immigration rules, and not as an application for indefinite leave. His appeal was therefore allowed.
I am asking the Minister to consider Bryan Ruppert's case on its merits. Alternatively, he can agree that lesbian and gay relationships should be treated in exactly the same way as unmarried heterosexual relationships. As I have shown, the Home Office does accept homosexual relationships, and further, such relationships have been acknowledged by the Law Lords, as in the case of Barclays Bank v. O'Brian, where the court set out rules to protect people who guarantee the debts of their spouses, and expressly applied that ruling to homosexual couples as well.
Same-sex partnerships have also been recognised for immigration purposes. For example, the category of "person of independent means" used to require a close connection with the United Kingdom for an applicant to be given leave to remain. In the case of Sum Yee Thong, an immigration adjudicator determined that a gay relationship did fulfil this requirement, and the Home office did not appeal against that decision.
Providing for the immigration of same-sex partners does not require a change in the law. All that is needed is a change in the guidelines, so that stable same-sex relationships fall in the same category, and are verified in the same way, as unmarried heterosexual relationships. There is not even any argument that such a change will lead to an increase in immigration, as the numbers involved are very small.

821
I sincerely hope that the Minister will see the justice in Bryan Ruppert's case in his response tonight.
10.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I first congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on obtaining this debate to discuss the case of Mr. Bryan Ruppert, a 26–year-old American citizen who has sought to remain in the United Kingdom as the homosexual partner of a British man, David Green. I recognise that the issue raised in the case may be difficult and sensitive for some hon. Members, and I do not intend tonight to discuss the general issues arising from homosexual relationships, with which we are not concerned here.
Instead, I want to concentrate on the specific matter of the position of homosexuals in the context of immigration control. The House may find it helpful to have brief details of the case to which the hon. Lady has referred. I must commend the hon. Lady for her diligence in pursuit of this case. She wrote to me about it on several occasions last year, and I have explained to her the policy which applies in cases such as this in the letters which I have sent to her.
I have also set out for her our assessment of this particular case in the light of all known circumstances, and I do not think that she added anything to those circumstances in what she told the House this evening. Although the hon. Lady is therefore fully aware of our position, both on policy and as that policy bears in this individual case, I am happy to take this opportunity to set out the position for the House.
I am also aware that Mr. Ruppert's case has attracted the interest of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). Furthermore, as the hon. Lady has already told the House, several noble Lords raised the case last year, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) explained the Government's position in his replies. As there have been further developments in this case since that time, the debate has provided me with a useful opportunity to record the current position.
The facts are clear enough, and so, I would submit, is our policy on how cases such as Mr. Ruppert's are considered. I recognise that the hon. Lady will not be able to agree with much of what I have to say, but I hope that she will be in no doubt about the policy by the time I have finished my remarks.
I shall deal first with the background. These are the facts of the case—the hon. Lady has outlined many of them already. Mr. Ruppert entered the United Kingdom on 22 November 1991 as a student, when he was granted leave to enter for six months on condition that he did not enter or change employment, paid or unpaid, without the consent of the Secretary of State for Employment, and did not engage in any business or profession without the consent of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He was also admitted to the United Kingdom on condition that he would leave on completion of his studies. Those are, of course, normal conditions under the immigration rules for persons coming here as students.
In March 1992, Mr. Ruppert's representatives sought permission for him to remain here indefinitely on the basis
822
of his homosexual relationship with a British man, Mr. David Green. His case was assessed carefully under the rules. The position is that the immigration rules make provision for the spouse of a person settled in the United Kingdom to be granted limited leave to remain. But Mr. Ruppert was not the spouse of anyone settled in the United Kingdom, and the relevant requirements of the rules had not been met.
Furthermore, an application had been made on Mr. Ruppert's behalf for leave to remain for employment, but that is a purpose for which entry clearance is required prior to entry to the United Kingdom. He was not admitted with such entry clearance, so the application was refused. Mr. Ruppert appealed against this decision to the independent appellate authorities established by Parliament to resolve such disputed matters. His appeal was dismissed on 20 October 1993. Mr. Ruppert's representatives confirmed at the appeal hearing that he was prepared to concede the case under the rules, but that he wished to call evidence to be heard in support of a recommendation.
In accordance with this request, the adjudicator formally recorded the appeal as dismissed but, upon hearing all the evidence, as the hon. Lady has described, made a recommendation to the Secretary of State for the case to be reconsidered, so that leave to remain outside the rules could be granted to Mr. Ruppert on the basis of his relationship with a British man settled in the United Kingdom—in other words, with Mr. Green.
It may be helpful if I comment briefly on the effect of a recommendation such as that made by the adjudicator after an appeal hearing. While a recommendation by an adjudicator is not binding on the Secretary of State, considerable weight is attached to it. The application was therefore reconsidered carefully in the light of the adjudicator's comments and recommendation.
As I said in my letter of 10 December to the hon. Lady, in reviewing the case my officials took account both of the recommendation and of the representations made by the hon. Lady. But, as I explained then, it was not felt that Mr. Ruppert's circumstances were of such an exceptional nature as to justify granting further leave to remain in this particular case. Mr. Ruppert's representatives then made an application for leave to move for judicial review, but that has also been refused, although I understand that the application is to be renewed.
The current position is that Mr. Ruppert has now been here for almost two years without authority. As is normal in such cases, deportation action has been commenced against him.
To complete the picture, the hon. Lady asked me to meet an all-party group of hon. Members to discuss the case. In my letter of 17 February, I explained my reasons for declining to do so. In short, as no new information had come to light in this case and there were no more developments which needed to be reviewed, I had to say that, with respect, I saw little purpose in a discussion of the kind envisaged. Finally, in my reply to a question from the hon. Lady on 15 March, I referred to the views that I had expressed earlier.
I now turn to questions of policy. It may be helpful if I explain the decision in the context of our immigration policy on homosexual relationships. As some hon. Members will already know, there is no provision in the immigration rules for a foreign national to remain in this country on the basis of a homosexual relationship. The

823
hon. Member for Selly Oak has made it clear that she is aware of that. Consequently, applications fall to be considered exceptionally outside the rules.
The policy on the admission of homosexuals to join or remain with a partner settled here is kept under constant review, and each application is considered carefully on its individual merits. Discretion will not normally be exercised in an applicant's favour unless compelling compassionate circumstances are present.
As hon. Members are aware, the immigration rules provide for the admission of spouses. In such cases, the very fact of marriage and the presence of children of the marriage are factors which go to establishing the genuineness of the relationship. In cases of heterosexual common-law relationships, the presence of children of the relationship, and whether the couple intend to marry, are factors which may be taken into account in deciding whether a relationship is genuine and subsisting. Clearly, such factors are not present in homosexual relationships.
As hon. Members will know, English law does not afford any legal status to homosexual relationships. Immigration practice in relation to homosexuals reflects this general position. It would be illogical to try to construct an immigration policy which did not accorcl with the general position. It is true that some countries do, in some circumstances, recognise homosexual relationships. But most countries, including the majority of our European Union partners, afford them no legal status.
It is quite clear that the majority of member states are not prepared to contemplate the admission of homosexual partners, and any movement away from our current policy would therefore put us out of step with them and with the resolution on family reunification policies which was signed by EU Immigration Ministers in Copenhagen in June last year.
Dr. Lynne Jones rose—
Mr. Wardle: I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
It may be helpful if I provide the House with brief details of that resolution, which is to be applied to the family members of non-European Community nationals who are lawfully resident within the territory of a member state on a basis which affords them an expectation of permanent or long-term residence.
Under the terms of the resolution, a member state will normally grant admission to a resident's spouse and the children, other than adopted children, of the resident and his or her spouse. Other children, including adopted children, may also be admitted. Member states have also reserved the possibility of admitting other family members for compelling reasons which justify the presence of the person concerned. It is clear from what I have said that nothing in the resolution confers the right of admission to a person in a homosexual relationship with a national of a member state.
Dr. Jones: I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that currently Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand recognise same-sex partnerships for immigration purposes?
Mr. Wardle: Some countries do—the hon. Lady is certainly right about Australia, Denmark and Norway—in certain well-defined cases. I think that that is a point on which she may wish to reflect.
On previous occasions when cases have been referred to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that the United Kingdom's refusal of leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of a homosexual relationship constituted an unjustified interference with private life, contrary to article 8 of the convention and discrimination, compared with heterosexual couples, contrary to article 14 of the convention, they have not been upheld by either the court or the commission.
The European Commission on Human Rights has found that the absence from the United Kingdom immigration rules of settlement rights for non-nationals in respect of stable, private relationships other than family relationships does not disclose any violation of the convention.
As I told the House in my speech on 20 July last year, the Government intend to lay reformulated immigration rules. This process has taken some time, not least because we offered an extensive period of consultation, and were naturally anxious to assess fully the views of those who responded. But the process is nearing completion, and I expect to be able to lay the new rules before the House very shortly. They will not, however, make any new provision for homosexual partners. To do so would afford them, as I have already sought to make clear to the House, a status not present elsewhere in our law.
In conclusion, Mr. Ruppert's relationship with his partner is of comparatively short duration and, so far as is known, there are no compelling compassionate circumstances present in his case which would suggest that discretion should be exercised in his favour. Furthermore, nothing that the hon. Lady has said has persuaded me to change my mind.
I am, of course, very much aware of the considerable support which Mr. Ruppert's application has attracted, and due weight has been given to all the representations which have been made on his behalf. However, his application does not meet the strict criteria applied in such cases, so it will come as no surprise to the hon. Lady that I do not consider that there is any basis on which he could be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom.
As I have said, I have heard nothing this evening to persuade me to alter my view. If the hon. Lady can offer any compelling evidence in the very near future, she should do so, but I am bound to tell her that, from what she has said and what I know of the case, no such compelling evidence would persuade me to change my mind. I can see no reason to overturn the decision that has already been reached.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Ten o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Privatisation (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No Department for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible has incurred any consultancy costs in connection with privatisation programmes since 1980.

HEALTH

  Generic Prescribing
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the average proportion of generic prescribing undertaken by general practitioner fundholders now and before they became fundholders.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information is not available to make such an assessment. The generic prescribing rate for fundholders in 1992–93 was 49 per cent. compared with 43 per cent. for other general practitioners.

  NHS Trust Chairmen
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current salary paid to each chairman of an NHS trust.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 14 February at column 987.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase Government funding for research into Alzheimer's disease.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Medical Research Council is always willing to consider support for soundly based new scientific proposals in competition with other applications. Funding for the MRC is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Dental Services (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the availability of NHS dental care in the Stoke-on-Trent family health services authority area; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Staffordshire family health services authority, which includes Stoke-on-Trent, reports that 500
  national health service dentistry is available in the area. Patients who need help in obtaining NHS dental treatment should contact the FHSA.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those dental practices in the Stoke-on-Trent family health services authority area which in the last 12 months have withdrawn NHS dental services.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No dentist in Stoke-on-Trent has given such notice to the Staffordshire family health services authority during the last 12 months.

  Ambulance Services (Humberside)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much Humberside Ambulance Trust is overspent on budget.

  Mr. Sackville
  The 1993–94 finalised accounts will be published later this year.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list purchases of ambulance vehicles by Humberside Ambulance Trust since April 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the Humberside Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mrs. Margaret Cracknell, chairman of the trust, for details.

  Dental Services
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will revise the patients charter so that every patient seeking dental care under the NHS has access to NHS dental treatment on a planned and emergency basis; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A working group, including representatives of the profession, has been set up to consider a charter for primary dental services. All family health services authorities report that they can if necessary assist patients seeking their help to receive national health service dental treatment.

  Junior Doctors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many postgraduate deans have taken action against hospitals where juniors are working 83 hours a week since 1 April 1993.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Postgraduate deans are core members of all our regional task forces. As such they are actively involved in developing and implementing plans to reduce junior doctors' hours.

  Children Act 1989 (Annual Report)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when was the annual report on the Children Act 1989 due to be published; when it is now likely to be published; and what are the reasons for the change of date.

  Mr. Bowis
  There is no set timetable for producing the Children Act report. The second report is in preparation and will be published shortly.

  Medical Ethics
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the Government's response to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government's response to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics has been published today. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Privatisation (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which her Department and its predecessor have been engaged since 1980.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has no record of any consultants having been employed in connection with privatisation from 1980.

  Cardiac Unit, Plymouth
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to make an announcement regarding the business plan for the cardiac unit in Plymouth.

  Mr. Sackville
  The business case for a cardiac unit at Derriford hospital, Plymouth is currently being considered by the south and west regional office of the national health service executive.

  Hospital Officers and Nurses (Training)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of the report on the introduction of competency-based training for hospital officers and nurses, commissioned by the Home Office; and if she will ensure with her ministerial colleagues that it is published.

  Mr. Bowis
  This is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  National Blood Authority
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what annual salary is paid to(a) the chairman, (b) the chief executive, (c) the finance and administration director, (d) the medical director and (e) each of the non-executive directors of the National Blood Authority; what other remuneration and perquisites each of these received; and what is the total cost to the public funds of the National Blood Authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 22 April 1994]: The information available centrally is shown in the table. Information about payments other than annual salary and about the total cost of the National Blood Authority is not yet available, as the authority came into being on 1 April 1993. In 1992–93 central funding for the National Blood Authority's predecessor body, the Central Blood Laboratories Authority, for revenue and capital expenditure totalled £6.788 million. This figure derives from the Central Blood Laboratories Authority's audited accounts
  502
  which are still subject to review by the National Audit Office. The bulk of the Central Blood Laboratories Authority's funding came from sales of plasma products primarily to national health service bodies.

  Current annual salary rate

  £

  Chairman

  8,968

  Chief executive1

  276,388

  Finance and administration director1

  258,114

  Medical director1

  351,165

  Non-executive members

  Mr. L. Banks

  5,000

  Mr. D. Allison

  5,000

  Professor Van Aken

  5,000

  1 The chief executive, finance and administration and medical
  directors are members of the NHS pension scheme.

  2 Salary of chief executive and finance and administration director
  includes performance related pay.

  3 The current post holder also receives an A+ distinction award at the
  rate of £48,605.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Working Allowance
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 29 November,Official Report, column 317–18, if he will update the information provided on awards of disability working allowance, also indicating the respective proportions of new and repeat claims which resulted in an award of benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  As of 31 March 1994 there were 3,680 current awards of disability working allowance.

  The total number of claims for DWA with percentages, in the five-month period November 1993 to March 1994, was:

  Number

  Percentage resulting in awards

  New claims

  3,356

  35.13

  Repeat claims

  2,302

  85.88

  TOTAL

  5,658

  —

  The number of claims adjudicated upon in the last five months is 5,230.

  The reasons for unsuccessful claims with numbers and percentages for each ground for disallowance in the last five months are in the table.

  Reason

  Number

  Percentage

  Capital exceeds £16,000

  5

  0·24

  Not in remunerative work

  710

  34·23

  Income exceeds DWA level

  342

  16·49

  No qualifying benefit

  891

  42·96

  Disability test

  2

  0·1

  Other reasons

  124

  5·98

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of whether the Child Support Agency is adequately staffed to deal speedily and effectively with its caseload.
  503
  Mr. Burt
  We are keeping all parts of the agency's operations, including staffing levels, under close review. If changes should be needed we will make them.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 30 March,Official Report, column 788, to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), if he will publish his correspondence with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions.

  Mr. Hague
  Correspondence between members of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions and Ministers is in confidence. It has never been the practice to publish such correspondence.

  Privatisation (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since July 1988.

  Mr. Scott
  This Department has no privatisation programme.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what analysis the Benefits Agency makes of claims for disability living allowance which are referred to disability appeals tribunals; and if he will provide a numerical breakdown of these cases.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mrs. Jane Kennedy, dated 3 May 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question, asking for an analysis of disability living allowance claims which are referred to disability appeal tribunals.
  I have provided, in the attached appendix, a table of the analysis made by the Benefits Agency within this area. The table covers the period February 1992 to the end of March 1994.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Appendix: DLA claims referred to disability appeal tribunals between 1 February 1992 and 31 March 1994

  Number

  Number referred

  34,679

  Number decided:

  Award increased

  2,082

  Award maintained

  7,075

  Award varied1

  84

  Award reduced

  8

  Allowed

  7,320

  Disallowed

  1,292

  Superseded increased2

  874

  Withdrawn

  794

  Lapsed

  4

  Defective

  14

  Total

  19,547

  504
  1 The length of award changes, or monetary value remains the same but the components change.

  2 The appeal was lodged but current decision was revised in the appellants favour without reference to the appeals tribunal.

TREASURY

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people will face larger mortgage statements at the end of this month following the Government's decision to reduce mortgage interest relief to 20 per cent.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are about 10 million single people or married couples with mortgages. Not all of them will make larger interest payments straight away as a result of the restriction of mortgage interest relief to 20 per cent. This is because some mortgages are subject to annual reviews and these may take place at different times of year. Lenders may apply the new rate of relief, and make any necessary adjustments, then.

  In addition, some 200,000 borrowers receiving tax relief have loans that are not in the MIRAS—mortgage interest relief at source—scheme. For them, the restriction of relief has no effect on their interest payments, but will be made through their PAYE coding or in an annual assessment.

  The number of borrowers with annual review mortgages is not known: a precise answer to the question is therefore not available.

  VAT (Domestic Energy)
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the application of value-added tax to the standing charge portion of central heating and electrical supply bills; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  I have received a large number of representations. I have made it clear on a number of occasions that the standing charge has always been regarded as part of the consideration for a single supply of fuel and power. If it were not, it would already have been standard rated as the services covered, when taken in isolation, have attracted VAT at the standard rate since 1 April 1973.

  Valuation List
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many proposals to alter the valuation list have been referred to the valuation tribunal by each district valuation officer.

  Mr. Nelson
  The number of proposals to alter the valuation list which have been referred to the valuation tribunal by each valuation officer was 660,384 in total as at 31 March 1994. The numbers referred by each office individually are not held centrally; however, the numbers referred in respect of each valuation office region are as follows:

  Region

  Appeals transmitted

  East Anglia

  71,730

  East Midland

  60,547

  London

  98,031

  505

  Region

  Appeals transmitted

  Northern

  63,008

  North Western

  58,738

  South Eastern

  65,501

  Southern

  80,150

  Western

  68,321

  West Midland

  57,936

  England total

  623,962

  Wales

  36,422

  Total England and Wales

  660,384

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many proposals to alter the valuation list have been received by each district valuation officer.

  Mr. Nelson
  As at 31 March 1994, a total of 945,795 proposals to alter the valuation list had been received by district valuation officers.

  A breakdown by valuation office area of initial proposals received up to 30 November 1993 is available in the Members' Library.

  EU Own Resources
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward in the current parliamentary Session a Bill to give effect to the own resources decision agreed at the Edinburgh summit.

  Sir John Cope
  Before a Bill to approve the new own resources decision can be introduced, a text must be adopted unanimously in the Council of Ministers. Agreement is at present being blocked by Italy. Once agreement has been reached, and before the new decision can finally be adopted by the Council and sent to member states for their approval, conciliation must take place with the European Parliament.

  It is therefore not possible to know when the new own resources decision will be ready for final adoption by the Council and accordingly the Government are not in a position to say when the Bill might be introduced.

  Public Service (Pay Rise)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for which categories of public service employee provision has been made for an average pay rise of more than 1.5 per cent. in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government expect public sector pay to be considered in accordance with the approach which the Chancellor announced in his statement of 14 September 1993. In 1994–95 Government Departments are expected to keep their running costs, including pay bills, to their 1993–94 levels in cash terms. A similar approach applies to other public sector pay groups. Provision has been set on this basis. This is not a freeze on pay settlements and does not pre-empt annual pay determination arrangements. Pay should be set at levels necessary to recruit, retain and motivate staff within what can be afforded. All parts of the public sector should be able to make efficiency savings and other economies necessary to accommodate the costs of pay increases on this basis.

  Foreign Currency Earnings
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on foreign currency earnings from overseas visitors to the United Kingdom as a result of EC Commission proposal Com (94) 5813 to amend directive 77/388/EEC.

  Sir John Cope
  There are trade concerns that there could be an adverse effect on sales in the event of the adoption of the European Commission proposals for a minimum threshold of 175 ecu before non-EC visitors can claim a VAT refund. The United Kingdom has accordingly registered its opposition to this proposal and will continue to listen carefully to trade concerns.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual value to Customs and Excise of the special provisions in respect of VAT recovery of company cars; and when the provisions were imposed and under what authority.

  Sir John Cope
  Taxation of the private use of business cars is mandatory under Community law. Since the inception of the tax in April 1973, the United Kingdom has achieved this through restricting tax recovery on the purchase of cars. The current legal basis for this simplified procedure is permitted under article 17(6) of the sixth directive (77/388/EEC) implemented in the United Kingdom by an Order made under section 14(10) of the VAT Act 1983. The provision is expected to contribute around an estimated £1.6 billion to the Exchequer in 1994.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many excise verification officers are employed by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise on tasks connected with duty-paid imports to the United Kingdom from elsewhere in the European Union; and what is the cost to public funds.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: During the financial year 1993–94 Her Majesty's Customs and Excise allocated 253 staff years to single market duties. The majority of this work, for which the salaries bill was £4 million, was performed by excise verification officers. In addition, VAT staff and others assist in the course of their normal work in the control of the sale of excise goods which have not paid United Kingdom duty.

  Civil Servants (Business Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants in his Departments applied in each year since 1986 through the business appointments system to take up an outside appointment(a) as an independent consultant, (b) with a firm of consultants and (c) in other employment; how many were referrred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and how many were granted.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: The following table gives information from 1987 on applications from civil servants in my Department through the business appointments system to take up outside

  507
  appointments. Information prior to that date could be obtained only at disproportionate cost as it would involve sifting through individual files. The table also shows which

  (a) Independent consultant

  (b) Firm of consultants

  (c) Other employment

  Referred to advisory/committee

  Total granted

  1987

  0

  0

  4

  0

  4

  1988

  1

  2

  4

  0

  7

  1989

  0

  6

  9

  1

  15

  1990

  0

  6

  12

  0

  18

  1991

  1

  1

  5

  1

  7

  1992

  0

  1

  2

  0

  3

  1993

  0

  0

  4

  1

  4

  Council Tax
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets the Valuation Office Agency has set for clearing council tax valuation appeals.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: The Valuation Office Agency expects four out of five appeals to be settled by 31 December 1994 and the remainder as quickly as possible thereafter.

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Own resources ceiling agreed at Edinburgh (per cent. of community GNP)

  1·20

  1·20

  1·21

  1·22

  1·24

  1·26

  1·27

  Value of Edinburgh own resources ceiling on basis of growth projections available at the time
  (becu—1992 prices)

  65·8

  67·3

  69·5

  71·9

  74·9

  78·0

  80·6

  Value of Edinburgh own resources ceiling on basis of latest growth projections
  (becu—1992 prices)

  64·4

  65·2

  67·1

  69·4

  72·3

  75·2

  77·8

  Change in estimated available resources since Edinburgh (becu—1992 prices)

  -1·4

  -2·1

  -2·4

  -2·5

  -2·6

  -2·8

  -2·8

  The own resources ceiling is a legally binding limit on the amount of own resources which can be called up by the European Community to finance payments from the budget. In setting the annual budget, the budgetary authority—the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament—must ensure that the own resources ceiling is respected, if necessary by agreeing expenditure totals which are less than those in the financial perspective agreed at Edinburgh. The policies to be affected by these reductions would be for decision at the time.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest available figure for the total number of civil servants(a) including and (b) excluding those employed by "next steps" agencies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: On 1 October 1993 there were in total 546,339 civil servants, the lowest in the post-war period. Of these 209,936 were not working in "next steps" agencies.

  Upper Limb Disorders (Civil Servants)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present number of civil servants taking legal action against their employer as a result of work-related upper limb disorders.
  508
  cases were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and the total number of cases granted.

  Edinburgh Summit
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 27 April,Official Report, columns 164–65, what was the projected monetary resources ceiling at the time of the Edinburgh summit; how that has been affected in monetary terms by current projections of growth and GNP; what are the implications for each year to 1999 in terms of change in available resources; and what are the implications for moneys available for cohesion.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: The information is in the following table:

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have been asked to reply. This information is not held centrally.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cross-channel Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals his Department has for expanding the capacity of the cross-channel electricity interconnector.

  Mr. Heseltine
  None. It is for the industry to make any proposals of this kind.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the costs in lost revenue from the delay in commissioning the Sizewell B nuclear reactor; and what are the reasons for the delay.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 22 April 1994,Official Report, column 708.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on progress in negotiations with the United States of America regarding access for British telecommunications companies to the United States market.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government strongly support the effort of United Kingdom telecoms companies to enter the United States market and work closely with them. In particular, the Government have taken up with the United States authorities specific issues, including discriminatory regulation already in force or being proposed.

  The Government are continuing to press for further liberalisation and market opening in and outside Europe to provide better access for United Kingdom companies, and to benefit United Kingdom consumers through lower prices for international calls.

  Private Detective Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the use of private detective agencies and security companies by his Department.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department does not use private detective agencies. Private sector security firms are contracted to provide access control to departmental premises.

  Launch Aid
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how much money has returned to the Government as partial repayment of launch aid for aircraft and engine programmes in each of the last 25 years;

  (2) how much public money has been used in launch aid for specific aircraft and engine programmes in each of the last 25 years.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answers 3 May 1994]: The information is as follows:

  £ million

  Airframes (including helicopters)

  Aeroengines

  Year

  Payments

  Receipts

  Payments

  Receipts

  1969–70

  0.2

  1.9

  0.1

  1.5

  1970–71

  0

  1.0

  0.7

  2.3

  1971–72

  0

  0.4

  56.6

  1.5

  1972–73

  0

  0.4

  49.2

  1.3

  1973–74

  1.6

  0.4

  15.7

  1.3

  1974–75

  1.6

  5.2

  41.4

  1.6

  1975–76

  2.1

  0.5

  3.1

  2.7

  1976–77

  2.0

  0.4

  10.6

  2.6

  1977–78

  0.5

  0.3

  0

  14.6

  1978–79

  0

  0.4

  16.0

  6.8

  1979–80

  0

  0.4

  105.1

  4.0

  1980–81

  0

  0.5

  62.2

  8.7

  1981–82

  0

  0.4

  92.6

  8.3

  1982–83

  10.0

  0.4

  53.7

  12.7

  1983–84

  10.7

  0.4

  74.3

  7.9

  1984–85

  64.2

  0.4

  19.9

  10.2

  1985–86

  81.6

  0.5

  22.7

  15.2

  1986–87

  91.7

  0.5

  27.3

  22.2

  1987–88

  52.6

  0.4

  0

  28.3

  1988–89

  97.7

  0.3

  0

  21.5

  1989–90

  133.6

  10.5

  0

  31.9

  1990–91

  141.1

  34.5

  0

  17.3

  1991–92

  78.7

  55.7

  0

  27.3

  510

  Airframes (including helicopters)

  Aeroengines

  Year

  Payments

  Receipts

  Payments

  Receipts

  1992–93

  31.4

  41.1

  0

  33.6

  1993–94

  0.6

  29.5

  0

  123.8

  1 Provisional figure.

  Note:

  All amounts are at cash prices.

  Overseas Mail
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government's policy in respect of the criteria to be used in determining which airline should carry British mail abroad.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: Decisions about which airlines are used to carry British mail abroad are a commercial matter for the Post Office.

  Steel Production
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what agreement was reached by the Council of Ministers at its recent meeting in Luxembourg in regard to excessive steel production capacity and unfair trading practices by steel producers and regional or national administrations in other EC member states.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 29 April, Official Report, columns 348–49.

  Local Government
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what provisions of the Children Act 1989 and the Registered Homes Act 1984, as amended, have been considered by his interdepartmental scrutiny of local government enforcement; what proposals have arisen as a result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: The interdepartmental scrutiny team is looking at all aspects of local government enforcement as they affect business and this will be reflected in their report. This includes social services activities. The scrutiny team will complete its investigations and make recommendations to Ministers by the end of May.

  I understand that the specific legislation mentioned is being considered under a separate review by the Department of Health, but that the review and scrutiny teams are in regular contact.

  Radio Frequencies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the probable level of interference with aeronautical radio navigation services of high-powered national broadcasting on the 105 to 108 MHz radio frequencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: Broadcasting services in the frequency band 87.5 to 108 MHz have the potential to cause interference to

  511
  aeronautical radio navigation services. It is the Government's responsibility, however, to ensure that any planned new radio station will not cause unacceptable interference. The assessment of potential interference is a complex task involving not only the power and frequency of a proposed new transmitter, but those of existing transmitters and, in particular, the dispositions of transmitters relative to each other, to airports and to flight paths. These assessments are made by the Radiocommunications Agency, in my Department.

  It is not possible to carry out an assessment of the interference potential of radio stations in the band 105 to 108 MHz until the details of all proposed broadcasting transmitters are known. However, in preparation for the opening of that band, some hypothetical studies were made by the Radiocommunications Agency which led it to the opinion that transmitting powers as high as 40KW may be acceptable in locations and at frequencies that are favourable.

  The Radio Authority is currently conducting a public consultation exercise about the possible service options in this new band of frequency spectrum, which the Government have made available for independent radio. These options range from the provision of a new national radio service to the provision of numerous low power and highly localised services. Having reached a decision, the Radio Authority will present a detailed transmitter plan for the proposed services to the Radiocommunications Agency for clearance. Until then, it is not possible to comment further, but I am confident that it will be possible to agree a plan which is fully compatible with aeronautical navigation services.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met representatives of trade unions within the coal industry to discuss redundancy schemes and payments after 30 April; what was the conclusion of those meetings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: Both my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and I meet representatives of trades unions from within the coal industry from time to time to discuss a wide variety of matters affecting the industry. I understand that British Coal is currently discussing with the unions the redundancy arrangements to apply after 30 April.

  Directors (Disqualification)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many adverse reports on directors have been submitted by insolvency practitioners in Scotland to the company directors disqualification unit in Edinburgh in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: The numbers of unfitted conduct reports on directors, submitted by insolvency practitioners in Scotland to the company directors disqualification unit in Edinburgh since 1986, are as follows:—

  Number

  1986

  nil

  1987

  67

  1988

  189

  1989

  152

  512

  Number

  1990

  173

  1991

  181

  1992

  154

  1993

  241

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many disqualifications of directors of companies registered in Scotland have taken place under the Company Directors Disqualification Act in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: Since 1986 the number of disqualification orders made under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification act 1986 against directors of companies registered in Scotland is as follows:

  Number

  1986

  Nil

  1987

  Nil

  1988

  3

  1989

  4

  1990

  12

  1991

  17

  1992

  54

  1993

  54

  Gross Domestic Fixed Capital
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the amount of manufacturing investment gross domestic fixed capital formation in each region in 1991; and if he will provide a consistent series of figures back to 1979.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The latest available estimates of gross domestic fixed capital formation by region within manufacturing for 1988 to 1990 were published in the December 1992 issue of "Economic Trends", available in the House of Commons Library. Estimates for 1991 are to be published in the May 1994 issue of "Economic Trends". Information prior to 1988 is not available on a consistent time series basis.

PRIME MINISTER

  Sir Peter Levene
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) of 10 March,Official Report, column 319, if he will list all the relevant interests of Sir Peter Levene, and any issues so far identified where a potential conflict of interest exists.

  The Prime Minister
  Sir Peter Levene is chairman of Canary Wharf Ltd. and its subsidiaries, deputy chairman of Wasserstein Perella and Co. Ltd., and an alderman of the City of London. No issues which involve a conflict of interest for Sir Peter Levene have arisen under the arrangements which I set out in my answer to the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) on 10 March, column 319.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects the Scott inquiry report to be published; and in what form he intends to make known the Government's observations on the findings of the inquiry.

  The Prime Minister
  On the question of the timing of the publication of Lord Justice Scott's report, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) on 15 March,Official Report, column 645.

  It is too early to say in what form the Government will make their observations on the report.

  Miss Beata Brookes
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the re-appointment of Miss Beata Brookes to be chairman of the Welsh Consumer Council was referred to his public appointments unit; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: The re-appointment of Miss Brookes was referred to the public appointments unit before my views were sought. This is in line with the answer I gave on 14 May 1993, Official Report, column 583.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Driving Offences
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Attorney-General in what form statistics are collected by the Crown Prosecution Service relating to the prosecution of drivers for(a) drink driving offences, (b) other offences and (c) offences causing death.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service maintains no central records relating to the prosecution of drivers in respect of specific offences. Details are recorded on individual case files.

  Offence-based figures are available in the "Criminal Statistics England and Wales" published by the Home Office.

  Privatisation (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his departments have been engaged since 1980.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total number of prisoners in custody in England and Wales on the first day of each month from April 1992 until the latest month for which figures are available;

  (2) what was the total number of remand prisoners in custody in England and Wales on the first day of each month from April 1992 until the latest month for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply.
  514
  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Martin Redmond dated 4 May 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about (a) the total number of prisoners and (b) the number of remand prisoners in custody on the first day of each month from April 1992 until the latest month for which figures are available.
  The available information for the number of prisoners in custody is for the last day of each month. It is given in the attached table for the period March 1992 to February 1994.

  Prison population1 by type of custody: England and Wales—March 1992 to February 1994

  Total remand

  Sentenced

  Total2

  1992

  March

  10,678

  36,751

  47,746

  April

  10,646

  36,721

  47,738

  May

  10,294

  36,057

  46,696

  June

  10,404

  36,065

  46,832

  July

  9,942

  36,603

  46,875

  August

  10,128

  35,929

  46,350

  September

  10,020

  35,589

  45,835

  October

  9,605

  34,019

  43,905

  November

  9,459

  33,333

  43,064

  December

  9,490

  31,845

  40,606

  1993

  January

  9,433

  31,793

  41,561

  February

  9,933

  32,461

  42,882

  March

  9,996

  32,661

  43,195

  April

  9,997

  32,796

  43,391

  May

  10,181

  32,805

  43,585

  June

  10,632

  33,046

  44,246

  July

  10,572

  33,653

  44,830

  August

  11,407

  33,616

  45,633

  September

  11,445

  34,139

  46,211

  October

  11,829

  34,445

  46,886

  November

  11,895

  34,585

  47,153

  December

  10,763

  33,818

  45,214

  1994

  January

  12,109

  34,089

  46,902

  February

  12,109

  35,095

  47,906

  1 Includes prisoners held in police cells.

  2 Includes non-criminal prisoners.

  Prisons (Drug Abuse)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what action is being taken to seek to reduce the incidence of drug abuse at each HM prison, HM remand centre and HM detention centre in(a) South Yorkshire, (b) North Yorkshire, (c) West Yorkshire and (d) Humberside;

  (2) how often cells and other parts of the building are searched for drugs by staff and sniffer dogs at each HM prison and HM remand centre and HM detention centre in (a) South Yorkshire, (b) North Yorkshire, (c) West Yorkshire and (d) Humberside.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters 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. Martin Redmond, dated 4 May 1994:

  515
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the action being taken to reduce the incidence of drug abuse at prisons in Yorkshire and Humberside and the searching of cells and other parts of prison buildings.
  All prisons in Yorkshire and Humberside search cells and other areas of the prison on a daily, but random basis. Searches using dogs trained in drug detection are carried out at the more secure prisons in Yorkshire and Humberside. For example, Full Sutton uses dogs every six weeks, Leeds every three months and Hull uses them to search non living accommodation weekly. All prisons in the area will make special searches with or without dogs when security intelligence indicates need.
  Security measures including the use of X-ray scanners for parcels, increased searching of visitors and prisoners and using security information to target other searches within the establishment, are aimed at preventing drugs being brought into prison.
  All prisoners are warned of the dangers of drug abuse and are offered drug counselling about the dangers of drug abuse. There are also courses to help prisoners tackle their drug problem. Some establishments run self help or drug awareness groups.
  In addition to these general measures, the establishments have tailored their programmes for tackling drug abuse to meet the differing needs of their prisoner population.
  For example, in South Yorkshire, Moorland prison and young offenders institution screens all prisoners on admission offering those with a serious drug problem immediate treatment in the Health Care Centre. In North Yorkshire, Northallerton remand centre targets a Personal Social Education course at those in need using outside agencies to assist in counselling. Full Sutton prison has introduced a confidential telephone line.
  Prisons in West Yorkshire have similar approaches. Rudgate has a trained drugs worker to help identify those with drug problems and refer them for specialist help. New Hall and Wakefield prisons offer drug rehabilitation courses through probation and local agencies.
  In Humberside, Hull prison is training two dogs specifically for drug searching and female Prison Auxiliaries have been recruited for searching female visitors.

  Chelmsford Prison
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home department (1) when work will be completed on sanitation at Chelmsford prison to enable slopping out to be ended; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what measures are being taken to reduce prisoner numbers at Chelmsford prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters 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. Simon Burns, dated 4 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about Chelmsford prison.
  Integral sanitation has now been installed in most of the cells at Chelmsford. The work to complete the installation in the remaining 65 cells is scheduled to be completed in September this year.
  On 26 April there were 363 prisoners in Chelmsford prison. Although the prison's certified normal accommodation is 217, its operational capacity is 381. Chelmsford serves the courts in Essex and its prison population is determined by the numbers remanded or awaiting trial or sentence.
  Sentenced prisoners are quickly transferred to training prisons in the region, in order to reduce pressure on places in Chelmsford. As another measure to ease this pressure, the prison's Bail Information Unit interviews remand prisoners in order to alert the courts to cases suitable for conditional bail.
  Two new houseblocks are to be built and the first should be ready for occupation in 1996. These are intended to allow existing double cells to be converted for single use. The net effect of each block will be to provide 37 extra places.
  516
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of prisoners in Chelmsford prison in each of the last six months.

  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. Simon Burns, dated 4 May 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the average number of prisoners in Chelmsford prison in each of the last six months.
  The available information for the historical prison population is for the last day of each month. It is given in the attached table for the period October 1993 to March 1994.

  Prison population in Chelmsford: October 1993 to March 1994

  End of month

  Population

  1993

  October

  321

  November

  359

  December

  315

  1994

  January

  321

  February

  349

  March

  364

  Firearms
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what information he has about the origins of firearms and shotguns used in the pursuit of crime;

  (2) what proportion of firearms and shotguns used by criminals in criminal activity are believed to have been licensed, purchased legally and in the possession of an authorised person.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No statistical information is available. Firearms are only rarely recovered from scenes of crime and, in cases where they are, identifying marks have, almost invariably, been erased. Tracing the firearms back to their source is therefore extremely difficult. There is, however, no evidence to suggest any widespread use of legally held firearms by criminals in crime.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the certified accommodation and the actual population at each prison in England and Wales at the latest possible date.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 4 May 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 certified accommodation and actual population at each prison in England and Wales.

  517
  The attached table shows the certified normal accommodation (CNA) and population in all establishments in England and Wales on 28 April 1994.

  Certified normal accommodation (CNA) and population of prisons in England and Wales on 28 April 1994

  Establishment

  Certified normal accommodation

  Population

  Acklington

  658

  623

  Albany

  436

  380

  Aldington

  127

  114

  Ashwell

  404

  385

  Askham Grange

  126

  112

  Aylesbury

  241

  214

  Bedford

  302

  279

  Belmarsh

  841

  750

  Birmingham

  558

  761

  Blakenhurst

  649

  608

  Blantyre House

  95

  95

  Blundeston

  408

  379

  Brinsford

  547

  471

  Bristol

  423

  450

  Brixton

  483

  585

  Brockhill

  135

  133

  Bullingdon

  635

  630

  Bullwood Hall

  125

  113

  Camp Hill

  378

  377

  Canterbury

  184

  233

  Cardiff

  334

  411

  Castington

  300

  285

  Channings Wood

  594

  551

  Chelmsford

  230

  363

  Coldingley

  292

  276

  Cookham Wood

  120

  117

  Dartmoor

  538

  508

  Deerbolt

  450

  395

  Dorchester

  138

  192

  Dover

  316

  219

  Downview

  287

  270

  Drake Hall

  255

  214

  Durham

  399

  574

  East Sutton Park

  81

  86

  Elmley

  627

  592

  Erlestoke

  250

  229

  Everthorpe

  228

  227

  Exeter

  274

  381

  Featherstone

  599

  570

  Feltham

  842

  758

  Finnamore Wood

  106

  52

  Ford

  536

  449

  Frankland

  447

  419

  Full Sutton

  604

  550

  Garth

  512

  496

  Gartree

  277

  273

  Glen Parva

  767

  773

  Gloucester

  211

  252

  Grendon

  190

  178

  Guys Marsh

  240

  177

  Hollesley Bay

  365

  315

  Haslar

  145

  141

  Hatfield

  180

  173

  Haverigg

  405

  352

  Hewell Grange

  156

  165

  High Down

  549

  520

  Highpoint

  679

  606

  Hindley

  280

  303

  Holloway

  517

  460

  Holme House

  649

  633

  Hull

  328

  426

  Huntercombe

  226

  207

  Kingston

  154

  135

  Kirkham

  644

  611

  Kirklevington

  74

  72

  L'caster Farms

  364

  358

  Lancaster

  260

  255

  Latchmere House

  145

  137

  Leeds

  814

  1,155

  Leicester

  192

  331

  Lewes

  282

  346

  518

  Establishment

  Certified normal accommodation

  Population

  Leyhill

  410

  390

  Lincoln

  444

  624

  Lindholme

  567

  514

  Littlehey

  593

  554

  Liverpool

  931

  1,253

  Long Lartin

  362

  349

  Low Newton

  198

  248

  Maidstone

  485

  471

  Manchester

  470

  505

  Moorland

  635

  639

  Morton Hall

  168

  167

  New Hall

  169

  170

  North Sea Camp

  201

  199

  Northallerton

  150

  151

  Norwich

  457

  467

  Nottingham

  222

  211

  Onley

  516

  464

  Oxford

  109

  10

  Parkhurst

  286

  240

  Pentonville

  559

  700

  Portland

  420

  332

  Preston

  382

  496

  Pucklechurch

  56

  60

  Ranby

  347

  350

  Reading

  182

  158

  Risley

  751

  705

  Rochester

  294

  232

  Rudgate

  287

  267

  Send

  113

  110

  Shepton Mallet

  158

  175

  Shrewsbury

  168

  288

  Spring Hill

  210

  209

  Stafford

  532

  533

  Standford Hill

  384

  372

  Stocken

  396

  392

  Stoke Heath

  300

  274

  Styal

  180

  203

  Sudbury

  413

  330

  Sudbury Foston

  96

  92

  Swaleside

  512

  500

  Swansea

  155

  212

  Swinfen Hall

  182

  181

  Thorn Cross

  209

  180

  The Mount

  484

  474

  The Verne

  552

  520

  The Wolds

  339

  364

  Thorp Arch

  166

  166

  USK

  241

  231

  W'wood Scrubs

  714

  894

  Wakefield

  718

  684

  Wandsworth

  821

  825

  Wayland

  580

  553

  Wellingborough

  314

  312

  Werrington

  110

  107

  Wetherby

  196

  150

  Whatton

  216

  210

  Whitemoor

  534

  472

  Winchester

  368

  386

  Woodhill

  566

  511

  Wymott

  432

  284

  TOTAL

  48,218

  48,350

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his latest projections of prison population growth for the next 12 months.

  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.
  519
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 4 May 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Question about the latest projections of prison population growth for the next twelve months.
  The latest population projection is described in paragraph 2.5 and Annex 1 of the HM Prison Service Corporate Plan 1994–97, a copy of which is enclosed. The projection is for an average population of 48,800 for 1994–95 and a population of 50,800 by March 1995. The projection is subject to considerable uncertainty as the population reflects what happens elsewhere in the Criminal Justice System.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average certified normal accommodation and the average prisoner population, at each prison since 1980.

  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. Doug Hoyle, dated 4 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what was the average certified normal accommodation and the average prisoner population, at each prison since 1980.
  The information you have requested is published annually in the "Report on the work of the Prison Department" for years 1980–84 and 1985–86 to 1991–92 and in the "Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts" (Volume 2, Cm. 2385) for 1992–93. Copies of these publications are available in the House of Commons library.

  Security
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of private detective agencies and security companies by his Department.

  Mr. Howard
  I know of no instance where a private detective agency has been employed by my Department. I refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on Tuesday 26 April, column 98, for information in respect of security companies employed by my Department.

  Prison Hostages
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hostage incidents in prisons in each of the last five years have involved women staff.

  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. Doug Hoyle, dated 4 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has sked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of hostage incidents in prisons in each of the last five years involving women staff.
  There was one such incident in 1989 and two in 1991.

  Civil Servants (Career Breaks)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civil servants in his Department, including those working for agencies, have taken career breaks in each of the past five years; and how many of those civil servants were prison officers.

  Mr. Howard
  The number of civil servants in the Home Office, excluding the Prison Service, who have taken a career break in each year since 1989 is set out in the table. This information was taken from the Home Office personnel information system on 29 April 1994.

  Number of civil servants who have taken a career break

  Number

  1989

  6

  1990

  22

  1991

  50

  1992

  39

  1993

  25

  11994

  5

  1 To date.

  I have asked the Director General of the Prison Service to write to the hon. Member about career breaks in the Prison Service.

  Prison Building
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his future prison building plans.

  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. Doug Hoyle, dated 4 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the new prison building programme.
  A further six new prisons are planned under the prison building programme. On 2 September 1993 the Home Secretary announced that the design, construction, management and potential financing of future new prisons would be contracted out to the private sector. It is intended that all six of the planned new prisons will be procured in this way.
  Sites at Fazakerley in Merseyside and at Bridgend in South Wales have been identified for the first two prisons. The proposals to build a prison on the Fazakerley site was the subject of a non-statutory public local inquiry held between 26 October and 10 November 1993 and we are awaiting the outcome. We have outline planning clearance to build a prison on the site at Bridgend. If we obtain planning clearance for a new prison on the Fazakerley site we expect construction work on the site and on the Bridgend site to begin in 1995–96 and the two prisons to open as early as possible in 1997–98.
  Work is currently in progress to identify suitable sites for the other four prisons and it is too early to indicate a timetable for their construction and opening.

  Notifiable Offences
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) of 26 April,Official Report, columns 98–102, regarding notifiable offences in 1993, if he will show (a) the total offences, (b) burglary, (c) theft, (d) criminal damage,

  521
  (e) theft from a vehicle and (f) theft of a vehicle in each police authority area (i) per uniformed officer and (ii) per thousand of population.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is given in the tables.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police—1993 England and Wales

  Police force area

  Offences per police officer

  Offences per 1,000 population

  Avon and Somerset

  57

  122

  Bedfordshire

  50

  110

  Cambridgeshire

  51

  97

  Cheshire

  42

  83

  Cleveland

  54

  140

  Cumbria

  36

  89

  Derbyshire

  50

  97

  Devon and Cornwall

  41

  80

  Dorset

  39

  78

  Durham

  47

  111

  Essex

  38

  77

  Gloucestershire

  52

  113

  Greater Manchester

  51

  142

  Hampshire

  44

  86

  Hertfordshire

  33

  67

  Humberside

  69

  160

  Kent

  50

  105

  Lancashire

  42

  95

  Leicestershire

  53

  111

  Lincolnshire

  43

  88

  Merseyside

  30

  98

  Metropolitan Police District1

  32

  124

  Norfolk

  44

  84

  Northamptonshire

  50

  101

  Northumbria

  59

  148

  North Yorkshire

  43

  80

  Nottinghamshire

  67

  155

  South Yorkshire

  51

  121

  Staffordshire

  44

  94

  Suffolk

  35

  67

  Surrey

  31

  68

  Sussex

  37

  78

  Thames Valley

  51

  101

  Warwickshire

  44

  93

  West Mercia

  40

  75

  West Midlands

  47

  125

  West Yorkshire

  60

  144

  Wiltshire

  32

  72

  Dyfed-Powys

  25

  53

  Gwent

  39

  89

  North Wales

  35

  74

  South Wales

  52

  125

  Total

  43

  108

  1 Including City of London.

  Notifiable offences of burglary recorded by the police—1993 England and Wales

  Police force area

  Offences per police officer

  Offences per 1,000 population

  Avon and Somerset

  13

  28

  Bedfordshire

  13

  29

  Cambridgeshire

  12

  22

  Cheshire

  12

  23

  Cleveland

  13

  33

  Cumbria

  9

  22

  Derbyshire

  14

  27

  Devon and Cornwall

  11

  21

  Dorset

  7

  14

  Durham

  10

  23

  Essex

  9

  18

  Gloucestershire

  15

  32

  Greater Manchester

  14

  38

  Hampshire

  10

  19

  Hertfordshire

  8

  16

  522

  Police force area

  Offences per police officer

  Offences per 1,000 population

  Humberside

  23

  54

  Kent

  9

  20

  Lancashire

  9

  21

  Leicestershire

  13

  28

  Lincolnshire

  11

  22

  Merseyside

  7

  23

  Metropolitan Police District1

  6

  24

  Norfolk

  12

  24

  Northamptonshire

  13

  27

  Northumbria

  17

  44

  North Yorkshire

  12

  23

  Nottinghamshire

  17

  39

  South Yorkshire

  17

  40

  Staffordshire

  13

  29

  Suffolk

  7

  14

  Surrey

  8

  17

  Sussex

  9

  19

  Thames Valley

  10

  20

  Warwickshire

  12

  26

  West Mercia

  9

  16

  West Midlands

  14

  38

  West Yorkshire

  19

  45

  Wiltshire

  7

  16

  Dyfed-Powys

  5

  10

  Gwent

  7

  16

  North Wales

  9

  18

  South Wales

  12

  29

  Total

  11

  27

  1 Including City of London.

  Notifiable offences of the theft recorded by the police—1993 England and Wales

  Police force area

  Offences per police officer

  Offences per 1,000 population

  Avon and Somerset

  32

  69

  Bedfordshire

  26

  57

  Cambridgeshire

  29

  56

  Cheshire

  20

  40

  Cleveland

  29

  74

  Cumbria

  18

  44

  Derbyshire

  23

  45

  Devon and Cornwall

  21

  41

  Dorset

  22

  45

  Durham

  25

  58

  Essex

  20

  41

  Gloucestershire

  29

  61

  Greater Manchester

  25

  68

  Hampshire

  23

  45

  Hertfordshire

  17

  35

  Humberside

  31

  72

  Kent

  28

  59

  Lancashire

  22

  50

  Leicestershire

  27

  57

  Lincolnshire

  22

  44

  Merseyside

  14

  47

  Metropolitan Police District1

  16

  61

  Norfolk

  23

  44

  Northamptonshire

  24

  49

  Northumbria

  24

  61

  North Yorkshire

  22

  42

  Nottinghamshire

  33

  76

  South Yorkshire

  23

  55

  Staffordshire

  20

  42

  Suffolk

  18

  35

  Surrey

  16

  36

  Sussex

  19

  40

  Thames Valley

  29

  57

  Warwickshire

  22

  46

  West Mercia

  22

  42

  West Midlands

  21

  57

  West Yorkshire

  28

  68

  Wiltshire

  16

  37

  Dyfed-Powys

  12

  25

  523

  Police force area

  Offences per police officer

  Offences per 1,000 population

  Gwent

  21

  48

  North Wales

  17

  36

  South Wales

  24

  59

  Total

  22

  54

  1 Including City of London

  Notifiable offences of criminal damage recorded by the police—1993 England and Wales

  Police force area

  Offences per police officer

  Offences per 1,000 population

  Avon and Somerset

  7

  15

  Bedfordshire

  6

  14

  Cambridgeshire

  6

  11

  Cheshire

  6

  12

  Cleveland

  10

  24

  Cumbria

  6

  16

  Derbyshire

  9

  17

  Devon and Cornwall

  5

  10

  Dorset

  5

  9

  Durham

  8

  19

  Essex

  6

  12

  Gloucestershire

  5

  10

  Greater Manchester

  9

  24

  Hampshire

  7

  13

  Hertfordshire

  5

  11

  Humberside

  10

  22

  Kent

  8

  18

  Lancashire

  8

  18

  Leicestershire

  8

  16

  Lincolnshire

  7

  14

  Merseyside

  5

  16

  Metropolitan Police District1

  6

  24

  Norfolk

  5

  10

  Northamptonshire

  8

  16

  Northumbria

  14

  35

  North Yorkshire

  5

  10

  Nottinghamshire

  11

  25

  South Yorkshire

  8

  18

  Staffordshire

  7

  14

  Suffolk

  5

  10

  Surrey

  4

  9

  Sussex

  6

  13

  Thames Valley

  8

  16

  Warwickshire

  6

  13

  West Mercia

  6

  11

  West Midlands

  7

  19

  West Yorkshire

  9

  21

  Wiltshire

  5

  10

  Dyfed-Powys

  5

  11

  Gwent

  7

  15

  North Wales

  6

  12

  South Wales

  12

  28

  Total

  7

  18

  1 Including City of London.

  Notifiable offences of theft from a vehicle recorded by the police—1993 England and Wales

  Police force area

  Offences per police officer

  Offences per 1,000 population

  Avon and Somerset

  12

  26

  Bedfordshire

  10

  21

  Cambridgeshire

  9

  17

  Cheshire

  7

  14

  Cleveland

  6

  16

  Cumbria

  7

  17

  Derbyshire

  9

  18

  Devon and Cornwall

  8

  16

  Dorset

  7

  13

  Durham

  7

  15

  Essex

  7

  13

  524

  Police force area

  Offences per police officer

  Offences per 1,000 population

  Gloucestershire

  13

  27

  Greater Manchester

  8

  21

  Hampshire

  9

  17

  Hertfordshire

  7

  15

  Humberside

  10

  23

  Kent

  8

  18

  Lancashire

  7

  17

  Leicestershire

  9

  19

  Lincolnshire

  5

  11

  Merseyside

  4

  12

  Metropolitan Police District1

  5

  21

  Norfolk

  9

  17

  Northamptonshire

  8

  17

  Northumbria

  7

  17

  North Yorkshire

  7

  13

  Nottinghamshire

  9

  22

  South Yorkshire

  8

  19

  Staffordshire

  8

  16

  Suffolk

  5

  9

  Surrey

  6

  13

  Sussex

  7

  14

  Thames Valley

  11

  22

  Warwickshire

  9

  18

  West Mercia

  7

  13

  West Midlands

  8

  21

  West Yorkshire

  10

  23

  Wiltshire

  5

  12

  Dyfed-Powys

  3

  6

  Gwent

  7

  15

  North Wales

  6

  13

  South Wales

  9

  21

  Total

  7

  18

  1 Including City of London.

  Notifiable offences of theft of a vehicle recorded by the police—1993 England and Wales

  Police force area

  Offences per police officer

  Offences per 1,000 population

  Avon and Somerset

  8

  18

  Bedfordshire

  7

  16

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  10

  Cheshire

  5

  9

  Cleveland

  9

  24

  Cumbria

  3

  6

  Derbyshire

  5

  10

  Devon and Cornwall

  3

  5

  Dorset

  3

  6

  Durham

  7

  15

  Essex

  4

  7

  Gloucestershire

  4

  9

  Greater Manchester

  8

  22

  Hampshire

  3

  6

  Hertfordshire

  4

  7

  Humberside

  7

  15

  Kent

  6

  12

  Lancashire

  4

  9

  Leicestershire

  6

  13

  Lincolnshire

  3

  6

  Merseyside

  3

  11

  Metropolitan Police District1

  3

  10

  Norfolk

  3

  6

  Northamptonshire

  6

  13

  Northumbria

  8

  20

  North Yorkshire

  4

  7

  Nottinghamshire

  7

  16

  South Yorkshire

  7

  17

  Staffordshire

  5

  10

  Suffolk

  2

  4

  Surrey

  3

  6

  Sussex

  3

  5

  Thames Valley

  6

  12

  Warwickshire

  5

  10

  West Mercia

  4

  8

  525

  Police force area

  Offences per police officer

  Offences per 1,000 population

  West Midlands

  6

  15

  West Yorkshire

  8

  18

  Wiltshire

  2

  5

  Dyfed-Powys

  1

  3

  Gwent

  4

  8

  North Wales

  2

  5

  South Wales

  7

  17

  Total

  5

  12

  1 Including City of London.

  Somali Refugees
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to assist Somalis with refugee status or with permission for an extended stay in the United Kingdom who wish to return to help in the redevelopment of their country without losing the right to return if the situation in Somalia deteriorates.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Any refugee or person with exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom is free to seek to re-establish themselves in their country of origin, but this must raise the question whether they continue to have a well-founded fear of persecution or a humanitarian case for exceptional leave.

  Hospital Officers and Nurses (Training)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department received a copy of the report commissioned on the introduction of competency-based training for hospital officers and nurses; and when he intends to publish it.

  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. David Blunkett, dated 4 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question as to when his Department received a copy of the report commissioned on the introduction of competency based training for hospital officers and nurses; and when he intends to publish it.
  The report commissioned on the introduction of competency based training was received on the 28 February 1992. The report was judged to meet neither quality standards nor the tender specification. The report was therefore rejected by the Head of Nursing Services and not published. A further report was commissioned from an alternative source and received on 20 November 1992. As a direct result of this second report a policy of providing National Vocational Qualifications in care at levels 2 and 3 has been introduced for all hospital officers now called health care officers.

  Pregnant Prisoners
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women prisoners gave birth during imprisonment in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years; in which prisons the women were held before the birth; in which prisons the women were held after the birth; and where the births took place.
  526
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 4 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of women who have given birth while serving a prison sentence in each of the last ten years; in which prisons the women were held before the birth; in which prisons the women were held after the birth; and where the births took place.
  The annual reports on the work of the Prison Service until 1991–92 record the number of women temporarily removed to outside hospital for delivery and returning to establishments afterwards. Figures are now published in the annual report of the Director of Health Care for prisoners. The figures are:

  Numbers

  1983

  70

  11984–85

  70

  1985–86

  71

  1986–87

  62

  1987–88

  75

  1988–89

  63

  1989–90

  74

  1990–91

  65

  1991–92

  56

  1992–93

  29

  1 15 month period.

  In addition there were six deliveries within Prison Service establishments:

  Numbers

  1983

  1

  1984–85

  1

  1985–86

  1

  1987–88

  1

  1988–89

  2

  Pregnant women who wish to keep their babies with them in prison are held in Holloway, Styal or Askham Grange. It is not possible to say which prisons women were held in after the birth as such detailed records are not kept. If the baby remained with the mother on a prison mother and baby unit they would have been in Holloway, Askham Grange or Styal prisons. If the mother made alternative arrangements for the care of her baby then it is possible she may have been held in any of the women's establishments.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sunday Trading (Cinemas)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about the effect the Sunday Trading Bill will have on the operation of cinemas on Sunday; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have received no such representations.

  Orchestras
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information he has about the financial position of the Halle orchestra, the Royal
  527
  Liverpool philharmonic, the Bournemouth symphony orchestra and the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra.

  Mr. Brooke
  I am aware of concerns that the orchestras to which my hon. Friend refers are currently facing varying degrees of financial difficulty. However, I have no locus in matters relating to the funding of individual arts organisations. The orchestras in question are clients of the Arts Council of England, which closely monitors their financial as well as artistic and management performance.

  Community Radio
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information he has concerning the number of broadcasting franchises which have to date been allocated to community radio broadcasters; who are the broadcasters concerned; and on what date they took over the franchise in question.

  Mr. Brooke
  Government policy is that the responsibility for licensing independent radio services lies with the Radio Authority, which will have the detailed answers my hon. Friend seeks.

  Some general information on independent radio licenses may be found in the Authority's annual report, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Sleeping Drugs
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what restrictions are in place on advertising drugs available without prescription which are designed to aid sleep; what checks are carried out to ensure that addictive or potentially harmful drugs are not advertised for mass consumption; what health warnings should be given in such advertisements; in what ways regulations or guidelines on the advertisement of such drugs have been amended or relaxed within the past five years; what plans he has to introduce new legislation, statutory orders or guidelines to regulate the promotion of aids to sleep which are available without prescription; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to his similar question given on 27 April, column 203, by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville). The Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority issue codes of advertising standards and practice, which include provisions on medicines and treatments. These codes are reviewed from time to time.

ENVIRONMENT

  Retirement Housing
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether the current remit of the housing association tenants ombudsman will allow the extension of his work to incorporate those members of the Association of Retirement Housing Managers which are not registered housing associations; what is his policy on such an extension; and what is the estimated additional cost;

  (2) what plans he has to support attempts by the Association of Retirement Housing Managers to bring all their members under the jurisdiction of the housing association tenants ombudsman.
  528
  Sir George Young
  The housing association tenants ombudsman service was established by the Housing Corporation last autumn to handle complaints from tenants and leaseholders of properties owned or managed by housing associations registered with the Corporation. This is a very early stage at which to consider posible extensions of its remit, particularly outside the registered housing association sector. I shall, however, seek the views of the Housing Corporation about the feasibility of the proposal made by the Association of Retirement Housing Managers.

  Tenants' Cash Incentive Scheme
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the sums given to each London borough for the year 1994–95 for the tenants' cash incentive scheme; and how each sum is arrived at.

  Sir George Young
  The table shows the additional Government resources allocated to London borough councils for cash incentive schemes in 1994–95.

  In assessing bids and allocating the £16.2 million my right hon. Friend took account of a number of factors, including: how the housing needs of the area would benefit from a cash incentive scheme; the general needs index for the authority; the amount the authority proposed to allocate to the scheme from its own resources, and whether it had the means to do so; whether the authority had previously run a successful scheme; and the value of encouraging a local authority to run a scheme for the first time.

  Local Authority

  Allocation (£)

  Barnet

  500,000

  Bexley

  110,000

  Brent

  520,000

  Camden

  1,500,000

  Corporation of London

  110,000

  Croydon

  1,420,000

  Ealing

  350,000

  Enfleld

  700,000

  Greenwich

  460,000

  Hackney

  690,000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  450,000

  Haringey

  820,000

  Harrow

  450,000

  Havering

  100,000

  Hillingdon

  810,000

  Hounslow

  380,000

  Islington

  610,000

  Kensington and Chelsea

  180,000

  Kingston upon Thames

  400,000

  Lambeth

  540,000

  Lewisham

  180,000

  Merton

  270,000

  Newham

  630,000

  Redbridge

  450,000

  Richmond upon Thames

  500,000

  Southwark

  150,000

  Sutton

  210,000

  Tower Hamlets

  310,000

  Waltham Forest

  810,000

  Wandsworth

  750,000

  Westminster

  840,000

  Totals

  16,200,000

  Ofwat
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines have been issued by his Department to Ofwat with regard to its scrutiny of future
  529
  price limits for water companies; what responsibility they have to take into account the views of the consumer; and by what means.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Director General of Water Services, Mr. Byatt, has responsibility for setting water price limits. It is not for the Secretary of State to guide him. However, in preparation for his current periodic review of price limits, the Director General sought the perspective of the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales on the environmental and safety obligations which water companies will have to meet in the period 1995 to 2005. The Secretaries of State published their perspective, "Water Charges: The Quality Framework", in October 1993. The Director General has a duty to protect the interests of customers under section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991. To assist him in this task, Ofwat has established 10 regional customer service committees and a National Customer Council.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will carry out an investigation into the amount being spent by urban development corporations on private sector consultants.

  Independent consultants

  Firm of consultants

  Other employment

  Referred to advisory committee

  Granted

  1986

  7

  4

  40

  2

  All

  1987

  7

  3

  29

  0

  All

  1988

  8

  3

  44

  0

  All

  1989

  10

  12

  37

  0

  All

  1990

  11 (12)

  4

  27 (29)

  1 (3)

  All

  1991

  9

  3

  16 (29)

  1 (3)

  All

  1992

  9 (13)

  4

  39 (43)

  2 (6)

  All

  1993

  6 (10)

  10

  23 (34)

  2 (5)

  All

  1994

  4 (7)

  0

  13 (20)

  2 (3)

  All

  Note: The figures in brackets are the number of applications received; all other figures refer to the number of individuals who applied.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at what date the guidance in the revised planning policy guidance note 13 came into effect; and what influences it is expected to have on planning inspectors sitting on appeals at that time.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: The revision of planning policy guidance note 13 was published on 15 March 1994. It is capable of being a material consideration in any planning decision taken after that date—whether by a local planning authority, the Secretary of State or a planning inspector appointed to take a decision on his behalf.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effects of increases in water charges on old-age pensioners; and what plans he has for specific assistance.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: The Director General of Water Services has a duty to protect the interests of customers and ensure no undue preference or discrimination in the fixing of charges. In performing this
  530
  Mr. Baldry
  Urban development corporations make use of architectural, engineering, property, legal and other specialist consultancy to provide the necessary expertise in managing major regeneration projects. It provides better value for money to the Exchequer for corporations to make use of private practice in this way than to employ such staff with the appropriate technical expertise in-house. Consultants are appointed by competitive tendering and in accordance with strict procedures which are open to inspection by independent auditors, appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Civil Servants (Business Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many civil servants in his Department applied in each year since 1986 through the business appointments system to take up an outside appointment(a) as an independent consultant, (b) with a firm of consultants and (c) in other employment; how many were referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and how many were granted.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: The information is given in the following table, which includes applications by staff of the Property Services Agency:

  duty he is required to take into account, in particular, the interests of those who are disabled or of pensionable age. The Director General is currently undertaking a periodic review of charge limits for the 10 years from 1 April 1995 and will be announcing the results of his review in July.

  Both the Government and the Director General are aware of the impact of rising water charges on all customers and are very keen to ensure that future charges are no higher than necessary. Specific assistance to those in need is a matter for the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many miles of rivers and streams in England and Wales are polluted or are at risk of pollution from former mine workings; and what action he is taking in each region to ensure that such pollution is prevented following the passage of the Coal Industry Bill.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: In its report "Abandoned Mines and the Water Environment" published in March 1994, the National Rivers Authority estimated that some 200 km of waters in England an Wales are affected by abandoned coal mines. My noble Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  531
  addressed the issue in another place on 26 April. He noted that the Government are reviewing the framework of pollution legislation relating to abandoned mines. Pending the outcome of that review he made clear that the Government would expect the Coal Authority, as owner of all abandoned coal mines in Great Britain, to go beyond the minimum standards of environmental responsibility which are set by its present legal duties in these areas and to seek the best environmental result which can be secured from the use of the resources available to it for these purposes. The Coal Authority will have a specific budget for this, which will enable it to carry forward in full the role and activities of British Coal in this area.

  European Regional Funding
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what are the criteria for bids for a share of the money allocated to East Anglia under objective 5b funding; what qualifying schemes he has been advised upon; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement clarifying how £46 million for East Anglia is to be allocated from the funds available under objective 5b funding; what is now the timetable for bids; and when he expects fund allocations to be made.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: The Government presented six plans to the European Commission on 26 April for the development of those rural areas of England which are eligible to receive EC structural funds under objective 5b. One such eligible area covers parts of East Anglia. The plans describe the strategies and priorities which will be pursued with the funds in these areas for the period 1994–99.

  The plan for the East Anglia objective 5b area identifies the types of activities for which assistance from structural funds will be sought. These include support for the development of businesses, agricultural and fishery diversification, the development of human resources, development of tourism arid cultural activities and for research and development.

  Under the structural funds regulations, the European Commission is required to respond to the plan within six months of receipt. It is not possible to draw upon the £46 million allocated to the region to fund projects until the Commission has reached a decision on the East Anglia plan. However, I hope bids can be invited before the autumn. The Government office for the eastern region is continuing to work closely with other local partners, such as local authorities and training and enterprise councils, on measures to implement the plan. In due course, a monitoring committee will be established to determine the detailed criteria for selecting projects.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy in regard to evaluating independent expert studies of the long-term safety of the storage of high-level radioactive waste liquor in the Sellafield storage tanks.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on 8 March, Official Report, column 203.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the press statements, parliamentary answers and other official documents in which the average household council tax has been used as a measure since April 1992.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: The average household council tax was published in "Local Government Financial Statistics No. 4" 1990–91 to 1993–94 and in two departmental press notices, the first dated 31 March 1993, the second 31 March 1994. In each instance, a corresponding headline council tax figure for band C, two adults was also shown. The average household council tax has also been given in answer to four parliamentary questions:
  On 24 February 1993 to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) Official Report, columns 872–74;
  On 28 April 1993 to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) Official Report, column 941 and the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) Official Report, column 422;
  On 7 February 1994 to my noble Friend Lord Braine of Wheatley, Official Report, column 118.

  The Government believe that using the band C, two adults figure is the best way to compare council with council. But the average figure can be useful in comparing the council tax with the community charge, and in looking at year-on-year changes.

WALES

  Water Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what correspondence he has had during 1994 with Dwr Cymru plc concerning water and sewage services to householders in Wales for 1994–95; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and his Department are in regular contact with Dwr Cymru on matters of common interest. The Director General of Water Services has responsibility for protecting the interests of customers for water and sewerage services in England and Wales.

  Junior Doctors (Working Hours)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many junior hospital doctors in Wales are currently contracted for more than 72 hours per week; and what percentage of the total number of junior doctors in Wales this represents.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest returns for September 1993 showed that a total of 786 junior doctors were contracted to work for more than 72 hours per week, which represents 47 per cent. of the total number in Wales, while none was contracted to work more than an average of 83 hours per week, as required under the Government's programme to reduce the hours of junior hospital doctors. The next stage is to reduce contracted hours to 72 hours on average in hard-pressed specialties by 31 December 1994.

  Wind Energy
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the content of annexe 1 to planning policy guidance note 22 referring to the development of wind energy plants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Since the publication of planning policy guidance note No. 22, my right hon. Friend has received two representations about the annexe on wind energy.

  Local Structure Plans
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing on how many occasions each district council in Wales has granted planning permission(a) in departure from its structure plan and (b) against the advice of its chief planning officer in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  In the Government response to the Welsh Affairs Committee's report on rural housing, it was accepted that it would be prudent to survey the performance of local planning authorities in the handling of departure cases in view of the recent changes in planning legislation. Consideration is currently being given to how best to collect this information.

  Suicides
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 25 March,Official Report, column 454, if he will publish for each district council in Wales, and for Wales as a whole, for the latest available year (a) the total number of suicides, (b) the number of suicides by farmers and (c) the figures in (b) as a percentage of (a); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is for 1992 and is shown in the following table:

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Residents of:

  Total suicides and undetermined deaths

  Suicides and undetermined deaths of farmer1

  Farmers1 suicides as a percentage of total suicides

  Alyn and Deeside

  9

  —

  —

  Colwyn

  10

  1

  10

  Delyn

  5

  —

  —

  Glyndwr

  6

  1

  16.7

  Rhuddlan

  6

  —

  —

  Wrexham Maelor

  19

  —

  —

  Carmarthen

  9

  —

  —

  Ceredigion

  6

  —

  —

  Dinefwr

  9

  1

  11.1

  Llanelli

  13

  —

  —

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  7

  —

  —

  South Pembrokeshire

  5

  —

  —

  Blaenau Gwent

  10

  —

  —

  Islwyn

  2

  —

  —

  Monmouth

  7

  —

  —

  Newport

  16

  —

  —

  Torfaen

  10

  —

  —

  Aberconwy

  10

  —

  —

  Arfon

  13

  —

  —

  Dwyfor

  3

  —

  —

  Meirionnydd

  5

  —

  —

  Ynys Mon-Isle of Anglesey

  12

  —

  —

  534

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Residents of:

  Total suicides and undetermined deaths

  Suicides and undetermined deaths of farmer1

  Farmers1 suicides as a percentage of total suicides

  Cynon Valley

  3

  —

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil

  7

  —

  —

  Ogwr

  18

  —

  —

  Rhondda

  10

  —

  —

  Rhymney Valley

  14

  —

  —

  Taff-Ely

  13

  —

  —

  Brecknock

  4

  —

  —

  Montgomeryshire

  6

  1

  16.7

  Radnor

  6

  1

  16.7

  Cardiff

  38

  —

  —

  Vale of Glamorgan

  11

  —

  —

  Lliw Valley

  9

  —

  —

  Neath

  9

  —

  —

  Port Talbot

  5

  —

  —

  Swansea

  29

  1

  3.4

  Wales

  374

  6

  1.6

  1 Farmers, horticulturalists and farm managers.

  Source: OPCS.

  Community Care
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to obtain budgeted revenue information on community care for each local authority area in Wales since introduction of the programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is already collected.

  Environmental Agency
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for local government representation on the proposed Environment Agency serving Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government propose that the Environment Agency should be established as an England and Wales organisation. The precise regional, and supporting committee, structure has yet to be determined; but the interests of local government in Wales will be taken fully into account when appointments come to be made.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure local delivery of service by the proposed Environment Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The detailed arrangements for service provision at the local level will be a matter for the Environment Agency itself to determine. However, Ministers will expect it to plan its operations so as to develop a close and responsive relationship with those whom it will regulate, the public and local communities.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to provide additional funding to local authorities to assist them to carry out surveys required by the Environment Agency by 1 April 1995.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Some information is needed from local authorities in Wales in connection with the planned transfer of the waste regulation function to the Environment Agency. However, the Welsh Office, and the
  535
  Department of the Environment in England, intend to keep such requests to the absolute minimum; and no additional financial provision for local authorities is considered necessary.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to locate a regional headquarters of the proposed Environment Agency in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The precise regional structure of the Environment Agency will be a matter for its board to determine. However, Welsh Office Ministers regard it as of importance that it should have a strong regional presence in Wales.

  Milk Marketing
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the objections he has received with respect to the revised scheme of reorganisation in milk marketing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received five responses to the consultation on the amended reorganisation scheme submitted by the Milk Marketing Board. They expressed support for the scheme in general, but were concerned about some points of detail.

  Privatisation (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since 1980 the Welsh Office has not incurred any expenditure on consultants in connection with privatisation programmes. The Department of Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry respectively took responsibility for the privatisation of Welsh Water and South Wales Electricity in 1989.

  Miss Beata Brookes
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the public appointments of Miss Beata Brookes; what pay and time is allocated to each appointment; what is the term of office for that appointment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: The information is as follows:

  Welsh Consumer Council—Chair

  Remuneration: £4,730 per annum

  Time Commitment: 8 days per month

  National Consumer Council—Member

  Remuneration: £4,730 per annum

  Time Commitment: 12–15 days per annum

  Both appointments run from 1 June 1991 to 30 April 1997; these appointments are made by the President of the Board of Trade.

  EC Economic and Social Committee—Member

  Remuneration: Nil

  Time Commitment: Approximately 100 days per annum

  This appointment is made by the EC Council of Ministers; the appointment runs from 19 November 1993 to 31 August 1994.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in relation to Miss Beata Brookes' appointment as chairperson of the Welsh Consumer Council; and if he will make a statement.
  536
  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: I have received a number of letters concerning the reappointment of the chair of the Welsh Consumer Council, all of which supported Miss Brookes' reappointment.

  I am consulted about this appointment, which is made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Canine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 26 April,Official Report, column 92, what reports she has received of unconfirmed cases of spongiform encephalopathies in canines.

  Mr. Soames
  Since November 1986 41 brains from canines in Great Britain with signs of neurological disease have been submitted to the Ministry. None of these has been identified as being affected by a spongiform encephalopathy on laboratory examination.

  We are also aware of on-going investigations into a single, unconfirmed case overseas. However, I am not in a position to provide further details, as the information was passed on in confidence.

  Fisheries
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for each member country of the EC the number of fishing vessels, the total quota of fish by species of each country, the fishing capacity of each country as a percentage of their quota, the number of fisheries inspected and the number of fishing protection vessels and aircraft employed.

  Mr. Jack
  As regards the number of fishing vessels, I refer the hon. Member to the multi-annual guidance programme of each member state as set out in Commission decisions 92/588/EEC to 92/598/EEC, as amended and, as regards quotas, to regulation 3676/93. These documents are in the Library of the House. It would be misleading to compare total capacity and total quota, but the multi-annual guidance programmes do give a broad indication of the reductions needed to bring national fleets into better balance with the stocks they fish.

  The most recent information available about fisheries inspected and the number of fishing protection vessels and aircraft employed by each member state is in the Commission report on monitoring implementation of the common fisheries policy, published in 1992. This document, which is also in the Library of the House, contains information about inspections carried out during 1990 and about member states' enforcement resources. As from 1995, the Commission will be publishing an annual report on the enforcement activities of member states under the provisions of the new fisheries control regulation, Council regulation 2847/93, which came into operation on 1 January this year.

  Animal Slaughter (Costs)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements she will be making to reduce the costs on the meat slaughtering industry; and
  537
  what consideration she has given to (a) withdrawing the burden of veterinary supervision or (b) directly reimbursing veterinary costs.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government's policy is that the cost of the meat inspection service should be recovered from the industry. We have taken a number of steps to minimise costs, including in particular the introduction in mid-1993 of an upper limit on local authority charges. We have developed in consultation with the industry a hygiene assessment system, the results of which will help local authorities to ensure that supervision effort is targeted at the plants which present the greatest risk. We have no plans to withdraw the requirement for veterinary supervision, which is a fundamental element of the European single market legislation.

  The new meat hygiene service, due to be launched in April 1995 to take over responsibility for meat hygiene enforcement, will be required to meet demanding financial and management targets to ensure that it delivers a cost-effective service.

  Fishing (Conservation)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions since the decision in December 1993 to suspend the operation of the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1992 she or the Minister of State has met representatives of the fishing industry to discuss alternative conservation strategies; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I have had various contacts with the industry since December 1993. Ministry and Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland officials met the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and representatives of the Northern Ireland Industry on 8 March to examine their technical conservation proposals in detail, and there was a meeting with the Commission services on 5 April.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements are in place for the setting up of appeals tribunals under the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1992; and how many departmental officials and staff were engaged in work related to the setting up of these tribunals on 1 April.

  Mr. Jack
  Work on the Sea Fish Licence Tribunal has been suspended, and no staff were engaged on this work on 1 April 1994.

  Beef
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence she has of damage to the export of British foodstuffs to Germany by the stance of the German Government towards British beef.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: According to Meat and Livestock Commission

  Exports of sheep and sheepmeat 1979 to 1993

  Metric tonnes

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  11993

  Live sheep and lambs

  All countries

  17,261

  14,281

  8,026

  5,833

  4,348

  3,564

  2,990

  5,857

  12,767

  17,835

  22,451

  22,225

  33,040

  52,051

  30,712

  EC

  17,222

  14,273

  7,934

  5,810

  4,333

  3,555

  2,960

  5,785

  12,760

  17,809

  22,436

  22,217

  33,023

  51,993

  30,709

  Of which:

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  1,429

  1,517

  2,689

  1,108

  993

  —

  655

  482

  70

  342

  981

  258

  1,568

  3,071

  3,572

  538
  export survey statistics, beef exports to Germany declined from just under 2,500 tonnes in 1992 to 900 tonnes in 1993. So far in 1994, exports are running at an annualised rate of 300–400 tonnes. In addition, individual companies have given me reports of lost or threatened business for beef and other meats. The promotion of other British products has also been affected.

  I have made the European Commission aware of these effects, which amount to an unjustified trade barrier against British goods in the single market.

  Fisheries Management
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether Her Majesty's Government intend to propose or introduce effort limitation in respect of United Kingdom-registered vessels currently entitled to fish in the Irish sensitive zone.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: It is the responsibility of the Commission, and not individual member states, to bring forward proposals, by 1 June 1994, for the Community arrangements which will, inter alia, replace the sensitive zone of the Irish box when current provisions expire on 31 December 1995. The regulation concerned specifies that these arrangements must provide for close monitoring of the development of fishing effort deployed and of the state of resources in order that the necessary measures may be taken, where appropriate, to preserve the balance.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what fisheries management arrangements were proposed by her Department at the most recent meeting of the European Commission's working group dealing with the fisheries implications of Spanish accession.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: The implications of the review of the Spanish and Portuguese accession arrangements for fisheries will be the subject of proposals to be made by the Commission by 1 June 1994, for subsequent discussion in Council and decision by the Council itself before 1 January 1995.

  Lamb and Sheep Exports
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tonnage of domestically reared lamb and sheep was exported for each year since 1979; to which countries; and in what form.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 26 April 1994]: Export data specifically referring to domestically reared lamb and sheep are not available. Total exports of lamb and sheep from the United Kingdom, by destination and form, for years 1979 to 1993, are shown in the following table.
  539

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  11993

  Germany2

  6,257

  6,770

  1,977

  1,136

  1,993

  1,111

  —

  161

  —

  132

  467

  —

  143

  1,830

  1,060

  Irish Republic

  9,377

  5,623

  907

  2,169

  1,326

  1,856

  1,662

  905

  1,921

  2,071

  2,909

  3,133

  3,704

  2,540

  10

  France

  —

  —

  2,297

  1,394

  —

  —

  —

  4,047

  10,701

  15,175

  17,645

  18,733

  26,943

  43,250

  24,193

  Non-EC

  39

  8

  92

  23

  15

  9

  30

  72

  7

  26

  15

  8

  17

  58

  3

  Meat of sheep and lambs3—Fresh/chilled/frozen

  All countries

  40,922

  36,949

  37,531

  37,041

  43,317

  47,330

  48,701

  60,019

  71,188

  75,985

  89,160

  79,697

  79,960

  105,146

  95,059

  EC

  36,630

  33,304

  32,601

  34,676

  39,851

  44,239

  44,441

  57,134

  68,643

  73,689

  86,725

  77,371

  77,810

  103,173

  92,684

  Of which:

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  14,126

  13,704

  6,103

  5,584

  4,120

  4,053

  5,983

  7,016

  7,904

  8,068

  8,539

  8,936

  9,362

  9,615

  10,315

  Germany2

  13,593

  13,647

  5,138

  5,521

  4,529

  2,977

  2,453

  2,889

  2,544

  3,054

  3,662

  2,784

  2,118

  4,882

  4,174

  France

  5,107

  3,466

  19,797

  22,246

  29,953

  35,625

  34,550

  43,937

  53,865

  56,625

  66,402

  55,229

  53,383

  72,410

  65,147

  Italy

  2,361

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,262

  2,796

  2,359

  3,502

  4,477

  4,624

  3,849

  Spain

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,822

  5,223

  1,565

  8,380

  5,838

  Non-EC

  4,292

  3,645

  4,930

  2,365

  3,466

  3,091

  4,260

  2,885

  2,545

  2,296

  2,435

  2,326

  2,150

  1,973

  2,375

  Of which:

  Switzerland

  1,630

  1,529

  1,508

  1,943

  2,271

  2,158

  2,560

  2,450

  2,170

  1,964

  2,177

  1,928

  1,882

  1,557

  1,845

  1 Data for 1993 are provisional and subject to revision.

  2 Data pre-1991 covers the Federal Republic only.

  3 Data pre-1988 also includes meat of goats.

  Sources:

  CSO/Department of Trade Annual Edition of Overseas Trade Statistics and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the total cost of official entertaining in his office in each year since 1990–91; if he will list the receptions held in each year at his office's expense; and what was the cost of each reception.

  Mr. Newton
  The cost of official entertainment in the Privy Council Office in 1992–93 was £9,776, and in 1993–94 £9,892. Figures for previous years were not recorded. Expenditure on hospitality is, however, included within the running cost expenditure for my Department which is published each year in the annual report. Expenditure on entertainment covers a variety of functions, including receptions. Details of the expenditure attributable to particular functions could not be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Bolton Institute of Higher Education
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he intends to announce his decision on the application by Bolton Institute of Higher Education in May 1993 for research degree awarding powers under the procedures and criteria formulated by the Higher Education Quality Council.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 3 May,Official Report, column 460.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many parliamentary questions to his Department have not been answered because of disproportionate costs or because the information requested was not held centrally over the last five years; how many could be answered now due to computerisation and/or more effective operational systems; and if he will list each such question along with the name and constituency of the hon. Member who tabled it.

  Mr. Newton
  I and my predecessors have answered more than 900 questions, of which 1·7 per cent. have not 540
  been answered because of disproportionate costs or because the information requested was not held centrally. Information on how many of these questions could now be answered and details of the questions and the hon. Member who tabled them could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to ensure that adequate opportunities are made available for full parliamentary scrutiny of agreements made in the GATT negotiations.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no current plans for a debate on GATT. However, I will certainly keep the matter under consideration.

  Christmas Cards
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many official Christmas cards were sent out in 1993 by(a) Ministers, (b) civil servants and (c) staff of Government agencies working in or to his Department; and how much these cards cost (i) to buy, (ii) to post and (iii) in staff time to sign, address and place in envelopes.

  Mr. Newton
  Last year 175 Christmas cards were sent out by me and 63 were issued by my private office at a cost, including second class postage, of approximately £312. It is not possible to ascertain the staff costs involved.

  European Works Councils
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 18 April,Official Report, column 371, about scrutiny of activities of countries of the European Community, what official debate there has been on the proposed EC Council directive on mechanisms for informing and consulting employees in Community-scale undertakings or groups of undertakings prior to the Social Affairs Council of 19 April; and what draft reports have been available to hon. and right hon. Members.

  Mr. Newton
  The European Commission's proposal for the establishment of European Works Councils—
  541
  Council document reference 4466/91—was debated in European Standing Committee B on 3 July 1991. Both it and the subsequent amended proposal—Council document reference 8319/91—have been the subject of explanatory memoranda by the Department of Employment as follows:
  4466/91: Explanatory memoranda dated 4 February and 6 March 1991;
  8319/91: Explanatory memoranda dated 18 November 1991, 29 January 1992, 24 March, 20 May and 22 October 1993.

  The Commission informed the Council on 19 April of its intention to table a revised version of the proposal under the agreement on social policy concluded between 11 member states. The revised proposal will not apply in the United Kingdom.

  Former Members
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) if he will list the names of all former hon. Members who since 1979 have been appointed to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations, excluding appointments as justices of the peace, giving in each case the title of the post, any salary payable and the duration of the appointment;

  (2) if he will list the names of all former British representative members in the European Parliament who since 1979 have been appointed to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations, excluding appointments as justices of the peace, giving in each case the title of the post, any salary payable and the duration of the appointment;

  (3) if he will list the names of all individuals who are or were members of the House of Lords who since 1979 have been appointed to any quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations, excluding appointments as

  Agency

  Chief Executive

  Staff

  Accounts Services Agency

  Michael Hoddinott

  95

  ADAS

  Dr. Julia Walsh

  2,320

  Army Base Repair Organisation1

  Brigadier Jim Drew

  3,785

  Building Research Establishment

  Roger Courtney

  660

  CADW

  John Carr

  230

  Central Office of Information

  Mike Devereau

  540

  Central Science Laboratory

  Dr. Peter Stanley

  700

  Central Statistical Office

  Bill McLennan

  1,265

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  Dr. Tony Little

  645

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment1

  Dr. Graham Pearson CB

  625

  Chessington Computer Centre

  Bob Edwards

  415

  Civil Service College

  Dr. Stephen Hickey

  245

  Coastguard

  Chris Harris

  580

  Companies House

  David Durham

  940

  Compensation Agency (Northern Ireland)

  John Robinson

  150

  Defence Accounts Agency

  Mike Dymond

  2,000

  Defence Analytical Services Agency1

  Paul Altobell

  110

  Defence Animal Centre1

  Colonel Paul Jepson

  210

  Defence Operational Analysis Centre1

  Dr. David Leadbeater

  180

  Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency1

  Brigadier Michael Browne

  500

  Defence Research Agency1

  John Chisholm

  9,645

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Stephen Curtis

  4,160

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing (Northern Ireland)

  Brendan Magee

  230

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency (Northern Ireland)

  Brian Watson

  250

  Driving Standards Agency

  Dr. John Ford

  1,785

  Duke of York's Royal Military School1

  Colonel Gordon Wilson

  100

  Employment Service

  Mike Fogden

  44,245

  Fire Service College

  Brian Fuller CBE

  280

  Forensic Science Service

  Dr. Janet Thompson

  635

  Government Property Lawyers

  Tony Osborne

  130

  Highways Agency

  Lawrence Haynes

  2,400

  Historic Royal Palaces

  David Beeton

  400

  Historic Scotland

  Graeme Munro

  650

  542
  justices of the peace, giving in each case the title of the post, any salary payable and the duration of the appointment;

  (4) if he will list the names of all living former hon. Members of this House since 1964, giving their seats by region.

  Mr. Newton
  I regret this information is not available in an easily accessible form and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list for each of the "next steps" agencies now in operation and for each such agency due to come into operation for which the relevant information is available,(a) its chairman or chairwoman, (b) its chief executive and (c) other directors, executives and officers; and if he will set out the annual salary and emoluments for each, together with the cost to public funds, and number of employees, of each agency.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There are 96 agencies and the name of the chief executive and the number of staff, as at 1 October 1993, of each is set out in the table. There are a further 56 agency candidates and four chief executives-designate have been appointed, who are also listed.

  There are no chairmen or chairwomen; chief executives normally report directly to the responsible Minister. Information on the salaries and emoluments of chief executives and officers and the cost to public funds is not held centrally but can be obtained from the annual reports and accounts of each agency, which are available in the Library of the House. Some of the information will also be available in departmental annual expenditure reports.
  543

  Agency

  Chief Executive

  Staff

  Her Majesty's Land Registry

  John Manthorpe

  8,970

  Her Majesty's Prison Service

  Derek Lewis

  38,105

  HMSO

  Dr. Paul Freeman CB

  2,955

  Hydrographic Office1

  Rear Admiral Nigel Essenhigh

  830

  Insolvency Service

  Peter Joyce

  1,585

  Intervention Board

  Guy Stapleton

  925

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  Dr. Richard Worswick

  315

  Marine Safety Agency

  Robin Bradley

  350

  Medicines Control Agency

  Dr. Keith Jones

  350

  Meteorological Office

  Professor Julian Hunt

  2,480

  Military Survey1

  Major General Mike Wilson

  1,190

  National Physical Laboratory

  Dr. Peter Clapham CB

  755

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  Dr. Seton Bennett

  45

  Natural Resources Institute

  Anthony Beattie

  470

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation1

  Captain David Symonds

  1,560

  NEL

  William Edgar

  345

  NHS Estates

  John Locke FRICS

  105

  NHS Pensions Agency

  Alec Cowan

  530

  Northern Ireland Child Support Agency

  Pat Devlin

  575

  Occupational Health Service

  Dr. Elizabeth McCloy

  120

  Ordnance Survey

  Professor David Rhind

  2,220

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  Michael Brand

  210

  Patent Office

  Paul Hartnack

  990

  Paymaster

  Keith Sullens

  810

  Pesticide Safety Directorate

  Geoff Bruce

  170

  Planning Inspectorate

  Stephen Crow

  610

  Public Record Office

  Mrs. Sarah Tyacke

  450

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  Marcus Buck

  70

  Queen Victoria School

  Julian Hankinson

  65

  Radiocommunications Agency

  Jim Norton

  530

  RAF Support Command's Maintenance Group Defence Agency1

  Air Vice Marshal Richard Kyle MBE

  10,875

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency1

  Air Vice Marshal Chris Coville

  8,500

  Rate Collection Agency (Northern Ireland)

  David Gallagher

  280

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency

  Michael Geddes

  165

  Registers of Scotland

  James Barron

  1,225

  Royal Mint

  Roger Holmes

  955

  Royal Parks Agency

  David Welch

  265

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  Dr. Robert Hay

  145

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  Andrew MacLeod

  220

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  Norman McLeod

  175

  Scottish Prison Service

  Edward Frizzell

  4,605

  Scottish Record Office

  Patrick Cadell

  115

  Security Facilities Executive

  John King

  1,160

  Service Children's Schools (NWE)

  Ian Mitchelson

  900

  Social Security Agency (Northern Ireland)

  Alec Wylie

  5,290

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  Michael Bichard

  64,885

  Social Security Child Support Agency

  Mrs. Ros Hepplewhite

  4,220

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  Miss Ann Chant

  9,790

  Social Security Information Technology Services Agency

  Ian Magee

  4,220

  Social Security Resettlement Agency

  Tony Ward

  310

  Social Security War Pensions Agency

  Peter Mathison

  1,405

  Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  Ken MacRae

  135

  Teachers' Pensions Agency

  Mrs. Denyse Metcalfe

  325

  The Buying Agency

  Stephen Sage

  95

  Training and Employment Agency

  Julian Crozier

  1,470

  Transport Research Laboratory

  John Wootton

  600

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  John Hayzelden

  1,285

  Valuation and Lands Agency (Northern Ireland)

  David Bell

  330

  Valuation Office

  John Langford

  4,935

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  Derek Harvey

  75

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Ron Oliver

  1,655

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  Dr. Mike Rutter

  85

  Wilton Park Conference Centre

  Richard Langhorne

  30

  Agency Candidates

  Court Service

  Michael Huebner

  8,210

  Medical Devices Directorate

  Alan Kent

  165

  Ministry of Defence Police1

  John Reddington

  5,060

  Public Trust Office

  Julia Lomas

  590

  1 Figures include military personnel.

  Parliamentary Accountability
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to improve the accountability to Parliament of quangos and executive agencies.
  545
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Non-departmental public bodies, formerly called quangos, are fully accountable for the use of public funds. All executive NDPBs publish an annual report and accounts which enable Parliament, the taxpayer and customers to judge whether that NDPB is securing value for money. The National Audit Office, which reports to Parliament, is either the auditor of, or has inspection rights to, all executive NDPBs. The Public Accounts Committee scrutinises the activities of NDPBs closely and may summon the chief executive to give evidence, if necessary.

  The Government are committed to applying citizens charter principles to NDPBs and to encouraging executive NDPBs to prepare management statements, as a means of clarifying respective roles and responsibilities. The Government also want to see increasing emphasis placed on the use of performance targets covering financial performance, quality of service and efficiency; and publication of how those targets have been met.

  Executive agencies are units within Government which were set up as a result of the "next steps" initiative. All staff in executive agencies are civil servants, or military personnel in defence agencies. They are accountable to Ministers, and through them to Parliament, in the same way as all other civil servants in Departments.

  The "next steps" initiative has increased the accountability of whole areas of civil service work, through greater openness and clearer lines of responsibility. The Minister responsible sets each agency a number of annual targets covering efficiency, effectiveness and service to customers. Its performance is monitored by Ministers, and full details are reported to Parliament and published in its annual report and accounts. Agency chief executives may be called before the PAC and other Select Committees to account for the discharge of their responsibilities. However, the main line of accountability remains to the Minister, who is in turn accountable to Parliament.

  Privatisation (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There has been no such expenditure by the Office of Public Service and Science.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Material (Transport by Rail)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if British Transport Police are informed of the movement by rail of nuclear warheads and nuclear material; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The British Transport police are informed whenever nuclear submarine fuel cores are transported by rail. Rail transport is not used for the movement of our nuclear warheads.

  HMS Unseen
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long HMS Unseen and her sister submarine have been in active service; when it is planned to withdraw 546
  them from service; what has been the cost to his Department of maintaining these vessels to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The four Upholder class submarines were accepted by the Royal Navy from builders on the following dates:

  HMS Upholder—6 December 1990

  HMS Unseen—19 July 1991

  HMS Ursula—2 June 1992

  HMS Unicorn—23 July 1993

  HMS Unseen and HMS Upholder were withdrawn from service on 6 April and 28 April 1994 respectively. Although it is not our practice to reveal the planned pay-off dates of individual vessels, we have previously made clear that the entire class will be withdrawn by 1995.

  The cost incurred in maintaining the vessels of the Upholder class since their acceptance from builders has been approximately £2,690,000.

  Naval Exercises (English Channel)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which area of the English channel was closed to traffic on 5 and 6 April due to a Sea Wolf missile failing to explode during a Royal Navy exercise.

  Mr. Hanley
  On 5 April, HMS Brazen was conducting routine training off Portland Bill, Dorset, which involved firing Sea Wolf missiles. Due to a minor technical malfunction, one missile veered off its intended course and fell into the sea. As a purely precautionary measure, the Portland naval authorities alerted HM Coastguard. A safety broadcast, advising shipping to avoid a 2–mile radius around the point where the missile fell into the sea, was issued immediately. Once it became clear that there was no risk to traffic in the area, HM Coastguard was advised and the safety broadcast was cancelled. The Sea Wolf is a fragile missile which travels at high speed and would almost certainly have disintegrated on impact with the sea.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military recruiting establishments are currently operating throughout the United Kingdom; how many of these lie in Scotland; how many recruits have been recruited through these facilities; what plans he has to rationalise these facilities; and what is the annual cost of operating these facilities.

  Mr. Hanley
  At present, there are 251 service careers information offices in the United Kingdom. Of these, 31 are located in Scotland. In the financial year 1993–94, 10,494 personnel were recruited, of whom, 1,117 were recruited in Scotland. These recruiting figures reflect reduced targets as a result of the force restructuring under "Options for Change". The operating costs of the CIOs totalled £45,090,000 in financial year 1993–94, of which £5,320,000 related to the offices in Scotland.

  It is our policy to collocate CIOs in bi-service or tri-service premises wherever practicable and cost-effective. Many CIOs are already collocated and future requirements are kept under regular review. In addition, recruitment arrangements are being considered as part of the "Defence Costs Study".

  South African National Defence Force
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role his military representatives will play in the integration of the new national defence force in South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him to an identical question on 27 April,Official Report, column 227.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sections of his Department he plans to make the subject of market testing.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Department intends to pursue vigorously market testing opportunities across the whole range of defence support activities with the aim of maximising value for money for the defence budget. The "Defence Costs Study" will, however, have a significant influence on the scale of the future programme and decisions on future plans will therefore be taken in the light of the outcome of the study.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops there are currently on active service in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are currently some 3,500 British service personnel deployed on the ground in Bosnia and Croatia in support of United Nations peacekeeping operations. In addition, there are some 3,000 service personnel deployed offshore and in Italy in support of operations in the region.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British aircraft there are in use in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are currently 33 British aircraft, both rotary and fixed wing, deployed in the Adriatic theatre in support of United Nations and NATO operations in the former Yugoslavia.

  Royal Devonport Dockyard
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Defence what is the total amount paid to consultants by his Department for work concerned with the privatisation of HM Royal Devonport dockyard.

  Mr. Aitken
  Since October, when my right hon. and learned Friend announced our policy towards the future management of the royal dockyards,Official Report, 18 October 1993, columns 39–41, total expenditure of some £2 million has been incurred in the use of specialist consultants for work related to the proposed privatisation of the royal dockyards. Costs attributable to Devonport cannot be separately identified.

  Privatisation (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980.
  548
  Mr. Aitken
  The only privatisation programme for which information on the use of consultants can be made available without disproportionate cost and effort is that in connection with the proposed privatisation of the royal dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth, about which my right hon. and learned Friend made an announcement on 18 October last,Official Report, columns 39–41. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given today to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson).

  Defence Budget
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the reason for the removal from the defence budget from 1994–95 of the financial provisions for the security and intelligence services, as set out in note one to figure 10 of paragraph 502 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994", Cm. 2550.

  Mr. Hanley
  As foreshadowed by the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) on 24 November 1993,Official Report, column 52, expenditure on the security and intelligence services has been brought together into a single Cabinet Office vote from 1994–95—class XIX, vote 2.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bosnia
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Mr. Slobodan Milosevic regarding Bosnia.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have not met President Milosevic since the European Union Foreign Ministers' meeting with the parties in November 1993. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is meeting President Milosevic in Belgrade today.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what offers he has made to international relief agencies to treat casualties of the Bosnian war in British hospitals.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have told the International Organisation for Migration, which is responsible for the placement abroad of patients from Bosnia, that we will consider applications on a case-by-case basis. After the recent events in Gorazde, we exceptionally agreed to take up to 50 of those wounded by the shelling.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information is available from the International Red Cross, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other United Nations sources about the number of people who require major medical attention which, because of the war, cannot be met within Bosnia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees medical committee has to date identified 763 patients in need of medical treatment unavailable in Bosnia. Of these, 626 patients have already been evacuated, 41 have places abroad and are waiting to travel, and 96 are awaiting placement.
  549
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests are being made by the Red Cross and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for medical attention to the wounded from the war in Bosnia; and what representations they have made about the adequacy of the international response when those wounded people cannot be treated in Bosnia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Both the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross have issued appeals for their operations in the former Yugoslavia, which include provision for medical supplies and health care. The International Organisation for Migration appealed to Governments in August 1993 for offers of hospital places for patients from the former Yugoslavia who could not be treated locally. As a result, 2,277 places were offered by 33 countries.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many patients injured in the war in Bosnia each European Union country has treated in its own hospitals.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Statistics do not distinguish between patients injured in the war and patients who are seriously ill and cannot be treated locally. The latest figures from the International Organisation for Migration are as follows: Belgium: 25; Denmark: 87; France: 10; Germany: 19; Greece: 19; Ireland: 23; Italy: 134; Luxembourg: 5; Netherlands: 15; Portugal: 0; Spain: 16; United Kingdom: 66.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the state of Bosnia has now been taken by the Serbs as a result of military action.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Bosnian Serb army controls about 70 per cent. of the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. A substantial Bosnian Serb withdrawal from territory it now holds will be an essential element in any future peace settlement.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what British interests are served by involvement of British troops in Bosnia.

  Mr. Hurd
  It is a British interest to ensure that the war in Bosnia does not spread. It is in keeping with our interests and our position in the UN, EU and NATO that a negotiated settlement should be achieved. We have a responsibility to help relieve human suffering in this tragic corner of Europe.

  The presence of UN troops is necessary to underpin the international diplomatic and humanitarian effort and to help restore regional peace and security. The British military contribution, although not the largest, is extremely effective.

  European Union
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his European Union counterparts about the public accountability and openness of European Union decision-making.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The General Affairs Council has had a number of discussions aimed at making the 550
  European Union more open and accountable, which led to agreements at the end of last year on the publication of votes and public access to documents. The United Kingdom strongly supports these moves.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a statement on the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The following meetings are planned:

  6 May: Development Council

  16 May: ECOFIN Council

  16/17 May: FAC Council

  25 May: Energy Council

  26 May: Education Council

  27 May: Tourism Council

  30 May: Telecommuncations Council

  30/31 May: Agriculture Council

  (a) Development Council: 6 May
  Agenda not yet available.

  (b) ECOFIN Council: 16 May

  White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment.

  Recent developments in the European Economy.

  Financial assistance to Central and Eastern Europe and to the Former Soviet Union.

  Deposit Guarantee.

  Fraud.

  Lunch.

  Preparation for Joint meeting with Central and Eastern European Finance Ministers at 6 June ECOFIN.

  (c) Foreign Affairs Council: 16–17 May

  White Paper follow-up.

  CFSP financing.

  EC/Egypt: preparation of Cooperation Council.

  Preparation of EEA Council.

  Russia: partnership agreement.

  Relations with Ukraine.

  Relations with Switzerland.

  Ex-Yugoslavia.

  Stability Pact: economic incentives.

  Relations with EP in Titles V and VI of the Treaty of European Union.

  (Possible) Textiles: inward processing relief.

  (Possible) Classified documents.

  (Possible) Committee of Regions: Rules of Procedure.

  (Possible) Enlargement: Council decision under Article 0 of the Treaty of European Union.

  Public access to Council documents.

  Site of European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training.

  In the margins:

  Cooperation Council with Egypt.

  EEA Council.

  (d) Energy Council: 25 May

  Electricity liberalisation: Orientation Debate.

  Energy TENs Guidelines: Political Agreement. Energy Policy.

  Energy and Cohesion: Council conclusions.

  Nuclear Safety assistance for Central and Eastern Europe and for the Commonwealth of Independent States.

  Energy Charter Treaty: stocktake.

  (Possible) Commission proposal on Thermie II: Commission presentation.

  (e) Education Council: 26 May
  Agenda not yet arrived.

  (f) Tourism Council: 27 May
  Agenda not yet arrived.
  551
  (g) Telecommunications Council: 30 May
  Agenda not yet arrived.

  (h) Agriculture Council: 30–31 May

  Plant Breeders rights.

  (Possible) Uniform Principles.

  (Possible) Price Fixing.

  (Possible) Milk Quotas.

  (Possible) Wine Regime.

  (Possible) Revision of rules on structural support.

  South Korea
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit South Korea; and if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with South Korea.

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right honourable Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans to visit South Korea in the immediate future. I last visited Seoul in January this year. The United Kingdom's relations with South Korea are excellent.

  Bulgaria
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Bulgarian authorities following the incidents involving the Bulgarian police and supporters of Rangers football club following the latter's European Cup match in Sofia last September.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Following complaints received by Glasgow Rangers fans about their treatment by the Bulgarian police, the embassy in Sofia made formal representations to the Bulgarian authorities on 23 November 1993. A reminder was sent on 22 December and again on 8 March. No reply has yet been received. We will continue to press the Bulgarian authorities.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the know-how fund in making east Europeans aware of democracy and free markets.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The know-how fund is generally well regarded for the effectiveness of the advice and expertise which it provides to help the countries of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union move towards democracy and free market economies. Both the President and the Prime Minister of Russia commented favourably on the quality of know-how fund support to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during his recent visit.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the enlargement of the Council of Europe.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The United Kingdom welcomes the accession of countries which meet the criteria laid down in the statute of the Council of Europe.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what particular issues he intends to raise for consideration at the next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The agenda for the next Foreign Affairs Council on 16–17 May has not yet been agreed. It is too early to say what particular issues we shall wish to raise.

  Italy
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts he has had with the new Government in Italy.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The new Italian Government are not yet in place. When they are, we shall look forward to working closely with our new Italian colleagues.

  Cross-border Enforcement
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he hopes to meet the President of the European Commission to discuss cross-border enforcement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I meet the President of the European Commission regularly, and we discuss a range of issues.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of India, or his representatives, regarding Kashmir.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the situation in Kashmir when he met the Indian Prime Minister in March during his visit to Britain.

  Russia
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Russian Government to discuss security and co-operation in Europe.

  Mr. He,athcoat-Amory
  When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Moscow in February, they discussed a range of issues with members of the Russian Government, including security and co-operation in Europe. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mamedov recently discussed these issues in London with my right honourable and learned Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which countries along the border of the former Soviet Union Russian forces are currently deployed.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There are currently Russian forces in Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, the Transcaucasus and Central Asia, as well as in Latvia and Estonia.
  553
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the Russian plan to establish or confirm bases in countries which formerly belonged to the Soviet Union.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There have been reports that Russia intends to establish or confirm up to 30 bases in the rest of the former Soviet Union, on the basis of agreement with the Governments of the countries concerned.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries in which Russian forces are currently deployed(a) with the agreement of the Government concerned and (b) without agreement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Moldova has asked for the withdrawal of the Russian 14th army. The future of the Black sea fleet is currently under discussion between Russia and Ukraine. An agreement has been signed between Russia and Latvia on withdrawals of Russian troops from Latvia by 31 August. Estonia is seeking the withdrawal of Russian troops by 31 August. We are not aware of objections, on the part of the Governments concerned, to the presence of Russian troops in any other countries where they are currently stationed.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Russian Foreign Secretary about Russia's intentions in its near abroad.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed Russia's policy towards the other states of the former Soviet Union with the Russian Foreign Minister, Mr. Kozyrev, when he was in Moscow with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in February.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with representatives of central and Latin American Governments relating to the GATT agreement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I discussed this issue regularly with representatives of central and Latin American Governments in the period leading up to the Marrakesh ministerial meeting. I underlined the importance of the round and the need for rapid conclusion and implementation. With certain banana-producing countries which were also GATT contracting parties I also urged them to accept the Commission's banana offer so that this could be included as part of the Uruguay round.

  European Political Union
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet his counterparts in the European Union to discuss greater political union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are no plans for a meeting of Community Foreign Ministers to discuss greater political union.

  European Union
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his European Union counterparts about the public accountability and openness of European decision-making.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The General Affairs Council has had a number of discussions aimed at making the European Union more open and accountable, which led to agreements at the end of last year on the publication of votes and public access to documents. The United Kingdom strongly supports these moves.

  Iran
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs if he will make a statement about relations between Iran and the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We restored our relations with Iran on 27 September 1990 on the basis of mutual respect and non-interference in each others' affairs.

  The revelation of Iran—Provisional IRA links and the fatwa against Mr. Rushdie demonstrate why Iran's behaviour continues to cause us and other European member states serious concern.

  It remains the case that improved behaviour will be important in determining the extent to which closer relations with, and confidence in, Iran can be developed.

  Foreign Service (BBC Documentary)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of the BBC documentary on the Foreign Service on the public's opinion of that service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No such assessment has been made, but I enjoyed the programme immensely.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The visit by my right hon. Friend was the first by a Foreign Secretary. He received a warm welcome. The islanders are proud of their way of life and much attached to it and to the United Kingdom. They are confident about the future. He reassured them that sovereignty was not for discussion and that we would continue to support their right to self-determination. Clearly life would be simpler if Argentina dropped her claim.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent theft of money from the United Nations compound in Mogadishu in Somalia; and what action is now being taken on this matter.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The matter is being investigated by United Nations civil police and a team from the United Nations investigations unit. It would be imprudent to comment further before these investigations are complete.
  555
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the £237,000 of departmental funds lost in Somalia in 1992–93 indicated in the appropriations accounts was(a) lost in transit and (b) lost from balances in the embassy bank accounts; how these losses occurred; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The loss of £237,000 occurred as follows:

  (a) £130,000 lost in transit consisted of three fundings sent to the Bank of Somalia in 1989 for the credit of the Embassy account. Exhaustive inquiries with the Bank of England and the National Westminster Bank, the United Kingdom intermediary bank of the transactions, confirmed that this account had been sent to Somalia. Embassy staff investigated these missing items but were unable to locate them before they were evacuated following the collapse of law and order in Somalia. The decision to write off this sum was taken in 1992 because it was considered very unlikely that the bank of Somalia would ever be able to locate these missing funds following the extensive looting which occurred in Mogadishu.

  (b) £103,000 from embassy bank accounts and £4,000 cash and miscellaneous items less some small recoveries were shown in the balances of the last imprest account submitted to the FCO before the evacuation. As the embassy and its bank in Somalia had been looted it was considered unlikely that these assets would ever be recovered.

  Due to the complete collapse of law and order all diplomatic missions in Mogadishu were withdrawn and it was not possible to follow the usual procedures for protecting departmental funds overseas. There continues to be no recognised Government or banking system in Somalia.

  North Korea
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what explanation North Korea gave for its withdrawal from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; arid if he will make a statement on the prospects of that country's return to the treaty.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  North Korea announced its intention to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty under article X (i) on 12 March 1993. North Korea cited the joint United States-South Korea military exercise Team Spirit, and the International Atomic Energy Authority's request for special inspections of its nuclear facilities, as being grounds for withdrawal. North Korea subsequently suspended its intention to withdraw from the treaty on 11 June. We continue to urge North Korea to resolve all suspicions about its nuclear programme by complying fully with its safeguards agreement and by affirming permanent commitment to the NPT.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Bulgarian and Romanian co-operation in the installation of a United Nations presence in Macedonia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Equipment destined for UNPROFOR Macedonia passed through Romania and Bulgaria and reached the Bulgaria/Macedonia border on 18 April. UNPROFOR Macedonia has taken delivery of the equipment.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent report he has received of armed Serbian activity around the border with Macedonia.
  556
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have had no recent reports of any armed Serbian activity on the Macedonian border.

  Hamas
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to him by the Government of Israel about the activities of Hamas within Britain.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have regular contact with the Israelis on a wide range of issues.

  Brazil
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arms sales were discussed during his recent visit to Brazil; and what plans he has to make an announcement on this.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs reaffirmed the importance of the continuing partnership between British defence equipment suppliers and Brazil's armed forces, exemplified by the recent sale of Super Lynx helicopters to the Brazilian navy. He also discussed prospects for future sales.

  Georgia
  xMr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of Georgia; whether British know-how fund assistance was offered; and if he will make a statement on the state of relations with Georgia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have regular contacts with the Georgian Government through our ambassador in Moscow. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs also met senior advisers to President Shevardnadze last week. Know-how fund assistance is already available to Georgia and in 1993 we spent £71,000. The United Kingdom also contributed over £2 million in humanitarian relief since March 1993.

  Relations between the United Kingdom and Georgia are good. We continue to emphasise the need for co-operation with the UN and CSCE in seeking a peaceful solution to disputes on Georgian territory.

  Security
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the use of private detective agencies and security companies by his Department.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There is no record of the FCO ever having employed a private detective agency. Up to now the only recorded instance of the FCO employing a private security company in the United Kingdom was for the guarding of Wiston House conference centre for six months in 1992–93. However, under the market testing programme, six private security companies have been invited to tender, along with an in-house team, for guarding all FCO premises in London from 3 January 1995. The result will be announced in August.

  We do not keep central records of security companies employed at our posts overseas.

  Libya
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made as to the effect of current sanctions in respect of medical supplies upon Libya in respect of(a) the poor and (b) women and children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The supply of medical products is not prohibited under the current United Nations sanctions against Libya. As a matter of general principle, with which the United Kingdom agrees, the supply of medicines is exempt from the effects of all United Nations sanctions regimes.

  Occupied Territories
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of the closure of the occupied territories by the Israel Government on the economic life of the Palestinians and the peace process; and what representations he has made to the Israeli Government.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We welcome the agreement reached in Paris on 29 April between Israel and the PLO on economic aspects of Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho, including the movement of goods and labour between the Palestinian areas and Israel.

  Argentina and Brazil
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Argentina and Brazil.

  Mr. Goodlad
  On Argentina I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman).

  Our relations with Brazil are excellent. On his recent visit with a party of senior business men, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was able to see for himself how dynamic the Brazilian economy is and what opportunities there are for the United Kingdom. The Brazilian Foreign Minister has accepted his invitation to visit Britain later this year. Increasingly the United Kingdom and Brazil share a common international agenda.

  Angola
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commownealth Affairs what discussions he has had with EU Ministers on the situation in Angola.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are regular working level discussions of Angola at meetings in the framework of the common foreign and security policy.

  Occupied Territories
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance Her Majesty's Government are providing bilaterally and through the EC for a Palestinian police force in the occupied territories.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom is providing 200 sets of riot-control equipment and organising training 558
  courses in the United Kingdom for senior police officers. The European Union has adopted a joint action which provides for up to ecu 10 million in grant funds from the Community budget towards the Palestinian police force. The United Kingdom played a leading role in stimulating the European Union contribution.

EMPLOYMENT

  Self-employment
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on what is currently being done to encourage people to be self-employed; and what further changes he will make.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The business start-up scheme encourages unemployed people to set up their own new businesses. It offers a weekly allowance together with business training and counselling. Nearly 700,000 people have entered the scheme to date. The budget for the scheme has been transferred to the Department of Environment's single regeneration budget, one of the aims of which is the encouragement of sustainable economic growth and wealth creation by improving the competitiveness of the local economy, including business support.

  The Department supports the Prince's Youth Business Trust in making funds available to disadvantaged young people to set up their own businesses. We have recently agreed additional funding to help the trust in its aim of doubling the number of young people it supports.

  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is developing a network of business links, which will provide world class support to business—including those who are contemplating starting a new business.

TRANSPORT

  M25
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what cost-benefit analysis his Department has undertaken of the delays experienced by motorists in roadworks for widening the M25 compared with the final benefits of a widened road; when he anticipates road widening on the M25 will be completed; and what will be the total cost of widening the M25.

  Mr. Key
  This question relates to operational matters of the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. John Spellar, dated 29 April 1994:
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic, Mr. Robert Key, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the M25.
  The cost of delays to motorists caused by construction works is assessed as part of the overall economic cost benefit analysis of motorway widening schemes. The results of this analysis are published as part of the assessment framework for each scheme.
  We have recently completed widening the M25 to dual four lanes between junctions 15 (M4) and 16 (M40) and two further schemes are under way between junctions 7 (M23)–8 (Reigate) and junctions 10 (A3)–11 (Chertsey) for completion during next year. Other schemes for widening most of the M25 to dual four lanes within the highway boundary were included in the recent review of the road programme and details published in the 1994

  559
  Review report. The total cost of widening to dual four lanes between junctions 5–28 (excluding junctions 11–15 which has been dual four lanes for some time) is approximately £672 million. Subject to the availability of funds, all these schemes should be completed over about the next 10 years.
  There are also schemes in the programme for increasing the capacity of the western section of the motorway beyond dual four lanes. Two of these, between junctions 12 (M3)–15 (M4) and

  M25 Programme

  Construction schemes

  Status and Cost £ million

  Widening to D4

  Junctions 3 (M20)—5 (M26)

  Longer term scheme, to be reviewed later.

  Junctions 5 (M26)—7 (M23)

  Priority 2 scheme, programme to be reviewed.

  Cost: £101.1.

  Junctions 7 (M23)—8 (Reigate)

  Works started in March 1994. Construction expected to take about 15 months.

  Cost £63.5.

  Junctions 8 (Reigate)—10 (A3)

  Proposals published February 1994 with work likely to get underway early 1995.

  Cost: £78.2.

  Junctions 10 (A3)—11 (A320)

  Works started in February 1994. Construction expected to take about 12 months.

  Cost: £50.5.

  Junctions 11–15

  Already D4 standard

  Junctions 15 (M4)—16 (M40)

  Construction started 4 January 1993. The works completed end April 1994.

  Cost: 35.3.

  Junctions 16 (M40)—19 (Watford)

  Proposals published February 1994. Public exhibitions held and comments are now being considered.

  Cost: 71.3

  Junctions 19 (Watford)—23 (A1)

  Priority 2 scheme, programme to be reviewed.

  Cost: 86.5.

  Junctions 23 (A1)—26 (A 121)

  Details published February and comments are now being considered.

  Cost: £81.1.

  Junctions 26 (A121)—28 (A12)

  Priority 2 scheme, programme to be reviewed.

  Cost: £104.

  Capacity beyond dual four lanes

  Junctions 3 (M20)—10 (A3) and Junctions 21A (M1)—30 (A13)

  Announced on 22 July 1993 that for foreseeable future there would be no widening beyond dual four lanes for these sections which make up some 70 per cent, of M25.

  Junctions 10 (A3)—12 (M3)

  Consultants appointed October 1992 to study options. Proposals may be published Autumn 1994

  Cost: £123.9.

  Junctions 12 (M3)—15 (M4)

  Draft highway orders published 7 April 1994. Already announced that public inquiry will have to be held, probably towards the end of this year.

  Cost: £164.3.

  Junctions 15 (M4)—16 (M40)

  Decision to proceed to order publication state with proposals for 2 lane link roads announced on 30 March.

  Cost: £66.2.

  Junctions 16 (M40)—21A (M1)

  No work on feasibility of providing capacity beyond D4 will be undertaken for many years.

  Junction Improvement

  Junctions 30 (A13)—31(A1306)

  Consultants appointed 1 January 1994.

  Cost: £43–5.

  560
  between junctions 15–16 (M40), have an estimated total cost of some £231 million. The timetable for construction of these schemes would depend on the time needed to complete the statutory procedures and the availability of funds. Widening beyond dual four lanes is also under consideration for the length between junctions 10 (A3) and 12 (M3) but the form of any scheme, and hence its cost, is not yet known.

  A40
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to review the various speed limits on the A40 between the A40 (M) and the M40.

  Mr. Norris
  This question raises an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked Lawrie Haynes, the chief executive, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Peter Luff, dated 26 April 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about his plans for reviewing the various speed limits on the A40 between the A40(M) and the M40 because this is now an operational matter for the Highways Agency.
  Much has been, and still is being done to improve the length of the A40 in question and it is important to ensure current speed limits reflect today's conditions. Accordingly we intend to review the speed limit on the length between Hanger Lane and the Polish Memorial Junction later this year after the Traffic Director has announced his plans for red route measures for the road. Reviews of the speed limits elsewhere on the A40 will follow as and when the major improvement schemes currently under construction at Long Lane and Northolt Airport are completed at the end of the year, and when those planned at Gypsy Corner and Western Circus have been undertaken.

  Annual Staff Reports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 86, if he will list by annual staff report box marking for the same reporting year the numbers of male grade sevens receiving box 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 performance markings.

  Mr. Norris
  In the reporting year 1991–92, 29 grade 7 males received box 1; 322 box 2; 260 box 3: and 3 box 4 ASR markings. No male grade 7 received a box 5 marking.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 81, what targets and budgets he has set for the collection of unpaid vehicle excise duty.

  Mr. Key
  On the question of targets I refer the hon. Member to the answer of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 29 April, column 385. The agreed budget to carry out this work during 1994–95 is around £27 million.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will report progress on the privatisation of the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Mr. Norris
  We announced at the time of the 1993 Budget that we were asking a group of officials to examine whether the national air traffic services of the Civil Aviation Authority could be privatised. This group has now reported and we are considering its recommendations. We hope to announce our response shortly.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total amount of revenue that was collected in vehicle excise duty in each of the last three years.
  562
  Mr. Key
  Net vehicle excise duty, after refunds, collected in the last three financial years was:

  Year

  £ millions

  1991–92

  2,931

  1992–93

  3,225

  1993–941

  3,655

  1 Provisional.

  Motorway Pollution
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he is taking to improve the treatment of surface water from motorways and other trunk roads so that it does not cause pollution;

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that all surface water run off from (a) existing motorways and (b) new motorways, is properly treated before discharge to the environment; and what are the implications for construction and maintenance costs for ensuring all surface water from motorways is properly treated;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the future cost implications to his Department of the out-of-court settlement in respect of the case brought by Mr. Mohamed Al Fayed for pollution of his land by run-off from the M25; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what assessment he has made of the likelihood of future legal actions from people who have suffered as the result of pollution from motorways; and what contingency fund his Department has for such actions.

  Mr. Key
  These four questions relate to operational matters of the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated 4 May 1994:
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic, Mr. Robert Key, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent four Parliamentary questions about the treatment of surface water from motorways and other trunk roads.
  The Highways Agency is now responsible for research previously commissioned by the Department of Transport jointly with the National Rivers Authority on the design of highway drainage systems to avoid pollution problems. When the research has been completed I expect to issue advice to designers and those responsible for maintaining the drainage systems.
  The out-of-court settlement in the case you mentioned reflected the particular circumstances of that case and cannot be taken to have implications for situations elsewhere. The settlement involved damages of £5,000 and agreed works to the drainage system likely to cost in the order of £60,000. In addition there will be legal costs of an amount yet to be agreed.
  In the case of existing motorways, the arrangements for treating surface water run off before discharge to the environment have been accepted by the relevant water regulatory authority. The arrangements for new motorways will be considered within the environmental assessment and agreed with the water regulatory authority. We are currently reviewing the implications for construction and maintenance costs.
  The Department does not, in general, assess the likelihood of future legal actions from people who claim to have suffered as a result of pollution from motorways and no contingency fund is kept for such actions.

  Detective Agencies
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) of 25 April,Official Report, column 42, if he will list all contracts with private detective agencies for the purpose of collecting evidence and serving papers on those who have trespassed on his Department's land, and the expenditure to date on each; how many former employees were inadvertently overpaid; and what was the total sum involved.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: A single detective agency has been employed to serve papers and collect evidence on those who have trespassed on the Department's land. The recorded expenditure stands at £250,829.52p.

  Detective agencies have also been used in connection with inadvertent overpayment of 15 staff, totalling £22,030.06p. Of this sum, £17,556.76p has been or is being recovered.

SCOTLAND

  Correspondence
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what percentage of letters sent by his office to hon. Members are written in the Gaelic language;

  (2) if it is his practice to sign personally letters in reply to hon. Members which are written in the Gaelic language.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor his office has had occasion to write to hon. Members in Gaelic.

  Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston Bypass
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions the Scottish Office has had with the appropriate authorities concerning the implementation of plans for the Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston bypass; and when he expects the project to be started.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Officials have consulted regularly with district council officers. They have been made aware of the further work being undertaken to identify the best layout for a bypass. A further meeting has been arranged for May to explain the progress which has been made while these studies continue.

  At this stage it is not possible to predict when work on construction might start.

  Colorado Beetle
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent reports he has received about sightings of Colorado Beetle(a) tendered voluntarily and (b) in response to requests; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  So far this year six Colorado beetles have been found in Scotland, as a result of inspections undertaken by officials of the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department.

  Colorado beetle is a notifiable quarantine pest under the Plant Health (Great Britain) Order 1993 and the United Kingdom is recognised as a protected zone against this pest under the EU single market plant health arrangements.
  564
  Each year the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department conducts a publicity campaign which has helped to increase public awareness of the pest.

  No breeding colony has ever been established in Scotland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  Strathclyde PTA
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the future boundaries of the Strathclyde passenger transport authority.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The future boundaries of the Strathclyde passenger transport area will be decided in due course after consultation with appropriate bodies. It is not expected that there will be any reduction in the present area, but there may be some increase.

  Fish Conservation
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions since the decision to suspend the operation of the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1992 pending a decision of the European Court of Justice he or other Ministers have met representatives of the Scottish fishing industry to discuss alternative conservation strategies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary with responsibility for agriculture and fisheries in Scotland, my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State and I have all met representatives of the Scottish fishing industry since 14 December 1993. In addition, my officials are in constant contact with fishermen's organisations regarding conservation issues.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what expenditure has been incurred by his Department(a) up to 31 December 1993 and (b) since 1 January 1994 in making preparations, including the purchase of equipment, for the implementation of the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1992.

  Mr. Lang
  Total expenditure on staff and associated costs up to 31 December 1993 amounted to approximately £140,000. Expenditure after 1 January 1994 totalled £16,000.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount of computer hardware and software has been purchased by his Department for the purposes of implementing the provisions of the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1992.

  Mr. Lang
  None.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many officials of his Department were engaged in work related to the implementation of the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1992 on 31 December 1993; and how many officials continue to be engaged in work related to the implementation of this Act.

  Mr. Lang
  At the beginning of December 1993, seven officials were responsible for assessing fishermen's representations against their provisional days-at-sea allocations. Since then all have been redeployed.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are in place for the setting up of appeals
  565
  tribunals under the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1992; and how many departmental officials and staff were engaged in work related to the setting up of these tribunals on 1 April.

  Mr. Lang
  Work on the sea fish licence tribunal has been suspended and no staff were engaged on this work on 1 April 1994.

  Temporary Sheriffs
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many temporary sheriffs hold commissions to serve in sheriff courts in Scotland; how many sessions were undertaken by temporary sheriffs in each of the past five years; how many temporary sheriffs were employed in the Scottish courts for more than 80 per cent. of the available court sitting days in each of the past five years; what is the current daily rate paid to a temporary sheriff; what was the total cost to his Department of temporary sheriffs during the same period; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 April 1994]: One hundred and seven temporary sheriffs hold commissions to serve in sheriff courts in Scotland. The current daily fee paid to temporary sheriffs is £246. Information is provided on the number of sitting days undertaken, the usage made of temporary sheriffs and the total costs.

  Court sitting days provided by temporary sheriffs

  Number

  1989

  4,046

  1990

  4,236

  1991

  5,147

  1992

  6,093

  1993

  6,660

  Number of temporary sheriffs who sat for more than 80 per cent. of available sitting days

  Number

  1989

  0

  1990

  3

  1991

  3

  1992

  5

  1993

  4

  Total costs (£)

  1989–90

  950,000

  1990–91

  952,000

  1991–92

  1,512,000

  1992–93

  2,041,000

  1993–94

  2,308,000

  The services of temporary sheriffs have contributed significantly to reducing inconvenience to court users resulting from cancellation of court sittings and to avoiding increases in court delays due to increases in workloads. The average waiting period for summary criminal trials at the end of 1993 was the lowest recorded over the past five years.

  Police (Firearms)
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what firearms training police officers undergo who carry out duties(a) as an authorised firearms officer, (b) as a member of the tactical firearms unit, (c) as a CID firearms officer and (d) as a member of the firearms training department; and with what frequency in each case;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the availability for call out of each category of firearms officers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: Firearm training undertaken by police officers in Scotland is carried out in strict compliance with the manual of guidance on the police use of firearms adopted by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. Training input varies from force to force. In general, authorised firearms officers receive training on weapon handling and safety, firearms tactics, administration of firearms incidents and shooting skills. Where forces have tactical firearms units, or their equivalent, officers in them receive additional training which includes instruction on rapid intervention techniques. In forces which deploy them, CID firearms officers undergo the same training as authorised firearms officers and, if appropriate, receive additional specialised training in VIP protection duties. Officers who are members of firearms training departments have in most cases successfully completed the national firearms instructor's course conducted at one of the national police firearms training centres. In addition some personnel have undertaken a national bodyguard's course, a national rifleman's course and a local marksman's course.

  Length of initial training also varies from force to force. On average authorised firearms officers receive 11 days' training; members of tactical firearms units, or their equivalent, receive 25 days' training; CID firearms officers receive 15 days' training; and members of firearms training departments receive 18 days' training. In each case refresher training is provided annually.

  Chief constables can deploy police officers who have undergone firearm training in each category on a 24–hour basis.

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many police officers in(a) the Strathclyde police area and (b) Scotland are authorised to carry firearms;

  (2) on how many occasions in the last two years police firearms have been discharged in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: There are currently 210 police officers in Strathclyde police authorised to carry firearms and a total of 712 officers in Scotland. Police firearms have been discharged on six occasions in the last two years in Scotland.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) name, (b) occupation or former occupation, (c) place of residence, (d) date of appointment and (e) salary, honorarium or allowance of the highest-earning 20 people appointed by him to any organisation or body, both inclusive and exclusive of expenses for travel, subsistence and other items in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.
  567
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: This information is not held centrally and culd be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The level of any salary or fee paid to a member of a nationalised industry, non-departmental public body or NHS body sponsored by my Department is listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1993", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Road Accidents
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children were killed or injured in road accidents in Scotland in 1992 and 1993.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: The requested information is given in the following table. The 1993 figures are provisional.

  Child casualties (aged 0–15 years) in road accidents in Scotland by severity, 1992 and 1993.

  Year

  Fatal

  Fatal and Serious

  Total

  1992

  40

  897

  4,052

  11993

  39

  773

  3,688

  1 Provisional

  Bullying
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the incidence of bullying at primary and secondary schools in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 May 1994]: Because bullying can take many different forms, it would be impossible to estimate meaningfully the incidence over the country. All instances of bullying are, however, serious matters and, in the interests of all children, schools should address the issue, whether or not they perceive bullying as a problem in their own circumstances.

  That is why the Government commissioned and issued copies of a pack entitled "Action Against Bullying" to all Scottish schools in 1992. The pack, which was drawn up by the Scottish Council for Research in Education, stresses that the simple most important thing a school can do to prevent bullying is to have a clear policy to which teachers, pupils and parents are committed.

  The Government also funded the distribution to all Scottish schools in September 1993 of a follow-up pack, also produced by SCRE. This pack contains a school booklet aimed at non-teaching staff and a family booklet. Its focus is how to ensure that the whole school community works together.

  The Scottish Office Education Department is also funding the appointment by SCRE of an anti-bullying development officer.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Scotland what is his target for the percentage of adults returning to education and training; what plans he has to increase student grants to the level of the present grant plus the present student loan; and if he will make a statement.
  568
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: My right hon. Friend has no specific target for adults returning to education and training, but he has endorsed the target set by the Advisory Scottish Council for Education and Training Targets which is that, by 1996, all employees should take part in training or development activities.

  On student support, we announced last November that we would gradually adjust the relative amounts of grant and loan over the next few years with the aim of bringing the two elements into broad balance in 1996–97. We have no plans to change those arrangements.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to encourage more adults to enter further and higher education, with particular reference to the making of Scottish Office Environment Department grants to students taking courses on a part-time basis.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 April 1994]: More adults than ever before are entering further and higher education in Scotland and we are encouraging more part-time study. Our vocational qualifications reforms are stimulating wider. access and progression. Education authorities have a discretionary power to make bursaries available to part-time students and I have no plans to change that.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Residential Homes, Down and Lisburn
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the role of the independent advocates who have been appointed by the Eastern health board in respect of residential homes in the Down and Lisburn unit of management;

  (2) how many independent advocates have been appointed by the Eastern health and social services board in respect of residential homes in the Down and Lisburn unit of management;

  (3) if he will list the names of the independent advocates who have been appointed by the Eastern health board in respect of residential homes in the Down and Lisburn unit of management.

  Mr. Ancram
  Prior to 1 April 1994, the Eastern health and social services board had not appointed independent advocates in the Down and Lisburn unit of management. Since 1 April the unit has been a health and social services trust and it has not yet taken any decision on the appointment of independent advocates.

  Roads
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial amounts were allocated and spent on the maintenance of roads in each roads division since 1 April 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The information is as follows:
  569

  Expenditure in £'000's

  Financial year

  Ballymena

  Belfast

  Coleraine

  Craigavon

  Downpatrick

  Omagh

  Total

  1980–81

  5,497

  5,270

  5,385

  6,501

  5,435

  6,758

  34,846

  1981–82

  5,776

  7,557

  6,003

  6,417

  6,192

  7,736

  39,681

  1982–83

  5,603

  5,888

  4,845

  7,266

  6,191

  7,200

  36,993

  1983–84

  6,581

  8,745

  5,940

  8,248

  7,552

  7,542

  44,608

  1984–85

  6,863

  8,362

  5,768

  10,336

  8,915

  8,845

  49,089

  1985–86

  6,948

  8,084

  6,009

  10,711

  9,358

  9,889

  50,999

  1986–87

  6,194

  8,471

  6,027

  7,969

  8,819

  8,370

  45,850

  1987–88

  6,195

  9,217

  5,404

  7,813

  9,166

  8,605

  46,400

  1988–89

  6,275

  9,583

  6,261

  8,477

  9,298

  9,541

  49,435

  1989–90

  7,272

  11,044

  7,019

  9,015

  10,438

  10,739

  55,527

  1990–91

  7,792

  11,142

  7,734

  10,259

  10,903

  12,101

  59,931

  1991–92

  7,350

  11,195

  7,727

  9,842

  10,465

  11,398

  57,977

  1992–93

  7,815

  10,993

  8,065

  10,162

  10,345

  12,513

  59,893

  11993–94

  7,368

  11,198

  7,834

  10,255

  10,411

  13,194

  60,260

  1 Provisional figures.

  Housing
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many houses were constructed by the Housing Executive between 1 April 1984 and 31 March 1994; what were the locations of these developments; and, of these, how many are still in public ownership.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I have been advised by the chief executive that information on the location of houses constructed between 1 April 1984 and 31 March 1994 is available by Housing Executive region and is as follows:—

  Number of houses constructed

  Region

  Number

  Belfast

  8,254

  North-East

  1,079

  North-West1

  2,224

  West1

  1,518

  South

  1,314

  South-East

  3,543

  TOTAL

  17,932

  1 On 1 April 1990, Coleraine District transferred from North-West to North-East Region and the remainder of North-West Region amalgamated with West Region.

  The number of these specific houses that are still in public ownership is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many houses have been constructed under the co-ownership housing scheme between 1 April 1984 and 31 March 1994; and what were the locations of these developments.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The Northern Ireland Co-ownership Housing Association, which operates the co-ownership scheme, does not construct or commission the construction of houses. People interested in the scheme select the house they wish to purchase, either newly built or second hand, from the open market. Between 1 April 1984 and 31 March 1994 the association has purchased 8,976 houses, distributed as follows:
  570

  Council area

  New-build

  Existing property

  Total participants

  Derry

  524

  82

  606

  Limavady

  91

  32

  123

  Coleraine

  275

  111

  386

  Ballymoney

  90

  23

  113

  Moyle

  40

  7

  47

  Larne

  65

  39

  104

  Ballymena

  131

  16

  147

  Magherafelt

  183

  36

  219

  Cookstown

  142

  41

  183

  Strabane

  95

  17

  112

  Omagh

  161

  18

  179

  Fermanagh

  157

  19

  176

  Dungannon

  125

  7

  132

  Craigavon

  524

  133

  657

  Armagh

  110

  17

  127

  Newry and Mourne

  274

  51

  325

  Banbridge

  121

  37

  158

  Down

  303

  87

  390

  Lisburn

  587

  299

  886

  Antrim

  186

  55

  241

  Newtownabbey

  310

  200

  510

  Carrickfergus

  270

  100

  370

  North Down

  653

  382

  1,035

  Newtownards

  276

  134

  410

  Castlereagh

  297

  105

  402

  Belfast

  471

  467

  938

  TOTAL

  6,461

  2,515

  8,976

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how much was allocated to each regional division of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in each year from 1 April 1984 to 31 March 1994;

  (2) how much has been allocated to each regional division of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in the 1993–94 financial year; and how much is to be allocated to each district office in the 1994–95 financial year.

  Mr. Ancram
  These are matters for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I am advised by its chief executive that the information is not available in the form requested. Expenditure by region for the years requested over the main expenditure blocks was as follows:—
  571

  Expenditure by regional division (£
  million)1

  Year

  North East

  South East

  West3

  South

  Belfast

  1984–85

  41·251

  42·710

  62·949

  35·242

  109·587

  1985–86

  37·130

  45·546

  66·075

  38·301

  112·928

  1986–87

  35·905

  47·694

  62·313

  33·957

  95·482

  1987–88

  39·097

  44·507

  60·102

  34·678

  95·770

  1988–89

  41·641

  49·095

  62·764

  36·269

  89·789

  1989–90

  44·415

  51·355

  63·349

  35·795

  82·017

  1990–912

  44·275

  46·524

  64·131

  37·536

  77·315

  1991–922

  53·409

  51·659

  58·044

  36·328

  74·575

  1992–932

  54·724

  50·885

  62·437

  37·592

  77·631

  1993–942

  56·940

  51·678

  69·001

  42·028

  69·891

  TOTAL

  448·787

  481·653

  631·165

  367·726

  884·985

  1 Comprises expenditure on new housebuilding, land and property acquisition, improvement work, office accommodation and equipment, maintenance, supervision and management and grants to the private sector. Loan charges, headquarters administrations and other costs not allocated to the regions are excluded.

  2 Includes figures for miscellaneous expenditure, such as insurance and write-offs, which are only available by Region from 1990–91.

  3 The figures for West region include those for the former North West region which was subsumed on 1 April 1991, with the exception of the Coleraine district which transferred to the North East region.

  Information on the allocations to district offices for 1994–95 is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many houses have been constructed by housing associations between 1 April 1984 and 31 March 1994; and what were the locations of these developments.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Between 1 April 1984 and 31 March 1994, registered housing associations in Northern Ireland completed 6,599 new-build houses, flats and bungalows. This figure includes 30 hostels for special needs groups, each recorded as a single dwelling and 108 sheltered dwellings built by the Housing Executive but transferred on completion to housing associations.

  A schedule of the 314 locations of these developments has been placed in the Library.

  Education Reforms
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of introducing educational reforms under the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 between 1 April 1990 and 31 March 1994.

  Mr. Ancram
  From April 1990 to April 1994 some £136 million additional resources have been made available for the implementation of the reform programme. These resources have been applied, on top of targeted baseline provision, to a number of areas, in broad terms the main ones being curriculum development, assessment and support—£67 million—the introduction of local management of schools and colleges—£16 million—and the accommodation and equipment needs of schools—£50 million. It is not, however, possible to identify expenditure due solely to the changes introduced in the 1989 Order.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of introducing assessment arrangements as part of the education reforms for(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94.

  Mr. Ancram
  The cost of introducing assessment arrangements as part of education reform is £2.50 million in 1992–93 and £2.63 million in 1993–94. These figures do not include in-service training costs incurred by education and library boards; this information is not held centrally.

  Orthopaedic Operations
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are on the waiting list for orthopaedic operations; how long they have been on the waiting list; and what is the expected date for their operation.

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of people and the length of time for which they have been waiting for treatment in the trauma and orthopaedic speciality at 31 December 1993, the latest date for which information is available, is set out in the table:

  Waiting times (months)

  Ordinary Admissions

  Day Cases

  Total

  0–2

  847

  215

  1,062

  3–5

  564

  165

  729

  6–8

  501

  115

  616

  9–11

  374

  69

  443

  12–14

  242

  63

  305

  15–17

  211

  61

  272

  18–20

  134

  45

  179

  21–23

  139

  23

  162

  24+

  178

  9

  187

  Totals

  3,190

  765

  3,955

  With regard to the final part of the question about expected dates for the above patients' operations, this information is not held centrally.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial amounts have been allocated to orthopaedic surgery in Northern Ireland from 1 April 1980 to 31 March 1994 under(a) PARR and (b) capitation funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  None. Capitation funding, like its predecessor PARR, is not a mechanism for distributing resources for specific services. It is a means of allocating total revenue resources to the four health and social services boards which, in the light of perceived need, other competing service demands and the amount of resources available, then determine the amount to spend on specific services such as orthopaedic.

  Information about the amount spent on orthopaedic surgery in Northern Ireland from 1 April 1980 to 31 March 1994 is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Asthma
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy in respect of community care grants and loans from the social fund for specialised furnishings for those who suffer from asthma; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  Every application for a grant or loan from the social fund is decided on its merits. There are no special arrangements for sufferers from asthma or any other illness.

  Arthur Andersen
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in the Department's civil action against Arthur Andersen in the New York courts.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The Department continues to pursue its civil action against Arthur Andersen and Co., former auditors of De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd. No date has been set yet for the trial, but it is expected that the pre-trial procedures should be completed by September 1994.

  Deer (Tuberculosis)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list, by region, the number of cases of tuberculosis in deer in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Ancram
  In Northern Ireland bovine tuberculosis has been detected in deer in one case in 1991 and four cases in 1992.

  School Leavers
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new measures he will introduce to reduce the number of school leavers with no qualifications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  The proportion of Northern Ireland school leavers with no qualifications has fallen steadily from a figure of 17.7 per cent. in 1986–87 to 7.4 per cent. in 1991–92. Pupils potentially in this category will continue to benefit from a range of education reform initiatives and from additional resources allocated through the targeting social needs policy and making Belfast work initiative. Consideration is also being given to targeting selected schools undertaking development plans to address the problem of under-achievement.

  Economic Development
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ensure that a comprehensive review and progress report is issued annually covering all agencies involved in economic development and their activities, following the economic assessment by the Northern Ireland Economic Council.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  I am considering the Northern Ireland Economic Council's recommendation. Before deciding, I need to be sure that such a document would bring benefits over and above the considerable amount of material already published in the agencies' own annual reports.

  Tree Planting
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present policy of the Forest Service Department of Agriculture, Northern Ireland in respect of planting in proximity to public roads.

  Mr. Ancram
  The general policy of the Forest Service is to keep planting back 10 to 20 m from the edge of a public road. The average distance would be about 15 m.

  Sea Fish Licence Tribunal
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements are in place for the setting up of appeals tribunals under the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1992; and how many departmental officials and staff were engaged in work related to the setting up of these tribunals on 1 April.

  Mr. Ancram
  Work on the sea fish licence tribunal has been suspended, and no staff were engaged on this work on 1 April 1994.

  Fish Conservation
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions since the decision in December 1993 to suspend the operation of the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1992 pending a decision of the European Court of Justice he or other Ministers have met representatives of the Northern Ireland fishing industry to discuss alternative conservation strategies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  My noble Friend has met representatives of the Northern Ireland Fishing Industry on two occasions since 14 December 1993. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisation's technical conservation proposals included input from the Northern Ireland fishing industry. Officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland met the NFFO and representatives of the Northern Ireland industry on 8 March to examine their proposals in detail.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what expenditure has been incurred by his Department(a) up to 31 December 1993 and (b) since 1 January 1994 in making preparations, including the purchase of equipment, for the implementation of the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1992.

  Mr. Ancram
  The estimated cost for Northern Ireland of preparing for the introduction of fisherman's days at sea restrictions is £76,500 up to 31 December 1993. No equipment was purchased. No costs have been incurred since 1 January 1994 on such preparations.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amount of computer hardware and software has been purchased by his Department for the purposes or implementing the provisions of the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1992.

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many officials of his Department
  575
  were engaged in work related to the implementation of the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1992 on 31 December 1993; and how many officials continue to be engaged in work related to the implementation of this Act.

  Mr. Ancram
  At the beginning of December 1993 four officials were responsible for assessing fishermen's representations against their provisional days at sea allocations; they have all been redeployed.

  Privatisation (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is not available in the Northern Ireland Office nor in all of the Northern Ireland Departments prior to 1989. However, from April 1989 to March 1994 the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments was £13·4 million.

  Military Complaints
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to lay before Parliament Mr. David Hewitt's annual report as independent assessor of military complaints procedures.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have today arranged for David Hewitt's first annual report as independent assessor of military complaints procedures to be laid before each House of Parliament. I welcome this thorough report, which represents a comprehensive examination of the complaints procedures which the Army now have in place in Northern Ireland.

  I particularly welcome Mr. Hewitt's comment that
  "I would be fairly certain that no other armed force in the world has quite as detailed complaints procedures as those devised for military personnel in Northern Ireland".

  This illustrates the importance which the Army attaches to its relations with the community in Northern Ireland.

  There may, of course, be scope for yet further improvement to the procedures and I look forward to hearing the views of the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland on Mr. Hewitt's comments, questions and recommendations.

  The Government fully recognise that the emergency legislation provides the armed forces with additional powers, vital in countering the terrorist campaign, although it gives them no privileges. These powers must be exercised with sensitivity and due regard to the rights of individuals, as the Army's authorities have satisfied Mr. Hewitt that they themselves recognise. The independent assessor provides valuable assistance in ensuring that, where the highest standards are not met, appropriate and effective procedures are in place to enable and help the individual in seeking redress.

  I am most grateful to Mr. Hewitt for his work throughout the past year. His report will receive careful and detailed consideration.

  Social Security Agency
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Social Security Agency for the current financial year.

  Mr. Ancram
  The targets are included in the agency's 1994–95 business plan, which was published today. A copy of the plan will be placed in the Library. The targets are in line with the Government's policy of improving the service provided to customers and fully support the standards established in the Northern Ireland citizens charter. I am satisfied that the targets present a demanding challenge for the agency. They are as follows:

  Benefit Clearance Times1

  Social Fund Crisis Loans
  on the day need arises2

  Social Fund Community Grants

  65 per cent. in 7 days

  95 per cent. in 20 days

  Income Support

  71 per cent. in 5 days

  90 per cent. in 13 days

  Sickness/Invalidity Benefit

  65 per cent. in 10 days

  95 per cent. in 30 days

  Child Benefit

  73 per cent. in 10 days

  95 per cent. in 30 days

  Family Credit

  60 per cent. in 13 days

  95 per cent. in 42 days

  Disability Living Allowance

  68 per cent. in 30 days

  85 per cent. in 53 days

  Retirement Pension

  65 per cent. in 20 days

  95 per cent. in 60 days

  Unemployment Benefit
  6·5 days

  Benefit Accuracy Income Support
  to pay the correct amount in at least 92 per cent. of cases

  Sickness/Invalidity Benefit
  to pay the correct amount in at least 97 per cent. of cases

  Child Benefit
  to pay the correct amount in at least 98 per cent. of cases

  Family Credit
  to pay the correct amount in at least 93 per cent. of cases

  Disability Living allowance
  to pay the correct amount in at least 98 per cent. of cases

  Retirement Pension
  to pay the correct amount in at least 99 per cent. of cases

  Unemployment Benefit
  to pay the correct amount in at least 96·5 per cent. of cases

  Customer Satisfaction
  90 per cent. of customers to regard the Agency' service as satisfactory or better

  Financial Recovery

  recovery of Social Fund loans—£17·24 million

  recovery of Income Support overpayments—£1·40 million

  recovery of centralised benefits overpayments—£0·40 million

  benefit savings from detection and prevention of fraud£11·50·million

  to carry out 5,100 National Insurance contributions surveys (including 1,020 employer educational visits)

  identify £1·10 million Class 1 arrears as a result of compliance work

  Resource Management

  to live within a gross allocation of £29·80 million for Social Fund loans and community care grants

  to live within the Agency's gross administration budget of £130·0 million, of which £126·5 million relates to running costs

  to achieve cash efficiency savings of the order of £3·0 million

  577
  Notes:

  1. In all cases, clearance time is measured from the date of receipt of a claim or application in the office to the date on which the claim or application is decided. The measure, therefore, excludes the time taken to issue notification of the decision and any payment.

  2. Monitored against '95 per cent. in 1 day'.

  Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many private security firms have been employed by his Department for each of the last 10 years; what has been the annual value of the contracts; and if he will estimate how many guards have been employed for each of those years.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Details of private security firms employed by the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments over the period 1991–92 to 1993–94 are as follows:

  Number of firms

  Annual value £000s

  Number of guards

  1991–92

  15

  1,796·7

  183

  1992–93

  18

  2,050·6

  163

  1993–94

  18

  1,946·8

  173

  For the details of all contracts for each financial year from 1984–85 to 1990–91, I refer the hon. Member to the reply he was given on 22 October 1991, Official Report, column 552.

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total number of(a) parents eligible to vote, (b) parents who have voted in favour of seeking grant-maintained status and (c) parents who have voted against seeking grant-maintained status in all the ballots so far held on grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In ballots on grant-maintained status held so far, 1,324,995 parents were eligible to vote: 544,170 parents voted in favour, and 306,296 parents voted against.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of(a) primary and (b) secondary pupils within each local education authority area are being educated in grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows the estimated percentages of pupils at maintained primary and secondary schools who are currently being educated in grant-maintained schools within each local education authority area in England.

  Estimated percentages of pupils educated in grant-maintained
  schools in each LEA area

  LEA

  Primary Per cent.

  Secondary Per cent.

  Avon

  0·0

  2·9

  Barking

  0·0

  0·0

  Barnet

  3·3

  53·4

  Barnsley

  0·0

  0·0

  Bedfordshire

  1·5

  19·6

  578

  LEA

  Primary Per cent

  Secondary Per cent.

  Berkshire

  3·7

  16·0

  Bexley

  3·5

  24·9

  Birmingham

  1·6

  23·0

  Bolton

  1·3

  16·6

  Bradford

  1·3

  11·1

  Brent

  4·5

  75·7

  Bromley

  5·6

  68·0

  Buckinghamshire

  3·5

  27·3

  Bury

  1·3

  0·0

  Calderdale

  3·3

  48·3

  Cambridgeshire

  3·3

  37·5

  Camden

  0·0

  22·3

  Cheshire

  0·5

  3·8

  Cleveland

  0·0

  0·0

  Cornwall

  0·0

  0·0

  Corporation of London

  0·0

  0·0

  Coventry

  0·0

  0·0

  Croydon

  3·2

  40·5

  Cumbria

  5·5

  34·6

  Derbyshire

  2·0

  26·8

  Devon

  0·4

  8·0

  Doncaster

  0·0

  0·0

  Dorset

  0·9

  23·6

  Dudley

  1·4

  25·4

  Durham

  0·0

  0·0

  Ealing

  4·4

  44·6

  East Sussex

  0·0

  0·0

  Enfield

  0·6

  32·1

  Essex

  15·4

  69·7

  Gateshead

  0·0

  0·0

  Gloucestershire

  6·6

  66·2

  Greenwich

  1·1

  0·0

  Hackney

  0·5

  0·0

  Hammersmith

  0·0

  20·6

  Hampshire

  3·0

  20·7

  Haringey

  0·0

  0·0

  Harrow

  0·0

  6·1

  Havering

  0·0

  25·7

  Hereford and Worcester

  0·0

  7·6

  Hertfordshire

  1·9

  30·7

  Hillingdon

  13·3

  83·6

  Hounslow

  0·0

  15·0

  Humberside

  0·3

  0·0

  Isle of Wight

  0·0

  0·0

  Isles of Scilly

  0·0

  0·0

  Islington

  0·0

  0·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  8·4

  19·6

  Kent

  3·9

  50·8

  Kingston upon Thames

  1·8

  37·6

  Kirklees

  0·0

  5·1

  Knowsley

  0·0

  8·0

  Lambeth

  6·6

  53·0

  Lancashire

  0·4

  8·0

  Leeds

  0·1

  2·6

  Leicestershire

  0·0

  5·5

  Lewisham

  1·8

  0·0

  Lincolnshire

  12·7

  44·2

  Liverpool

  0·0

  7·6

  Manchester

  0·0

  0·0

  Merton

  0·0

  0·0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0·0

  0·0

  Newham

  0·0

  4·1

  Norfolk

  4·2

  21·4

  North Tyneside

  0·0

  1·5

  North Yorkshire

  0·0

  0·0

  Northamptonshire

  6·1

  20·7

  Northumberland

  0·0

  2·2

  Nottinghamshire

  0·0

  2·9

  Oldham

  0·0

  0·0

  Oxfordshire

  0·2

  0·0

  Redbridge

  0·0

  7·4

  Richmond upon Thames

  0·0

  0·0

  Rochdale

  5·2

  8·3

  Rotherham

  0·0

  0·0

  Salford

  0·0

  3·6

  Sandwell

  0·0

  3·7

  Sefton

  0·0

  0·0

  579

  LEA

  Primary Per cent.

  Secondary Per cent.

  Sheffield

  2·2

  7·1

  Shropshire

  0·9

  14·3

  Solihull

  2·3

  0·0

  Somerset

  1·1

  1·4

  South Tyneside

  0·0

  0·0

  Southwark

  6·0

  30·3

  St· Helens

  0·0

  0·0

  Staffordshire

  0·1

  6·3

  Stockport

  0·0

  0·0

  Suffolk

  0·0

  0·0

  Sunderland

  0·0

  0·0

  Surrey

  4·2

  25·5

  Sutton

  6·2

  59·6

  Tameside

  0·0

  18·1

  Tower Hamlets

  0·0

  7·8

  Trafford

  0·0

  25·4

  Wakefield

  0·0

  0·0

  Walsall

  2·0

  29·0

  Waltham Forest

  0·0

  17·3

  Wandsworth

  3·0

  72·8

  Warwickshire

  0·0

  18·9

  West Sussex

  0·0

  0·0

  Schools incorporated as grant-maintained on 1 April
  1994

  School

  Ballot closed

  Proposals published

  1Approval

  All Saints' CE Primary School

  28 June 1993

  30 August 1993

  11 January 1994

  Askam Primary School

  14 May 1993

  18 June 1993

  7 December 1993

  Bishop Wordsworth's Grammar School

  21 September 1993

  21 October 1993

  2 March 1994

  Brighouse High School

  20 December 1993

  30 December 1993

  25 March 1994

  Burstow Primary School (GM)

  14 July 1993

  14 September 1993

  20 December 1993

  Caldew School

  24 December 1993

  30 December 1993

  30 March 1994

  Charlton Kings GM Infants' School

  12 July 1993

  6 October 1993

  17 January 1994

  Charlton Kings Grant-Maintained Junior School

  17 May 1993

  22 June 1993

  10 November 1993

  Chase Lane Primary Grant-Maintained School

  30 June 1993

  23 July 1993

  14 January 1994

  Collingwood Primary School

  19 July 1993

  1 October 1993

  31 January 1994

  Colmers Farm Grant-Maintained School

  14 July 1993

  18 November 1993

  1 March 1994

  Coloma Convent Girls' School

  14 May 1993

  23 June 1993

  10 December 1993

  Coulsdon High School (formerly Taunton Manor)

  10 June 1993

  30 July 1993

  10 November 1993

  Cuffley Primary School

  7 July 1993

  6 August 1993

  10 December 1993

  Dane Court Grammar School

  8 November 1993

  26 November 1993

  18 March 1994

  Dearham Grant-Maintained Primary School

  26 May 1993

  22 September 1993

  14 December 1993

  Dover Grammar School for Boys

  23 June 1993

  8 November 1993

  9 March 1994

  Flookburgh (CE GM) Primary School

  9 June 1993

  30 June 1993

  27 September 1993

  Foxhill First School

  18 August 1993

  11 October 1993

  25 January 1994

  Frogwell Primary School (GM)

  9 June 1993

  16 September 1993

  15 December 1993

  Gilsland CE Primary School (GM)

  5 July 1993

  15 December 1993

  30 March 1994

  Great Marlow School (GM)

  7 June 1993

  1 November 1993

  1 February 1994

  Grimoldby Grant-Maintained Primary School

  9 June 1993

  21 July 1993

  29 November 1993

  Hallbankgate (Grant-Maintained Primary School)

  24 November 1993

  30 November 1993

  30 March 1994

  Hardenhuish School

  25 June 1993

  1 December 1993

  17 March 1994

  Hartsholme Primary Grant-Maintained School

  20 March 1993

  1 July 1993

  26 November 1993

  Hasmonean High School

  7 July 1993

  31 August 1993

  22 March 1994

  Hawksmoor Primary School

  18 March 1993

  4 May 1993

  28 March 1994

  Heversham CE Primary School

  28 June 1993

  22 October 1993

  23 February 1994

  Heybridge Primary School (GM)

  25 June 1993

  1 October 1993

  14 December 1993

  Heywood School (GM)

  1 December 1993

  2 December 1993

  3 March 1994

  Hipperholme and Lightcliffe High School

  14 June 1993

  16 August 1993

  15 December 1993

  Hockley Primary School (GM)

  4 June 1993

  15 July 1993

  23 December 1993

  Holy Rood Junior School

  17 December 1993

  21 December 1993

  17 March 1993

  Horton Kirby CE Primary School

  30 June 1993

  13 September 1993

  23 December 1993

  Hurstmere School

  8 December 1993

  14 December 1993

  21 March 1994

  Ireleth St· Peter's CE GM Primary School

  28 June 1993

  27 September 1993

  31 January 1994

  John Kelly Boys' Community School (GM)

  12 November 1993

  17 December 1993

  17 March 1994

  John Kelly Girls' School

  12 November 1993

  13 December 1993

  17 March 1994

  Kemnal Technology College

  27 October 1993

  1 November 1993

  17 February 1994

  Kenningtons Grant-Maintained Primary School

  25 February 1993

  23 July 1993

  9 February 1994

  Lawford CE Primary School (GM)

  14 June 1993

  31 July 1993

  20 December 1993

  Little Heath Primary School

  21 October 1993

  19 November 1993

  7 March 1994

  Maidenhill School

  10 May 1993

  5 November 193

  23 February 1994

  Malorees Junior School

  3 December 1993

  23 December 1993

  30 March 1994

  Manor Park (Grant-Maintained) Primary School

  28 October 1993

  18 November 1993

  15 February 1994

  Matravers School (GM)

  28 June 1993

  20 September 1993

  28 March 1994

  Mersea Island School

  3 December 1993

  17 December 1993

  29 March 1994

  Nettleham Infants Grant-Maintained School

  29 November 1993

  15 December 1993

  24 March 1994

  Norbury Manor High School for Girls

  15 December 1993

  20 December 1993

  14 March 1994

  North West London Jewish Day School

  22 November 1993

  24 November 1993

  23 March 1994

  580

  LEA

  Primary Per cent.

  Secondary Per cent.

  Westminster

  0·0

  0·0

  Wigan

  0·0

  0·0

  Wiltshire

  6·2

  39·2

  Wirral

  0·0

  9·8

  Wolverhampton

  0·0

  14·9

  Note

  Percentages based on DFE January 1993 Schools Census, including all pupils in maintained primary and secondary schools, except part-time pupils in grant-maintained schools.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the closing date of the ballot for each of the schools which became grant-maintained on 1 April; on what date the proposals were published; and on what date his approval was notified to(a) the school and (b) the local education authority.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is set out in the table:
  581

  School

  Ballot closed

  Proposals published

  1Approval

  Northaw CE Primary School

  19 July 1993

  18 October 1993

  17 March 1994

  Northmead School, Guildford (GM Junior)

  25 June 1993

  8 October 1993

  18 March 1994

  Our Lady of Hartley RC Primary School

  25 October 1993

  16 November 1993

  22 March 1994

  Our Lady of Victories Grant-Maintained School

  7 July 1993

  4 October 1993

  3 February 1994

  Park Mead Grant Maintained Junior School

  22 November 1993

  24 November 1993

  8 March 1994

  Paxcroft Primary School

  11 June 1993

  14 September 1993

  14 March 1994

  Pent Valley School

  26 March 1993

  28 September 1993

  1 March 1994

  Poole Grammar School

  22 October 1993

  26 October 1993

  1 March 1994

  Primrose Hill CE GM Primary School

  22 December 1993

  23 December 1993

  17 March 1994

  Prince Avenue Primary School (GM)

  25 October 1993

  17 November 1993

  14 February 1994

  Queen Elizabeth School

  31 May 1993

  13 October 1993

  10 February 1994

  R. A. Butler Infant School (Grant-Maintained)

  18 October 1993

  12 November 1993

  27 January 1994

  R. A. Butler Junior School (Grant-Maintained)

  18 October 1993

  12 November 1993

  27 January 1994

  Rollesby First School (Grant-Maintained)

  28 May 1993

  25 June 1993

  9 December 1993

  Russell Hall First School

  21 July 1993

  1 October 1993

  25 January 1994

  Shenfield High School

  1 November 1993

  22 November 1993

  18 February 1994

  St. Anne's Convent School

  20 December 1993

  22 December 1993

  25 March 1994

  St. Benedict's College

  9 July 1993

  4 November 1993

  10 February 1994

  St. Bernard's High School

  29 March 1993

  23 July 1993

  25 January 1994

  St. Clement Danes Grant-Maintained School

  7 June 1993

  1 September 1993

  24 March 1994

  St. Francis CE Junior and Infant School

  17 May 1993

  16 November 1993

  18 February 1994

  St. George's RC GM Primary School

  28 June 1993

  6 October 1993

  2 February 1994

  St. Helen's RC Infant School (Grant-Maintained)

  25 May 1993

  19 July 1993

  11 February 1994

  St. Helen's RC Junior School (Grant-Maintained)

  26 May 1993

  19 July 1993

  6 December 1993

  St. John Fisher RC GM Primary School

  28 June 1993

  30 September 1993

  22 March 1994

  St. John's CE Primary School, Clifton (GM)

  15 November 1993

  10 December 1993

  18 March 1994

  St. John's RC GM Comprehensive School

  25 October 1993

  6 December 1993

  18 March 1994

  St. John's CE Primary School

  21 April 1993

  30 June 1993

  21 October 1993

  St. Mary's Catholic Grant-Maintained School

  29 November 1993

  11 January 1994

  22 March 1994

  St. Mary's RC Primary School

  7 June 1993

  4 October 1993

  24 January 1994

  St. Mary's RC Primary School (Grant-Maintained)

  23 June 1993

  1 December 1993

  23 March 1994

  St. Michael and All Angels CE GM Primary School

  5 April 1993

  30 September 1993

  29 March 1994

  St. Michael's CE Primary School

  22 September 1993

  30 November 1993

  18 March 1994

  St. Mildred's GM CE Primary School, Whiston

  25 September 1992

  24 February 1993

  11 January 1994

  St. Patrick's RC Primary School

  30 June 1993

  27 September 1993

  28 March 1994

  St. Peter's CE Grant Maintained School

  28 May 1993

  22 July 1993

  8 March 1994

  St. Theresa's RC Primary School

  25 May 1993

  27 October 1993

  28 March 1994

  St. Thomas's of Canterbury RC Primary School

  10 March 1993

  6 August 1993

  10 December 1993

  St. Thomas's CE Primary School

  27 October 1992

  8 October 1993

  24 March 1994

  Stella Maris RC Primary School

  22 June 1993

  5 October 1993

  20 January 1994

  The Alderman Blaxill School

  29 January 1993

  23 July 1993

  18 January 1994

  The Billericay School

  8 November 1993

  25 November 1993

  7 March 1994

  The British Grant-Maintained Primary School

  28 June 1993

  22 November 1993

  2 March 1994

  The Hertfordshire and Essex High School

  21 September 1993

  4 October 1993

  21 March 1994

  The Howard School (Grant-Maintained)

  9 April 1993

  8 October 1993

  18 February 1994

  The Sandon School

  16 June 1993

  26 August 1993

  10 January 1994

  The Thomas Willingale Grant-Maintained School

  12 July 1993

  21 October 1993

  14 February 1994

  The Walmley Grant Maintained Junior School

  10 May 1993

  18 June 1993

  6 September 1993

  The Wroxham School (G.M.)

  2 July 1993

  9 September 1993

  9 February 1994

  Thorpedene Grant-Maintained Junior School

  12 April 1993

  17 June 1993

  13 September 1993

  Tirlebrook Primary School

  7 July 1993

  27 September 1993

  26 January 1994

  Upshire Grant-Maintained Primary School

  13 October 1993

  10 December 1993

  18 March 1994

  Walmley Infant Grant-Maintained School

  10 May 1993

  18 June 1993

  6 September 1993

  Walton Grant-Maintained Primary School

  11 June 1993

  1 October 1993

  11 January 1994

  Warden Hill Grant-Maintained Primary School

  23 November 1993

  1 December 1993

  22 March 1994

  Wellfield Middle School (Grant-Maintained)

  19 March 1993

  30 June 1993

  31 March 1994

  Whitecross School (Grant-Maintained)

  29 November 1993

  17 December 1993

  25 March 1994

  William Howard School

  24 November 1993

  3 December 1993

  22 March 1994

  Wingfield CE Primary School

  21 July 1993

  19 November 1993

  15 March 1994

  Winterton First School (Grant-Maintained)

  11 June 1993

  25 June 1993

  18 November 1993

  Wyburns Primary School (Grant-Maintained)

  2 July 1993

  18 October 1993

  26 January 1994

  1 The approval date shown is the date at which the school was notified. In most cases the local education authority would have been informed on the same day. In some cases schools were given earlier notification that the Secretary of State was minded to approve the proposals subject to certain modifications.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the grant-maintained schools that have a policy of admitting the children of their teachers irrespective of those children meeting the other admission criteria.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not collected centrally. Circular 6/93—"Admissions to Maintained Schools"—notes that the admission arrangements of a582
  school may provide that, if it is over-subscribed, priority will be given to children whose parents work at the school. This applies to schools maintained by LEAs, including voluntary aided schools, as well as to grant-maintained schools.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) which grant-maintained schools received details of their final annual maintenance grants for 1994–95
  583
  and on what date; and, for each, what is the level of (a) direct AMG, (b) central AMG and (c) the value of (b) as a percentage of (a);

  (2) which grant-maintained schools have not received notification of their final annual maintenance grants.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The calculation and notification of annual maintenance grant to grant-maintained schools are now the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman of the Funding Agency to reply to the hon. Member.

  Technology Colleges
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what bids were submitted for initial capital grant for each of the 13 schools listed in his announcement of 26 April; what allocations have been made; and what level and nature of additional annual funding has been agreed.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The schools listed in the announcement have been invited to submit a bid for a capital project which involves a capital grant of up to £100,000. Accordingly, no allocations have yet been made. Additional annual funding for each of the schools in financial year 1994–95 will be at the rate of £60 per pupil, for the purposes of support, equipment and training for the teaching of technology, science and mathematics.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much of each sponsor's contribution for each of the 13 schools listed in his announcement of 26 April, is in the form of(a) cash, (b) goods and (c) services; and whether the value of each of (b) and (c) is based on the retail or normal commercial value or the cost to the sponsor.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The value and nature of sponsorship pledged by the main sponsors for each of the 13 technology colleges is listed in the table. Information on the retail or normal commercial value of goods and services and the cost to the sponsor is commercially confidential.

  School/sponsor

  Value £000s

  Nature of sponsorship

  Applemore Technology School

  The Garfield Weston Foundation

  50

  cash

  2GL

  10

  goods

  Clifton Red Consultants

  20

  goods

  International Speciality Chemicals

  10

  cash

  Vosper Thornycroft (UK)

  10

  cash

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School

  The Stanley Kalms Foundation

  50

  cash

  Systems Integrated Research

  15

  cash and goods

  Testornetric

  10

  goods

  Greenwood Coope Ltd

  10

  cash

  Unilab

  5

  cash

  Denefield School

  DHL Worldwide Express

  65

  cash and goods

  Database and Apricot Computers

  20

  cash and goods

  Thames Water PLC

  13

  cash and goods

  John Kelly Boys Community School

  The Bestway Group

  60

  cash

  Unisys

  40

  goods and services

  John Kelly Girls Community School

  The Bestway Group

  60

  cash

  Unisys

  40

  goods and services

  584

  School/sponsor

  Value £000s

  Nature of sponsorship

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School

  Fairfield Catering Company Ltd

  15

  cash

  Clifton Reed Consultants

  5

  cash

  LRGS Endowment Trustees

  100

  cash

  Mill Hill County High School

  The Garfield Weston Foundation

  50

  cash

  Database and Apricot Computers

  20

  cash and goods

  Chartwells

  25

  cash

  Thorpe Furniture

  5

  cash

  The Philip Morant School

  The Garfield Weston Foundation

  50

  cash

  Research Machines

  24

  cash and goods

  Architects Joint Partnership

  5

  cash

  Woods of Colchester

  1.5

  cash

  Midland Bank

  1.5

  cash

  Rastrick High School

  The Stanley Kalms Foundation

  50

  cash

  Denford Machine Tools

  40

  goods

  Clifton Reed Consultants

  5

  cash

  Fine Arts Productions

  2.5

  cash

  Concept Merchandising

  1

  cash

  Ravens Wood School for Boys

  ICL

  33

  cash and goods

  NYNEX Cablecomms

  2.5

  cash

  SIR (software)

  6.5

  goods

  Diamik

  6.5

  goods

  The Wellcome Foundation Ltd

  2.5

  cash

  Parent/Teacher Association

  24

  cash

  Sale Moor School

  The Alliance Family Foundation

  100

  cash

  Senacre Technology School

  Research Machines

  26.5

  goods

  Mikrodaisy International

  13

  goods

  Active Images

  20

  goods

  RICOH

  12

  goods

  Russell and Brand

  4

  cash

  Charles Walter Ltd

  6.5

  cash

  Architects Joint Partnership

  6.5

  cash

  Small Heath School

  Garfield Weston Foundation

  50

  cash

  W. Canning Charitable Trust

  6

  cash

  GTI Educational Systems

  16.5

  cash

  Rialtech Ltd

  12.5

  cash

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his estimate of the number of surplus places in each city technology college.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member on 14 March 1994,Official Report, column 530. Recruitment at age 11 is over-subscribed for all city technology colleges, and we expect them all to be full to capacity once the build-up phase is complete. It makes no sense to describe the position therefore as involving surplus places.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his written answer of 18 April,Official Report, column 379, concerning the number of children attending pre-school activities, if he will (a) estimate the numbers attending more than one category of

  585
  provision and (b) those attending pre-school playgroups with members of the Pre-school Playgroups Association, in (i) 1993 and (ii) 1994.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department does not collect information on how many children attend more than one form of pre-school provision in the course of a year, but the proportion is thought to be relatively small. I am informed by the Pre-School Playgroups Association that as at Janaury 1993 there were 771,397 children attending playgroups in membership of the Association. Data are not yet available for 1994, but the Association estimates that the total number of children attending member playgroups will be very close to the 1993 total.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he has taken to establish, or estimate, the level of parental demand for nursery education in all or part of(a) England and (b) Wales.
  586
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Evidence from a variety of sources suggests that most parents want some form of provision before age five, and that many wish to have a choice of provision besides state nursery education. Nursery education in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Privatisation (Consultants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980.

  Mr. Boswell
  The value of consultancy contracts awarded by the Department in relation to privatisation programmes since 1980 is £627,000.

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

Lord Nickson
Sir David Wigley Nickson, KBE, having been created Baron Nickson, of Renagour in the District of Stirling, for life —Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord MacFarlane of Bearsden and the Lord Kingsdown.

Belize: EU Meeting, Athens
2.48 p.m.
Lord Finsbergasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the High Commissioner for Belize was invited to the recent "San Jose Ministerial".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, Belize was invited to attend San Jose X as an observer.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. Can he confirm that the invitation was issued by the Greek Foreign Minister, who then despicably withdrew it in the face of opposition from Guatemala? Are we really wise to have withdrawn the Harrier Squadron from Belize, as the enmity between Guatemala and Belize clearly still exists on the part of the former?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. As I said, Belize was originally invited to attend San Jose X as an observer. The Greek presidency extended that invitation on behalf of all EU member states. Belize accepted the invitation and accordingly arrived in Athens.
Subsequently, it became clear that the arrangements for Belize's attendance had changed from what they and we had been told. The central American delegations to the meeting did not agree to the official presence of Belize and the presidency informed the Belizean representative that she could attend only in an unofficial capacity. She therefore decided, understandably, not to attend in the downgraded capacity that was suggested.
I can inform my noble friend that we have protested strongly to the Greek Government for the mishandling of the arrangements and made clear to the meeting our view that Belize should have been present.
As regards the withdrawal of the squadron, I should inform my noble friend that the changes are taking place to force levels in Belize against the background of the improved regional situation, in particular Guatemala's recognition, in both 1991 and reaffirmed in 1993, of Belize as a sovereign and independent state. We do not believe that the recent events have adversely affected the security of Belize.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, it is appropriate to declare that the High Commissioner is my wife and that I too was present when she left the ministerial meeting as part of an official protest.
Will the Minister confirm that the moral authority of the European Union to address matters relating to the rule of law, democracy and good manners has been severely compromised by Mr. Pangalos in his capacity as President of the Council of Ministers, when he unilaterally withdrew the European Union's official invitation to Belize to participate as observers? Does the Minister agree that a public statement by the European Union, re-stating its 1991 and 1993 declarations of support for Belize's territorial integrity and independence, is now overdue, thereby creating desirable distance between European Union policy and the arbitrary actions of the Greek Minister?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his choice of wife. I would not like to go as far as the noble Lord in saying that it calls into question the moral authority of the European Union. What I said in response to my noble friend was that we were very disappointed at the events surrounding the Athens meeting. We think that the handling of those arrangements by the Greek presidency was not all that it should have been. Certainly we made the appropriate protest to the Greek authorities.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister confirm the Answer that he gave to me on the question of the presence in Belize of British troops, when he indicated that they were optimistic about the survival and progress of democracy in Guatemala? Does he still share that view?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that I have answered the noble Lord on these matters before. I can say yes; we are optimistic about the survival and progress of democracy in Guatemala.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may pursue a little further the second part of the supplementary question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg. In replying, I believe the Minister said that he was quite satisfied about relations between Guatemala and Belize. Is it not the case, however, that the Guatemalan Government have recently written to the Secretary-General of the United Nations saying that they will not drop the pursuit of their territorial claims until there is a final treaty? Can the Minister comment on that? In the light of that situation, can he say whether the Government are satisfied that withdrawing the garrison was appropriate?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. The Guatemalan Government have written to the United Nations Secretary-General. There is, obviously, still a territorial dispute between the two countries. The important point is that the Guatemalan Government recognised the independence of Belize in 1991. After a change of government in 1993, the new government in Guatemala also recognised that. We believe that the situation is such that it is appropriate, after consultation with the Belizean Government, to withdraw the

1123
garrison. I can say that I am pleased that a military presence will continue to be available in Belize in the form of a resident training team. We will continue to offer assistance to the Belizean defence force, which assumed responsibility for the defence of its own country on 1st January this year. We will continue to deploy regular company strength units as part of their jungle training in Belize.

Distance Selling: Draft Directive
2.55 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the draft directive on distance selling proposed by the European Commission and now under consideration.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government have made clear their total opposition to the revised text of this directive as submitted to the Council of Ministers last October. Since that date a number of compromise proposals have been tabled by the presidency which meet some, but by no means all, of the UK's concerns. Negotiations in Brussels are continuing.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that it would be an unnecessary blow to hotels and tourist accommodation if requiring a deposit were to be made illegal since a deposit is regarded as part of a transaction and is also understood to be an earnest of intention?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. The Government are fully aware of the damage that would be done to those industries and others by the measure. That is why we have made it clear that we will not accept such provision in the proposed directive.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Viscount clarify what he means when he says that the Government are in negotiations with the presidency? Do the Government not have their own views on the matter? Why do they have to negotiate with the president of the Commission? I take it that that is what the Minister means by the presidency? Why do the Government not have a view and stick to it?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we do have a view and we are sticking to it. I did not say what the noble Lord claims I said. I said that the negotiations in Brussels are continuing.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in addition to the obvious example of hotel rooms, there are many events—exhibitions, agricultural shows and others—for which one has to pay in advance? This change would be a total disaster for many events and for the tourist trade as a whole.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. We are pressing for the exclusion of all services from the measure.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I wonder if the Minister can help me. I have a letter from my MEP which suggests that hotel rooms no longer feature in the directive. I spoke recently to a member, no doubt, of the noble Viscount's staff in the DTI, who told me that the whole matter is in the melting-pot. Whom am I to believe; and whom does the Minister believe?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord believes the Government's view on the matter.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Viscount Goschen: As I said, a number of compromise proposals have been put forward. The ban on prepayment is one of the sub-proposals that have been dropped in the latest compromise proposals. The Government's view is that services as a whole should be excluded from the directive.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, can the Minister explain why this matter does not fall within the ambit of national subsidiarity?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we do not oppose the directive in this area on subsidiarity grounds. We are, however, very concerned at the retrograde effect of the Commission's latest proposed text.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister indicate in summary what are the essential points of dispute that remain? Is he aware that the Opposition share the concern that he expressed about the scope of the draft directive as originally drafted? Can he therefore indicate what sort of timescale he envisages for some appropriate directive to emerge?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we are particularly concerned at the enlarged scope of the proposal, which now covers all services including services with reservation. The provisions preventing suppliers from requiring payments in advance and allowing consumers to obtain instant refunds by challenging payment card transactions are equally unacceptable. These provisions threaten to place impossible burdens on tens of thousands of everyday transactions when there is no evidence that consumers are in need of additional protection. On the question of timescale, the UK Government continue to press their objections to the directive. It is not possible at the moment to pre-empt those discussions.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the UK Government are supported by other member states in the objections they have made?
Viscount Goschen: Indeed, my Lords. There is support from other member states. It would not be appropriate for me to detail the views of individual member states but there is support for the Government's view. I mentioned that the Government still have significant difficulties with the latest text. Again, it would be inappropriate to speculate on how those discussions might go forward.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Viscount remind the House whether this is a matter to be decided by qualified majority or whether the Government have a veto? If it is the latter, will the Government use it in the last analysis?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the directive is subject to the principle of qualified majority voting.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend inform the House about the attitude of France to paying deposits? Does he agree that without our deposits, some of us who booked into hotels in Normandy nearly two months ago might well have found ourselves out on the beaches and in the fields again?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I trust that should my noble friend find himself on the beach again, it will be with a bucket and spade. It is not for me to speak for the French Government but it would be fair to say that they are generally supportive of the directive.

Sheltered Housing Accommodation
3.1 p.m.
Lord Stallardasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many units of sheltered housing accommodation are currently under construction by (a) local authorities, (b) housing associations and (c) private sector developers.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, during 1993, work started on 1,290 units of sheltered housing accommodation in England. Some 160 of those are being built for local authorities, 830 for housing associations and 300 for the private sector.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. Does he agree that that is an abysmal record in housing for people who are waiting for sheltered accommodation? Does he share with me the commitment outlined in the community care White Paper? In it the Government quite clearly committed themselves to supporting the idea of sheltered and very sheltered housing for the elderly as an important part of community care. The record that he has just outlined seems to me far from meeting that commitment. Can he try to persuade the Government to make a definitive, up-to-date statement on the Government's policy for the future on all aspects of sheltered housing?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as at 1st April 1993 there were 486,000 sheltered housing units in England. Research conducted for the department by Ernst & Young management consultants shows that there is sufficient sheltered housing to meet current needs for elderly people. Indeed, the research shows some evidence of over-provision of ordinary sheltered housing in each region of England. Over the 10 years to 1993, compared with a rise of 9 per cent. in the total housing stock, there has been an increase of 45 per cent. in the number of units of sheltered housing available.
1126
Within that increase, the number of sheltered units provided by local authorities and housing associations has increased by 36 per cent.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. But does my noble friend on the Front Bench agree that, although there is a surplus of housing in this country, it is not in the places where people want to live? Can he therefore confine his last supplementary answer to rather more detail and say where there is a gap in provision for sheltered housing in places where people want to live?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the research undertaken by Ernst & Young has shown that there has been considerable change in recent years in the requirements of elderly people for sheltered housing. More elderly people now wish to remain in their existing houses which are then modified to provide sheltered accommodation.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, the noble Viscount replies for the Government. Why does he only give the figures for England? Is there no problem of sheltered housing in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland? Does he take the view that the hardy folk from those parts of the United Kingdom do not need that kind of attention?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I shall pass on the comments of the noble Lord to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Viscount explain the circumstances in which the Government have found it necessary to call in consultants on this matter? Are we to assume that the Government are without their own resources for knowing what is happening? Do they not have their own projections? Do they always have to go for consultants? How much are they paying them, anyway?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, to answer the first part of the question, the Ernst & Young research was commissioned by the Department of the Environment in order to take stock of existing provision of housing for elderly people. The findings from the research will inform future policy. That demonstrates the Government's interest and commitment to housing for elderly people. As to the cost of the research, I cannot answer the noble Lord.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that there are growing numbers of mentally and physically frail older people over 85 who need sheltered housing? Is it not the case that the number of new sheltered housing starts in the socially rented sector is less than one-third of that of a decade ago? Is he aware that the research commissioned last summer by the Joseph Rowntree Trust stated:
"New sheltered and very sheltered housing is badly needed. This is to meet the needs of the increasing numbers of physically and mentally frail people over 85"?
How does the Minister reconcile that statement with the research from his consultants?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the research for the department shows a national and regional shortfall in

1127
very sheltered housing—that is, accommodation for the most frail elderly people who require not just a resident warden but care assistants.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I understand that the cost of the research was in the region of £3 million. Can the noble Viscount say how many units of very sheltered accommodation could have been built for that money?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have an answer to the noble Countess's question.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the noble Viscount perhaps answer my question? Will he tell us, in the light of care in the community policies, the Government's estimate of the need for sheltered and very sheltered housing units, so that the elderly may remain in the community?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as I said earlier, present research shows that there is a surplus of sheltered accommodation and that the only shortfall is in very sheltered housing. The research also indicates that it may be possible to upgrade substantially some of the earlier stock—which is based on the concept of communal use—more in the direction of very sheltered housing.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Viscount accept that there is a wide gap between the Government's position and statistics on this issue, and the understanding of those who are closely involved with the provision of sheltered accommodation? Does he agree that there is therefore a need for up-to-date information from the Government about their exact policy? There is a great deal of doubt about the Government's policy on sheltered and very sheltered accommodation. Has it not been proven by the exchanges in the House today that there is a need for an urgent statement from the Government about their future policy on sheltered housing?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I return to the research undertaken by Ernst & Young, which will be available in full in the coming months. I suggest that noble Lords await that report. Then we can come back to this matter.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that, if there are vacancies, it is because people cannot afford to go into sheltered housing, even though they may want to do so? I know of many people who need sheltered accommodation but cannot afford it.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, that is a matter which I shall refer to my right honourable friend.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how the Government select consultants to do such work? Is it by lowest competitive tender and, if so, do they get what they pay for?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I understand that the choice of consultants is done by competitive tender.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.9 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Clinton-Davis and the Lord Dean of Beswick set down for this day shall each be limited to 2½ hours—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Broadbridge and the Lord McColl of Dulwich be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport in London
3.10 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis rose to call attention to the state of transport in London; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this debate will enable the House to examine what purports to be the Government's transport policy and their strategy for London, and to consider some real alternatives. It would be nice to think of the Government embracing a suitable transport policy. In a sense it would be like crossing the Rubicon. The trouble is that they would not have the infrastructure or the transport to do it.
There has been no sign of any coherent strategy by the Government over the past 15 years to deal with the essential reasons for congestion and the geriatric infrastructure of our public transport networks in London and indeed elsewhere. There is a hopelessly misconceived and perverse order of priorities and, through our loyalty to petrified opinions, a refusal to acknowledge the clear need to transfer more financial provision from road programmes in order to improve London's public transport. So the Government go on with their hard-boiled and half-baked ideas about widening the M.25, and many roads like it. That is an extremely costly policy involving billions of pounds and it is a wrong order of priorities.
We constantly hear from Ministers the assertion that the Department of Transport spends 40 per cent. of its budget on public transport even though that accounts for only 10 per cent. of the travel in the United Kingdom. I am sure the Minister will say that again tonight. I sometimes have the uncharitable idea that what Ministers say exhausts all communication with the truth and reality. I suspect that, like other departments, the Department of Transport keeps three sets of statistics: one to deceive the public; one to deceive Parliament; and one to deceive itself.
Where do the Government derive their statistics from? They come from the annual report. They exclude expenditure by the Scottish and Welsh departments on roads; they include spending in a number of areas which would be difficult to define as public transport. I refer, for example, to the Royal train, payments to the National Freight Corporation pension fund and provision for the coastguard services. All those are included in the 40 per cent. If we strip out those items and take into account spending in Scotland and Wales, then the percentage of government expenditure on transport in the public sector is not 40 per cent. It is 26 per cent.
We can take another interesting comparison. There are 14,037 people employed by the Department of Transport. But of that number only 244—less than 2 per cent.—are actually employed in the public transport division. I obtained that information from the Department of Transport's annual report also. Does not that reflect the true order of priorities?
Rail transport in London is crucial to its economy, strength and viability. Over many years, not least the past 15—perhaps it has something to do with the former Prime Minister's hostility to public transport—we have seen chronic under-investment in London Underground, in Network SouthEast and in the bus system, coupled with a substantial increase in usage, particularly in the mid- 1980s. By any token the result is an unfavourable comparison between London's rail systems and those in other cities which compete with London, particularly on the continent. There is gross overcrowding, huge inconvenience and an unacceptable crime rate not unrelated to the de-staffing policies which have followed ineluctably from the uncertainty and changing government investment and other policies.
The importance of the rail systems is demonstrated by one simple fact: that 80 per cent. of peak hour travel to central London is provided, 34 per cent. by British Rail and 46 per cent. by London Underground. London Underground calculates that it will need investment of between £500 million and £600 million a year simply to maintain the existing system in its already unsatisfactory state. The average provision falls substantially short of that notwithstanding the fact that in a debate as recently as 21st April, Mr. Norris, the Minister for Transport in London, confirmed a statement he had made previously that it was perfectly obvious to a blind man that more money needs to be spent than is provided at the moment. He can say that again. The problem is that if we go on neglecting the infrastructure on the present scale, it will inevitably lead to a further spiral of deterioration which, in the long term, will cost infinitely more to put right.
The daily experience of passengers does not mirror what is revealed as a pretty complacent attitude on the part of the Government. Passengers are faced daily with disruption. In 1993 nearly 1,500 stations closed for more than 20 minutes and 100 stations for more than one month. On average in that year just under 10 per cent. of London Underground's escalators were out of action. Thirty per cent. of track is in an unacceptable state and speed reductions are constantly imposed in order to maintain reasonable safety standards.
1130
Embankment slips have doubled over the past five years; the incidence of broken rails has increased by 85 per cent.; and signalling is on average 30 years old arid registers a substantially higher failure rate than in virtually any other major city in Europe. Power failures, like the one on the Central Line in November 1993, which shut down the eastern section on that line for more than a week, are at least contributed to by the age of cabling. Those are serious matters. By failing to tackle them and the root problem of the need to change the whole pattern of transport investment policy, the Government are storing up a huge problem for the future.
In 1991 the Government conceded in the Autumn Statement that the requisite investment in the existing network was £700 million. They broke that promise pretty swiftly. There is nothing unusual about that. After all, this Government do not exactly observe a sterile attachment to consistency. In 1993, in their Annual Statement, the Government indicated that £541 million would be available for the "London Transport Core" in 1996–97. That was substantially less than the Government themselves thought was the basic minimum. Will even that amount be forthcoming ? Perhaps the Minister can tell us.
London Transport's complaint is that the figures fluctuate so widely from year to year that it is virtually impossible to engage in any rational planning of the system. It is widely recognised by transport experts that what London needs is a new metro, what is called "A Decently Modern Metro". I do not know who devised that term—it could have stood some improvement—abut nonetheless that is what it is called. 'To achieve that, consistent investment over a decade will be required. I believe that it would be cheaper to undertake that expenditure over the longer term. It would prove an asset to London and to its international competitiveness.
Perhaps it was because the chairman-to-be of London Transport, Dr. Alan Watkins, had the effrontery to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was wrong in his attitude towards London Transport that the Government decided to take the rather disagreeable step of making sure that he would not become the chairman of London Transport. That was a discreditable episode in the Government's relations with London Transport, particularly as the man spoke out as he thought it was necessary to speak out and, of course, he had the support of the board members. It is a pity that the Government felt it necessary to dispense with a man of that quality and ability.
This year London Buses will purchase no new buses at all. Instead, in pursuit of the Government's fixation in preparing the bus operating companies for sale, which will not provide any new money to improve the operation of the buses, London Buses must depend on refurbishing old buses. That is not a sensible policy for the future. It is not good for passengers and it is not good for British manufacturers of buses. The only beneficiaries are likely to be the maintenance crews who will have increased work.
Crime and fear of crime remain at an unacceptably high level on London Underground and the railways. De-staffing has contributed to that, especially during the

1131
evenings and at weekends. Inadequate lighting and communications systems in areas awaiting modernisation undermine the confidence of travellers and potential travellers, especially women. I have never perceived that the Government have taken that criticism seriously. I should like to hear something more from the Minister about that. The Government posture a great deal about their anti-crime measures but it is usually posturing before a Conservative Party conference. When they actually come to deal with the practical measures, they are found to be wanting.
Fares are the highest in Europe and fare increases are substantially in excess of inflation. That, of course, is the essential prerequisite for privatisation. The travelcard, which has been a real London Transport success story, has not emerged unscathed, as Ministers had promised. It was Mr. Norris who on 3rd December 1993 asserted that the travelcard would continue in form and in substance in terms of price and in real terms. What happened was that a month later the cost of the travelcard was increased by more than 6 per cent., far more than the rate of inflation, and, indeed, on the lower bands, by more than 9 per cent. Northern Line passengers, through redesignation of the zones —a bit of sleight of hand—faced a rise of £168 a year. Those are stunning examples of breaches of faith by the Government which occurred virtually as soon as they had made their promises.
We take the view that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system operating in London for determining the strategy for London Transport. There is a view that the whole system needs to be changed. It is diffuse and inefficient at the present time. There are three railway systems, each with different operators and different Ministers. Twenty-four bodies are involved, together with all the London boroughs. New ways must be devised for raising resources for investment in London transport. It is time for the Treasury to contemplate abandoning its pretty inconsistent approach to the hypothecation of revenue. After all, the national non-domestic rate is a national tax hypothecated for local government. There is the Metropolitan Police precept, which is a form of hypothecation. I am sure that the Department of Transport, if it could admit it, would like that kind of thing to happen. The Treasury must reconsider its position, as indeed it did over the leasing of trains for British Rail. The idea of a bond system as is applied in the United States is worthy of consideration.
I turn to British Rail. What we have had here is doctrine applied, emanating from some of the craziest ideas of Right-wing think tanks, which has led the Government towards the fragmentation of the railways system at a time when the system required stability and coherence. Already rail privatisation has cost £664 million—£303 million on redundancies and early retirement; £146 million on the reorganisation of British Rail; £48 million on lawyers and consultants; and £52 million to set up the new track authority, Railtrack, and the Office of Passenger Franchising.
The costs of running the network have been rising as a result of the new charging system which has been
1132
brought in by Railtrack, much having to be picked up by the Government because they indicated that fares should not be allowed to rise too sharply in the wake of privatisation. InterCity, the most profitable of British Rail's old divisions, has indicated that the cost of running the east coast main line between London and Edinburgh had doubled to £170 million. The Government are perfectly happy to open up their cheque book for privatisation, which is hardly popular with the electorate, while the system is starved of essential investment. None of this expenditure has provided new rail tracks, new signals, new rolling stock or added security for passengers. What BR needs, as it said in evidence to the Select Committee on Transport of another place in May 1993, is £400 million a year, excluding CrossRail and the Channel Tunnel rail link, to maintain the present rail network in the South East in reasonable condition so as to meet the targets of the Passenger's Charter on a reasonable basis.
There is an alternative to the Government's ad hoc-ery, to their failure to observe the complete inconsistency of their policies, to their refusal to understand that the health and environment problems of the city are exacerbated by their wholly discredited policies, involving more and more road building which they believe will solve London's traffic and transport problems. They are wrong about that. They are also wrong in blindly refusing to examine what is likely to be Britain's and London's transport needs in the 21st century. Is the future simply to be an ever-increasing volume of cars on roads that can never deal with the ensuing congestion; or do we seek ways and means of discouraging unnecessary car use?
In answering that question public transport has to be the practical, efficient and safe alternative. That includes also better use of the River Thames; CrossRail, over which the Government haver and waver; and indeed undertaking the other changes to which I have alluded. London needs a programme of public and private investment in public transport. It needs a fares policy to encourage the use of public transport of high quality. It needs provision to enable London Underground to maintain the existing infrastructure and modernise the existing lines. Stations must have good access by lifts and escalators and adequate staff to provide passenger security and information. The East London line urgently requires improvement and early completion of the Docklands Light Railway extension to Lewisham should be assured.
What are the Government proposing to do about undertaking studies of the potential of light rail, tram and park-and-ride schemes to help reduce congestion? What plans have they for the purchase of new buses to replace London's ageing fleet and thereby reduce—or help to reduce—exhaust emissions and noise on the streets of London? What are they doing about providing a cycle network for the city, and will they abandon their disgraceful plans to meddle with the control of heavy lorries in London? Will they provide London boroughs with regulatory powers over off-street parking, moving traffic offences on bus lanes and bus priority schemes, and also powers to control vehicle emissions?
Let us not hear from the Government how much better they are doing than the Liberal Government of 1909. Let Ministers recall what the Prime Minister himself had to say in an interview with the Los Angeles Times in the summer of 1993. He said:
"We have been here for 14 years. There is no one else one can blame for anything that has gone wrong".
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for giving us this opportunity to debate transport in London. I say at the outset that I have a lot of sympathy with some of the things that he said, particularly in regard to the needs of both the railways and the Underground, to get the funds to stand still. I am also grateful for his brief mention of the river, to which I believe we have paid far too little attention in the context of transport. In addition, I thank the noble Lord for raising a subject which I also mentioned 10 years ago in this House; namely, the concept of the tax exempt bond, which I feel is particularly important in terms of attracting funding for what one might call the "big ticket" items. Towards the end of his speech the noble Lord mentioned the East London project and CrossRail. I believe that perhaps the tax exempt bond should be looked at again as a means of attracting private finance—particularly from the widows and orphans, because there is a tax exempt dimension—into our transport infrastructure.
I must begin by declaring, as usual, two interests; one in the railways and one in tourism. But I have a third interest—that of never having had a driver's licence. That may make me almost unique among today's speakers. It makes me particularly dependent on a public transport system which is efficient, reliable and which offers value for money. While transport in London is not perfect, I believe that British Rail, London Transport, taxis and other service providers meet my needs and meet them relatively well. Nonetheless, we are right today to look at where they are, so to speak, and where we should like them to be.
I turn first to the buses, which is one of our underused resources in that the load factors are low and there is a great deal of unused capacity on offer. It is perishable capacity because once a bus seat has gone from Piccadilly to Hounslow, it is dead and it can never be retrieved. It has been empty. I wonder whether marketing and a fares policy can improve that usage? I believe that there are still opportunities, especially in terms of the strip card or carnet which are widely available on the Continent. It is a system whereby one prepays for a number of units of travel and these units are cancelled by oneself or by the bus crew as one uses them. I believe that London Buses is just beginning to pilot project the smart card. That is another option. I believe that such ticketing systems contribute to customer loyalty and user friendliness. That does not take place on the bus itself. It is the time-consuming cash transaction which is one of the great negatives of getting on a bus.
My second proposal for increasing bus usage is that of integration with other modes in terms of connecting
1134
points and of scheduling. I was most impressed on a recent visit to Stockholm to travel to the end of a suburban line run by Swedish Rail on behalf of Stockholm County PTA. Five minutes after the train arrived some 10 buses departed the interchange in various directions. Co-ordinated timetables, guaranteed connections and through ticketing by means of travel card, carnet, or a single journey ticket made for a seamless operation of great appeal to the customer. If we brought such systems to London, or developed them here, they would not impose a correspondingly large outlay of funds.
The third way to improve bus usage is, of course, by means of congestion-reducing measures, red routes and bus lanes. For obvious reasons I am not qualified to comment very much on roads (I have already made that clear) or on roads policy, but I believe that there is much to be done—and again it is low cost—in terms of extending these concepts and, just as importantly, in terms of enforcing them.
I am glad that London is not to have totally free-for-all bus deregulation. One has seen the problems which that has posed in provincial cities. But as we proceed to overhaul the system I hope that we will not overlook the importance of the big red bus in terms of a brand—a marketing symbol which, like Big Ben, Tower Bridge, St. Paul's and, indeed, the Palace of Westminster is the envy of every other city in the world in tourism terms. May I make a plea that it be a condition of being allowed to operate buses in Central London that they be red buses? It has been done in Stockholm and in Copenhagen. It is not impossible.
I turn now to rail-borne transport, starting with the Underground. Of course I would like to see more investment, in particular that investment which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned, in order to give us a decent, modern Metro. I believe that the phrase was coined by the chairman of London Transport. But as long as funds are limited (and I fear that they always will be) and the demands on them will be many and varied, I wonder whether "big ticket" items like Chelsea-Hackney, the Jubilee Line extension, total route refurbishment and new fleets of rolling stock, should be the priority over making the most of what we have got and giving London Transport the funds to make the most of what we have got.
My own feeling is that London Underground has improved immeasurably in recent years. I know that that is not a totally shared view, but it is my feeling and, as I say, being a public transport dependant. I probably see it more than most. There should be a greater balance between small scale improvement and the big-spend highlights. Escalators and lifts are still a problem. Power supply problems are such as to hit the headlines while signal failures and track failures are so commonplace as not to do so. The situation is similar for rolling stock failures although I am greatly impressed by both the look and the performance of the refurbished stock which is appearing on more and more routes.
However, I wonder whether we are being bedazzled by route expansion at the expense of that day-to-day maintenance, humdrum though it is, which customers and repeat business rely on and which also serves to

1135
reduce congestion on the roads. It is too early to comment on the consequences of the Railways Act, although I have. Noble Lords know my reservations as regards fragmentation, which is a word which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, also used. But if one looks to the future one must consider investment. CrossRail —especially if it connects easily with Heathrow Express —is attractive, but I wonder how necessary it would be if we got the Underground right, especially the Central and Circle lines. It is additionally difficult to discuss CrossRail, especially today, because one is in a state of limbo not knowing whether the CrossRail Bill will be allowed to proceed by the Committee in another place. I gather that a decision may be announced this afternoon.
On balance I am in favour, but again I feel that by being in favour we must balance the "big ticket" items with the less expensive day-to-day minor activities on signalling, lighting, platforms and so on. To make the most of existing assets must not be overlooked. I particularly welcome—partly because it is of benefit to me—such new journey opportunities as the Clapham-Olympia-Willesden service starting later this month and the increased frequencies, such as those on the Northern Line and between the City and Gatwick. Those are the instances of maximising the use of resources which I so favour.
If we were to have an expensive item, I would take a long and sympathetic look at Thameslink, the existing north-south BR route through central London, linking Gatwick and Luton airports, interchanging with the Underground at seven points and relieving the Northern Line. It is a north-south CrossRail on the cheap. However, there are constraints on Thameslink, especially in the London Bridge area and especially in rush hours. One must remember that the London Bridge area handles more passengers per day than London Heathrow. I would welcome a capital programme building on the existing infrastructure by adding two extra lines in the London Bridge area, by making sure that the eventual union rail development at St. Pancras also includes the planned, enhanced and resited Thameslink station which was part of the late lamented King's Cross Railways Bill, and with a new link north of an eventual St. Pancras with the east coast main line to open up a whole range of journey opportunities, both in the middle distance (such as to Cambridge and Peterborough) and to the east coast main line.
I believe that that investment, dear though it would be, can be done in stages, each of which would individually produce substantial benefits. I also believe that it would be attractive to what one might call "corporate private capital" as opposed to the tax exempt bond. I have already given my attitude to that. I also believe that in seeking to attract private capital, we should ensure that that private capital does not directly bear commercial risk. After all, aircraft manufacturers and shipyards supply the tools, they do not run the services.
Tourists, of course, pull all this together. Of our 9 million overseas visitors per annum, 90 per cent. use the underground; 53 per cent. use the buses and some 20 per
1136
cent., I understand, use British Rail. More than half of all those foreign users believe that public transport in London offers good value for money. To a certain extent, that contradicts what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said about us having the highest fares in the world. I do not share that view on the basis of my recent experiences in Stockholm and Oslo, role models though they may be in other respects.
The other benefit that tourists bring is that few services are provided specifically for them. Being on holiday they tend not to put undue pressure on the rush hour and generate a considerable amount of income which one might say is unlooked for. Like Londoners, they look for reliability, user-friendliness and value for money. They also look for travelcards. It is essential that travelcards offer value for money because that is where we have a shortcoming compared with many continental operators. Tourists also look for information which is readily available, reliable and understandable.
Like Londoners, tourists would suffer if the systems available were fragmented. Hence, as we continue to change things I hope that my right honourable and honourable friends in the department, as well as others such as the franchise director, the regulator and the service providers, will continue to work towards the preservation of the travelcard and of a first-class information system. I should like to pay a tribute, en passant, to the anonymous people who serve us so well on the telephone line 222 1234. It is essential that we have a reliable information system, if necessary backed by statute, because it is essential that we avoid the problems that have been experienced by so many of the provincial passenger transport authorities. They have a statutory duty to provide inquiry services but cannot always get the information from the operators, which hop in and out of existence.
Tourists wonder why we do not make more use of one of our most under-utilised assets—the one which runs not very far behind me and which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned. I refer to the river. I very much hope that when he replies to the debate, my noble friend will be able to up-date us on the progress of the river working party.
My approach to today's debate has been one of looking at ways to make the best of the assets that we already have. Of course, investment—massive investment—has a role to play, but we must be careful that the list of big ticket projects does not blind us to day-to-day necessity.
3.44 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for initiating a debate on this very important issue. I hope that we shall not dwell too much on either the past or the present in this debate, other than drawing lessons from both, as I feel sure that I am not alone among your Lordships in feeling that sometimes we spend far too much time raking over the past in a spirit of criticism with the aim of making political capital out of the obvious, and acknowledged, sins of omission and commission. Transport in London is far too important an issue to be hijacked by, or dealt with by, one political party or

1137
another. I hope that, as so frequently happens in the House, we can arrive at sensible suggestions which could be considered by the Executive when formulating policies in the future.
That there is a problem is obvious. Not only that—there is not just one problem, but many. I realise that trying to come to grips with such a number and variety of problems will be difficult and necessitates an impartial analysis of the roots of these problems before any sensible suggestions can be made as to how to overcome them.
I should like to give just a brief analysis of the problems as seen from two perspectives—that of the commuter and that of the employer. The commuter above all wants a safe, reliable, clean, efficient service which he or she perceives as good value for money. The employers require exactly the same as the commuter, but with the added assurance that a solution will be found to the current unacceptable level of difficulty which employers find in encouraging staff to take up jobs in central London. A recent survey of over 500 businesses showed that transport infrastructure is the third most important factor (after access to markets and the quality of telecommunications) in making location decisions. If the current situation over transport in London deteriorates further, I fear that long-term location decisions by large-scale enterprises will militate against London. I am aware that that would not be perceived as a problem by many of your Lordships, who feel that there is far too much in London anyway, but let us not forget that London is the most important financial centre in the world and from an international perspective is also regarded as one of the most important business and commercial centres of the world.
In the course of this speech I intend dealing only with public transport in London—for two reasons: first, over 90 per cent. of commuters use public transport, and, secondly, as a result of the large number of people involved, all interest in transport and practically all discussion about transport concentrate on transport by rail (mainline and underground) and bus. We all recognise that transport by car presents its own problems, from the point of view of the commuter, because of the continual decline in traffic speed and from the point of view of the congestion that is caused by transporting very few people in very many cars, taking up a great deal of road space at all times of the day. There are at least two ways of tackling that problem: either make public transport so efficient and attractive that the car user decides to leave his or her car at home or price the motorist out of London. Naturally, I would opt for the former, but I suggest that that is a topic for another debate.
Safety, reliability, cleanliness, efficiency of the service and value for money are all, as I said before, demanded by the commuter. The safety record in terms of accidents resulting in fatal or serious injury is, I am told, exceptionally good both for buses and trains. However, there is genuine concern among female passengers that there is a serious safety problem; the risk of harassment, and worse, is ever-present. Not every female has the presence of mind or coolness in a crisis to deal with these situations and something
1138
definitely needs to be done. I hope that future policy decisions will take serious account of this issue. We must protect all our people—at every hour of the day and/or night.
Despite what one reads in large headlines in the newspapers, the reliability of the Underground is definitely seen to be improving. There will probably not be too many compliments hurled in the direction of London Transport today, but many people have told me that it is definitely trying very hard to treat passengers as customers and as intelligent human beings. A Friend said only this morning, "They have improved so much; whenever there is a delay you are told the reason why and if they don't know the reason why, you are told that the information will be given to you as soon as possible". Please let us not knock London Transport too much. Constant complaining has a brutal demoralising effect on staff and management and is most dispiriting when they are trying to do their utmost.
Cleanliness is another matter. But who dirties the trains? It is not the staff. I fear that we have become a nation of litter louts. I am often appalled at the state of the inside of people's cars, particularly company cars —"The fault, dear Brutus'', and so on.
Sadly, public transport in London is not perceived as value for money. I use the word "perceived" as I know that the true cost of motoring—the cost of the alternative (with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, who is not in his place, who believes that cycling is the alternative)—is not admitted, or even calculated roughly. I have done some back-of-the-envelope calculations as to the true cost per mile of driving my car in London, taking into account items such as depreciation, petrol, maintenance, insurance, tax, parking fees and, indeed, parking fines, and the result is horrific. A train or bus ticket is probably one-tenth the price.
So the result of my analysis: we want and need a safe, reliable, clean and efficient public transport system in London. We are well on the way to having a good system, but it could and should be much better.
London is a world class city and needs a world class transportation system to match. The Victorians had the right idea: plan for a long time ahead, and thank Heavens that they did; otherwise where would we be now? Sadly, it appears to me that current thinking concerning the transportation system is very short-term and greatly influenced by the Treasury. Short-term troughs in the economy should not, and must not, be used as a "snapshot" upon which to base decisions on the need for investment in transport infrastructure, particularly in projects which by their very nature require a long gestation period.
All that has been brought home to me during the ongoing discussions on CrossRail. Let me here declare a tenuous interest. The Corporation of London, my employer, has been among the strongest supporters of CrossRail since the inception of the scheme. There are regional implications for the scheme. It is not only a London area scheme. The frustration of travellers through London, arriving at one mainline station and

1139
travelling through London to another mainline station, is well-known. It seems ludicrous that in the last decade of the 20th century that situation persists.
But that is only one problem that would be solved by CrossRail. Employment studies for London carried out by Coopers and Lybrand, KPMG Peat Marwick and Cambridge Econometrics show that employment in central London is linked directly to the concentration of skilled professional services in the area, and 90 per cent. of those jobs are carried out by commuters. Major recovery following the recession (one study suggests that employment in those sectors will increase from its current level of 3.4 million to 3.7 million by 2010 and to 4.6 million by 2025) will put enormous strains on an already strained system. That makes it imperative that additional public transport facilities are provided.
Those professional and skilled employees demand high standards of comfort. But, sadly, it appears that the current planning for CrossRail actually embraces lower comfort standards; the new 21st century carriages for CrossRail are planned on the basis of 80 standing passengers for every 100 seated! That compares with the current British Rail standard of 35 standing for every 100 seated. That will never be acceptable. Even more importantly, it is patent nonsense to be planning for a significant reduction in standards. What other business would ever do that?
I appeal to the powers that be to be as imaginative and far-sighted in their future planning for rail transport in London as were the Victorians. We truly cannot afford short-termism here. Much better to postpone the introduction of CrossRail than to do it on the cheap. Our recent experience, where the Channel Tunnel will not be as effective as it could be because of botched planning of the feeder route demands, must surely have taught us something.
An extension of Thameslink shows the best cost-benefit analysis of all rail schemes currently under examination as it would cost a relatively small amount of £400 million (compared with the estimate of £2 billion for CrossRail and the large investment of £1.7 billion to £2.1 billion in the Jubilee Line, which shows the worst cost-benefit). But all of the schemes, I am reliably informed, indicate that it is cheaper to encourage rail access to the centre rather than road-based schemes, without even taking into account the environmental superiority of such transport: fewer homes affected, fewer pollutants, less noise and better use of finite fossil fuels.
But hand in hand with further developments in rail transport, it is imperative that we improve, and make much better use of, the bus network potential. It is heartening to know that the London Bus Priority Network is being progressed actively by the London boroughs in conjunction with London Transport and is being funded by the Department of Transport. The network of 600 kilometres will complement the existing Red Routes network, which amounts to 12 kilometres only, and should be substantially in place within 6 to 10 years. I have to say that, having read quite a bit about deregulation of buses in Sheffield and Nottingham, which does not seem to have worked, I am delighted that
1140
the Government are not going to deregulate buses in London but are going to encourage greater efficiency by contracting out.
It is also a personal delight to know that the buses will still have the red livery (British Telecom, please bring back all the red telephone boxes and Post Office please do not remove our red post boxes !)
To summarise, transport in London is not up to the standard one expects of an international world class capital, but it is improving and is nothing like as bad as it has been. There are many aspects of rail transport that should be praised, not least the efforts being made to treat passengers as customers. Our safety record is enviable. But there is a serious danger that unless long-term visionary investment is made soon, London will lose its edge as a leading world capital. We cannot afford to be cheeseparing when looking at levels of standards for the 21st century. Great support should be given to the London Bus Priority Network. Finally, although I say it against myself, car travel in London should be restricted. Again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for giving us an opportunity to air our hopes, fears and views on this most important subject.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for raising this still pressing issue. Londoners were relieved to hear a month ago that the Government had stopped blocking the purchase by London Underground of new trains for the Northern Line. I am glad to congratulate the Government on that rare burst of common sense. One would like to know whether there has been any further progress in the matter of the Northern Line. I understand that the manufacturing companies are to be asked to submit their proposals. After that a contract will presumably be signed. But what the public and the manufacturers will want to know is when the work of manufacturing those trains will begin and when they will go into service. It would be a further source of gratitude to the Government if they would answer that question.
Despite that welcome concession by the Government, investment in London Underground Limited is still desperately short. The company has long estimated that annual capital expenditure of £900 million is required to produce what the chairman has rightly called a "decent modern metro". Compared with that £900 million, the Government's allotment to London Transport this year will be only £475 million. Meanwhile, while the Government are making those still crippling cuts in railway infrastructure, one is astonished to find that they are apparently spending huge sums of public money on the mere mechanism of privatising the railways and not on improving the services.
According to detailed reports in the financial press —if these figures are wrong I hope that the Minister will be able to give me the correct ones—in 1992, some £303 million of public money was spent on staff redundancies and early retirement; a further £146 million was spent on "restructuring", whatever that means; £100 million on "integrating the new system", which is privatisation; £20 million on establishing the new quango, Opraf; £20

1141
million on another quango called Ofrail; and, most astonishing of all, £48 million on fees to legal, financial, public relations and other advisers. Will the Minister tell the House whether those figures are correct—they are all an expenditure of public money—and just what they mean? If they are correct, hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent on paying people to stop working—that is, on forcible redundancies and early retirement—and to do nothing instead; on setting up absurd quangos which were never before necessary; and on handouts to public relations and other City friends of the Government rather than on improving services for the commuters.
Altogether, the privatisation of British Rail—that is, the bureaucratic juggling rather than the creation of real assets—is costing the taxpayer £649 million. If that figure is wrong, will the Minister give us the correct sum? But when it comes to the sums involved in privatisation, the Government's extravagance throws a different light on their refusal to assign to London Underground the funds that it needs for new trains, better signalling and so forth. These are what the London public want and they will not forgive a government who refuse the finance on the ground of a lack of resources but who meanwhile are handing over tens of millions of pounds for advice from organisations outside the railways.
Perhaps I may deal with the sum of £300-odd million for staff redundancies and early retirement. Everyone knows that London Underground and London suburban railways are acutely undermanned. Indeed, the undermanning and under-investment are mainly responsible for the deplorable conditions which followed the government takeover of London Underground in 1985 and 1986. I agree that as a result of great public protest there has been in the past year or two some improvement, but there has not been a return to the former conditions.
I shall give an example of undermanning. At Westminster Underground Station yesterday afternoon only one booking office was open and 30 or 40 people were queueing wearily to buy tickets. That kind of muddle causes extreme inconvenience and loses the enterprise revenue rather than helping its finances. In many London and suburban stations one cannot buy a ticket however much one wants to because there is no one there to sell tickets. Yet the Government are still spending millions of pounds not on paying people to do useful jobs but, in effect, on paying them to do nothing.
I turn now to the £48 million spent on fees to legal, financial and other advisers. I suppose that it may be wise to pay Messrs Rothschild, Saatchi & Saatchi or Ernst & Young, about whom we heard earlier today, £40,000 to tell the Government how to run a railway. But how can it be right to hand out a sum of £48 million for such advice? One would like to know whether that figure is correct and who received all that money. Will the Minister tell the House and say what kind of advice the Government have received in return?
Virtually no one outside the Government believes that rail privatisation will improve anything, least of all in London. But if the mere changeover is to cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds in extravagant
1142
handouts to private interests, most people will regard it as an outrage. It certainly makes a mockery of the Government's excuse that they cannot afford to provide decent conditions on London Underground for the millions of commuters who need them most.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, when I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, had tabled this Motion I expected and hoped for a dynamic reappraisal of the Labour Party's policies for dealing with the difficulties of transport in London. Sadly, the noble Lord spent most of his time today cataloguing in some detail the entire downside of the Government's transport policies, whether in London or elsewhere in the country.
In his concluding remarks he said that there are alternatives. He said that we must have a better public transport system, a better fares policy, a better policy and more support for the Underground, and an improvement of park-and-ride systems. The noble Lord did not say how those aims were to be achieved, by whom and at what cost. The only part of his speech with which I found myself in total and absolute agreement was his belief that there must be a longer-term thinking and commitment to transport infrastructure.
That remark cannot be addressed only to the present Government—I have heard it said in your Lordships' House and elsewhere for the past 30 years. And still we do not regard transport infrastructure as part of the country's investment in the future. Successive governments have produced various and different plans, but financial restrictions have meant a cancellation or postponement. That is an indictment on governments of all persuasions.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans discussed some of the ways what we already have can be improved. I thought that was a useful approach because we do not have billions of pounds to spend. Claims on public expenditure are enormous and competitive, whether in health, education or anything else. Transport infrastructure must take its share and, sadly, I do not believe that is a big enough share. The ratio in road transport of road taxation revenue is 2.7:1 of spend on road infrastructure. When we talk about hypothecation, as did the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, we know that in truth that will never happen. Governments of all persuasions like to put the revenues in one pot and to dispose of them as they see fit from time to time. Therefore, such a situation is wishful thinking.
Perhaps I may look for a few moments at some of the successes in recent years. We know that rail provides the core of London's transport needs. Three-quarters of peak period arrivals in central London are by rail. There are over 3 million passenger trips daily made by train or Underground. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, London commuting has declined by 20 per cent. since 1989.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I said that in the mid-1980s there had been that enormous increase.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that clear. My understanding is that there is a decline. And yet to the

1143
year ending in March of this year the railway system has not paid any compensation money in terms of failing to meet its charter. There may be difficulties and uncomfortable journeys, but that is a significant piece of progress. I have no doubt that will improve as we go along.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans and others have mentioned CrossRail and, in particular, Thameslink. In my view, and certainly in the view of the railway undertakings, those projects have a real chance of success and we should compliment them on that.
Some noble Lords have discussed signalling and track failures. And yet Railtrack's brief, which noble Lords will have seen, describes its current developments: £100 million has been invested in resignalling for London, Tilbury and Southend; the South East resignalling scheme and so on. One cannot look at London transport in isolation from other parts of the country: the Great Eastern line is going ahead. Significant progress is being made in those areas. I think it would be unfair to deny that is taking place.
As your Lordships may have expected, I turn to roads. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said that she had some reservations about the use of cars coming into London because they bring few people and cause congestion and pollution. She suggested that there were two ways to deal with that: first, to provide better public transport—and one can agree with that—or to price motor cars out of London. That will never happen. Any significant increase in motor vehicle taxation has not produced any lessening of motor vehicle use over the long term. The car pricing schemes in Oslo, Bergen, the Netherlands and Hong Kong have all been abandoned as being ineffective. There is only one scheme which is half working; and that is the supplementary licensing system in Singapore.
It is no good pushing away the inevitable. As my noble friend Lord Mountevans said, we must make the best use of the motor vehicle for those who need it, or think they do, and accommodate that. The Minister in another place, Mr. Norris, has said time and time again that we need to provide better parking facilities in those areas where they are needed—not on the streets, for sure. One might then be able to use the short-term park and ride, or, indeed, Shanks' pony, from those parking areas. For example, it is no good having a fairly miserable car park under Hyde Park for people who wish to come to Westminster. We really should encourage boroughs to use the revenue that is received from car parking to provide such facilities which direct the motorist.
On the wider front, on 30th March my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced the outcome of the review programme. Sadly, but inevitably, the whole of the programme which was contained in the consultative document Roads for Prosperity has had to be abandoned. A kind of priority system has now been re-enacted and re-evolved. My right honourable friend has re-prioritised the road building programme into four categories. There are only two which really matter: first, the active category which comprises some 80 schemes—22 per cent. of the
1144
programme or 25 per cent. by value—and the active/firm programme, to be completed within the 10-year planning period, which comprises some 173 schemes. Therefore some 120 schemes have now been set aside.
The road programme must continue with both upgrading and extension if our manufacturing industries, trade and commerce are to succeed. Whether one puts 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. more traffic on to rail, it will not make a great deal of difference to the use of commercial vehicles. We should understand that and make use of what we have. That includes improving road infrastructure outside London, so to direct heavy traffic out of London. I agree with those who stand in Parliament Square and wonder why some of the cross-Channel TIR traffic trundles over Westminster Bridge, through Parliament Square and down through the park. That is probably the shortest and easiest distance, which has to be discouraged.
Lastly, I must declare an interest in that I am, as some of your Lordships will recall, a member of the Public Policy Committee of the RAC. I understand that the Standing Joint Committee of the RAC, the AA and the Royal Scottish Automobile Club wrote recently to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking what the general policy was to be on excise duty on fuel. It has been declared that is to increase by 5 per cent. per annum, but we do not know for how many years it will be increased per annum. I have a copy of that letter. HM Treasury's Ministerial Correspondence Unit replied:
"Thank you for your letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer … about Excise Duty on Petrol.
After consideration, it appears that the matters raised are the responsibility of the Department of Transport, so I have sent your letter to John MacGregor's Office with a request that a reply be sent to you direct".
I do not know how my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport can undertake his tasks if there is no policy in the Treasury as to excise duty on transport—whether it is a matter of road fund licences, road pricing or raising money from transportation.
I should like to urge my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench today to respond to the letter. However, he cannot do so. Nevertheless, I urge him to draw the attention of his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that as regards transport infrastructure—that is, rail, road and in manufacturing industry—users need to know what is the long-term policy of the Treasury towards the transport problem in the United Kingdom, and especially in London. Without that knowledge we shall not be able to solve any of the problems.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the title of today's debate is not "Buses in London", "The Underground in London", or "Air Transport in London": quite rightly, my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis chose to refer to "transport in London" which rightly reflects what Londoners want; namely, an integrated system. I, too, live and work in London and use public transport daily, so I can speak with the authority of personal experience.
It is obvious why Londoners want an integrated system. It is so they can get to and from work

1145
conveniently and so that they can make shopping and social journeys easily. That will make their city a more pleasant place in which to live and work by virtue of getting rid of congestion and pollution.
We have been here before. London Transport came about in 1933 when a Conservative Government reluctantly took over Herbert Morrison's Bill to provide a unified public service from the chaos of the competing trams, tubes and buses. As Herbert Morrison said, the purpose of the Bill was,
"to eliminate the present wasteful competition and bring about a co-ordinated system of public transport".
To get an integrated system, we need a strategy and regulation. For many years London had both. Then the Government abandoned them, but last year they changed their mind and decided that London Transport should keep responsibility for fares, routes, timetables and for looking after passengers on the buses. That was announced in November 1993 and greeted with much surprise because in March 1993 the Department of Transport issued a consultation paper about bus services outside London and reported that deregulation of buses had been a success.
The paper spoke of the reduced costs of operation and reduced subsidy. It mentioned an increase in innovation, particularly the use of small vehicles, and an increase in bus mileage. However, what the paper did not mention was the decline in the number of passengers, which is surely the acid test of the success of any bus service. It also failed to report the low levels of profitability and the lack of investment either in buses or in passenger facilities.
I am indebted to Bill Bradshaw, Senior Research Fellow at Wolfson College Oxford, for that analysis. The main reasons that he gives for the decline in patronage is frequent changes of registration and the resulting unreliability. The consultation paper makes much of the needs of the operators, but hardly refers to the passengers' needs. It sounds like the bad old days of eastern Europe when priority was given to the producers rather than the customers.
It is difficult to detect any vision or strategy for transport in London, but what is clear is that the Government believe that there will be savings from competition. Competition between bus companies and competition between different forms of transport, both overground and underground. That is a misapprehension about where the competition lies. The competition is not between one operator and another or one form of transport or another. The real competitor is the private car and to compete with that public transport has to offer the same advantages of convenience, comfort and reliability. Integration, not competition, will provide the convenience and efficiency. Investment and management will provide the comfort and reliability. For years that has been apparent to all Londoners who use public transport but it is perhaps not so apparent to those who travel in cars, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, indicated.
If the objective is to get people out of their cars and on to public transport then public transport has to be made reliable, comfortable and efficient. There is also crime. It is becoming safer to travel on the trains, but the
1146
risk of assault when you get off at stations is increasing. That is largely because fewer staff are being employed at the stations, ticket offices and car parks.
The Government may pay lip service to reducing congestion by getting people to use public transport, but their actions indicate otherwise. Fares have risen far faster than inflation on all forms of public transport. Certainly, to justify that, there are some new buses, some new tube trains and some new rolling stock on the railways. Moreover, some stations have been re-modelled and redecorated. But that contrasts with the increasing unreliability of the system, and that unreliability will only get worse as the equipment becomes older. That is particularly relevant to the Underground. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis reminded us of the escalators that do not work, of the lifts that break down and of the large number of station closures, together with other incidents which cause waits of over 20 minutes. As major breakdowns become more and more frequent due to the unreliability of the equipment, so fewer and fewer people will rely on the system.
How do we get people off the roads and on to public transport? I do not suggest that we use consultants because most of us in industry would probably do a little benchmarking to find out what the best practice is elsewhere to see whether we can learn something from it. That is cheaper than consultants and has shown to be far more effective! To be helpful to the Minister, I have done a little benchmarking for him by having a look at what has been done in two major capital cities faced with the same problems; namely, Zurich arid Washington DC.
The first thing to note is that in each of those cities there has been political accountability, so that the interests and wishes of the citizens have been paramount. The industrial and commercial structures of Zurich and London are not too different. Zurich is an affluent city, and during the time that we have seen a decrease in users of public transport, Zurich has seen a 30 per cent. increase, and that from a higher base. Those concerned carried out a strategic plan and their success or failure is not so much judged by profit signals but from the achievement of those strategic objectives. Public transport has been given a good image so that it is used by all income groups. The integration of a public transport system, and the preservation of a civilised environment, has become an agreed political objective. The city's trams, trollies and buses are integrated with the railway system, which are in turn integrated with the federal railway system.
All transport runs to a strict timetable and interconnects to the maximum possible degree. That is achieved by giving public transport priority through congested areas and privileged access to certain streets using a priority system. There is complete integration of tickets and a determined effort to keep cars out of the city centre by giving priority to public transport, removing parking spaces and introducing traffic calming systems. Much of that is justified by an air pollution map of the city. As a result, the local economy and land values have improved. Incidentally, road pricing is not taken at all seriously. Fares revenues cover

1147
some two-thirds of the city's costs and the city gains benefits from the increased land values by a taxation system.
Many of the same principles apply in Washington DC. Here an underground metro system has been built specifically to reduce road congestion. It is still being developed and, to encourage use, it is integrated with a free bus service at the end of the lines. The system is reliable and simple to use with fare cards similar to our phone cards. The stations and trains are kept spotlessly clean for the simple reason that a clean environment makes many passengers feel a lot safer. There is an awareness programme so that the system can be seen as belonging to the community and something of which residents can feel proud. Interestingly, whereas Washington in general is considered one of the most dangerous cities in North America, the underground system remains relatively crime free. The irony is that much of this has been done with the advice of consultants from London Transport. They have simply told the mayor what they would like to do, but are unable to do in London. Now there is a useful bit of benchmarking !
It is obvious to the people of London, as it is to the citizens of Washington, that one way to get people off the roads is to get them onto the Underground. This should be a first priority and two years ago many people thought that London had an agreed plan called "A Decently Modern Metro", to which my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis referred. This would give London a modern Underground system which would be financially self-supporting after 10 years, and of which we could all be proud. However, already in this first year funding has been cut by nearly half, as other noble Lords have said. Instead of a strategy we get a piecemeal approach, such as deciding to extend the Jubilee Line to bail out Canary Wharf because a small contribution is being made to the cost. The main benefit to Londoners was to have been the station at North Greenwich, but even that seems to have disappeared. Then there is the Heathrow Link which links Heathrow to Paddington, probably London's least accessible main line station. And there is CrossRail, a good idea but we do not know whether it will be connected to the Channel Tunnel Link or the Heathrow Link. So much for integration !
Another way of getting cars off the road is to get drivers on to their bicycles. Endless surveys have shown that most journeys are under five miles and many drivers would prefer to cycle because of the exercise and the convenience, but are afraid to do so because of the traffic. Painting a white line on the road to provide cycle tracks is just not enough because many drivers ignore them and park their cars in the cycle track, and buses block them at bus stops. What does work is a dedicated cycle path separated from motor traffic by a kerb and often shared with pedestrians. As pollution decreases, more cyclists will ride instead of using their cars, but at present it is just too unpleasant and dangerous to tempt cyclists on to the roads. I know—I used to cycle to work in London.
London is suffering from the inability of the Government to plan and deliver an integrated transport
1148
system, to recognise that the real competition is the car and not other public transport companies, and their failure to carry out a 10 year investment plan. The Government also seem to be unable to learn from experiences in other cities. Therefore, let them hand the responsibility to an elected London authority with public accountability, dedicated to making London a better place in which to live and work and dedicated to providing a public transport system, which would be a significant contribution to London's economy and not a drawback as it is today.
4.33 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I am a little surprised, however, that there are so few speakers. Perhaps I should start by declaring my interest. Like many noble Lords I regularly commute to your Lordships' House and I currently use the park-and-ride system. That is, I park my car in north London and come in on the London Underground Northern Line. It is not too bad. However, I have several observations to make.
London Underground's old 1970s dull silver rolling stock is nearly always covered in graffiti. However, the Northern Line runs at least one set of carriages still painted in the old, tasteful cream and maroon livery. It is interesting that the old rolling stock is never vandalised. There is hope for the vandals yet. Even more interesting is the fact that some enterprising person from London Underground has ground away the date of manufacture on the tread plate of each door. When I was a little boy they were marked, I think, "Metro Cammell 1938". However, the old stock seems to go just as well as the 1970s stock. I have not known one to break down yet.
The reliability of the equipment on the Underground is not acceptable. Why is it that about once a fortnight the driver tells the passengers, "This train is defective —all change"? We all dismount with long faces, the doors are closed and the train moves away perfectly. What makes a train defective so that it can move away? How often does it happen, and what is being done about it?
There are physical and safety limits on how close trains can run together—the headway. It seems to be about three minutes. This, coupled with the maximum length of the platforms, limits the rush hour capacity of the line to carry passengers. I say "rush hour" although it lasts a lot longer than one hour. Why, at about 7.30 in the evening, is the headway increased to about eight minutes so that when the train comes in it is usually already packed and there is no chance of a seat? I am a reasonably fit young man. But how uncomfortable it must be for older passengers. It seems to me that London Underground plans the headway to ensure that no one is left standing on the platform rather than that no one is left without a seat.
The noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Mountevans, referred to power failure on London Underground. The national grid criss-crosses London. I was amazed to read that London Underground has its own power station. Is it economic? Or is it just an interesting piece of industrial archaeology that is too

1149
expensive to replace with sub-stations drawing off the grid ? The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, suggested refurbishment and overhaul, and I support him. What I cannot understand is why it is not possible to maintain and overhaul the rolling stock so that it is reliable. I can understand that it might not be economic compared to buying new equipment. I appreciate that these are somewhat technical -points and I do not expect the Minister to answer them today. I look forward to his reply later.
I have spent a little time complaining; I shall now concentrate on the positive. The Underground is an ideal way of getting into town. Subject to the comments I have already made, the service is frequent and safe. I draw your Lordships' attention to safety. We all, sadly, know someone who has come to grief in a motor car accident. But how many of us know someone who has come to grief using public transport, especially the Underground?
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, referred to the cleanliness of Underground trains. The improvement after smoking was banned is noticeable and the Government are to be applauded for not reversing that policy. The managers of a commuter railway always bemoan the fact that they have a morning and an evening peak and that they must have the capacity to match it. But how many other businesses are able to predict their demand years ahead with reasonable certainty? The market is also price elastic. For instance, in the case of Network SouthEast it would not be difficult, in sales terms, to raise the cost of travel so that the business makes a profit. There would, of course, be howls of protest from commuters who feel that they already pay too much for a poor service. They are right. But if the business was profitable it could far more easily finance the new rolling stock and infrastructure improvements that are required. Subsidised commuter transport allows more money to be spent on housing in the commuter belt.
While dealing with the revenue side, I draw your Lordships' attention to the fare dodgers incentive scheme. I refer to the £10 fixed penalty system on London Underground. A travelcard can cost £3.70, so if a fare dodger avoids detection for two days he will save £1.10 if caught on the third day and £3.70 per day thereafter. Regular fare dodgers clearly have a modus operandi which reduces the chances of being detected to an acceptable level. That presumably means being detected less than about once a week. As a fare paying passenger, it is extremely galling to see fare dodgers being apprehended by a ticket inspector but without any embarrassment or imposition of effective penalty. Are the Government satisfied that there is a realistic deterrent to fare dodging?
We all know that the Treasury will starve a public enterprise of capital expenditure even if it means increased maintenance costs and reduced liability over subsequent years. I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, as I am sure that he will not approve of London Underground moving to the private sector. But the private sector can raise capital for long-term transport projects. One need look no further than the Channel Tunnel, a project that may not show
1150
substantial profit for a decade or even more. it is a project involving many uncertainties, riot the least being the demand for its use. There were also significant cost overruns. Despite all that, the finance was still forthcoming eventually.
We should accept that the Treasury of any government will never provide sufficient long-term finance for public transport. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to that. That is why I would support the privatisation of London Underground on the basis of vertical integration.
4.42 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, towards the end of last year, the Government published through the agency of the Department of the Environment a glossy marketing brochure. It was of the kind which is all too often a substitute for policy or achievement. It was described as a prospectus for the future of London and was called London: Making the Best Better. We often complain about the Treasury for containing public expenditure. However, on this occasion I should like to complain about the Treasury allowing that publication. It was a total waste of money; I shall be surprised if any of your Lordships dissents from that statement. Whether the brochure has persuaded Londoners of the case that it makes we shall see.
In the preface to the document, the Secretary of State for the Environment stated:
"London is the world's choice of a city in which to live arid do business".
However much we may love London and be loyal to it, the evidence is lacking when most of the world lives and works elsewhere. In the preface, Mr. Gummer states:
"This document celebrates London".
But it does nothing of the sort. In fact it is a public relations exercise by a Government who have neglected London so that there is less to celebrate than was once the case.
The clue to the document—it is worth devoting a little attention to it—comes in the next half-complaining sentence, which states:
"London's successes far outweigh its problems arid it is time to redress the balance".
That is what the Secretary of State for the Environment said in his preface. So we have this uneasy mixture of hyperbole and defensiveness. Quite soon after the preface and the few opening words, we read the confession that of course there are problems. There is too much crime. Education standards are too low. Housing is poor. The streets are dirty.
Then there is reference to the transport system itself, which is inadequate for the needs of London. Therefore the admission comes early, even in a document which is meant to redress the balance against those who always complain of London's shortcomings.
I do not wish to earn the disapproval of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. She stated that transport was too important to be hijacked by one political party. But that is the way in which we govern ourselves. No one in this Chamber or in another place who has not been a member or supporter of the present Government for the

1151
past 15 years can claim any responsibility for the decisions which have been made—or, more often, not made.
I am ready to predict that there are problems in dealing with transport in London. It is certainly difficult to predict the ebb and flow of public travelling habits; we have seen that. There was a time when we thought that there would be less demand for London transport. The demand then increased and has declined since. The public are unpredictable. Changes in working habits and technology make it difficult to see what travelling pattern there may be 15 or 20 years ahead. That is a fair point to concede.
I also concede that no great, exciting city in the world is entirely free of transport and traffic problems. Cities have grown naturally, and muddle and congestion is part of them. If we were to design and implement a new transport system for London we might find ourselves demolishing a great deal of the London that we love and care for. We do not want to see the comprehensive development of the whole of London even to improve the transport system. Too much deserves to be conserved.
The House has been critical, as I wish to be this afternoon, of the Government for their failures. One has to acknowledge that London requires and deserves a great deal of care and attention. However much we think about the transport problems in other parts of the United Kingdom, London is special; it is the capital of the United Kingdom; and being a great and ancient city, it deserves attention from successive governments.
Why has the problem arisen? I do not wish to make a narrow party political point. It is easy for any Government to despair of London. This Government may have found it difficult to work with local authorities. They believe that somehow the market will solve all the problems in the end. After all, if congestion becomes too acute, then people will cease to travel; a new equilibrium will be found. There has been a good deal of such thinking in the absence of planning. There has been the assumption that traffic, like water, would seep through the streets and find its own level. But that is not the way in which transport can be organised in a great city. It is not the way in which traffic in fact finds its way about.
I agree with noble Lords who have said that one cannot run a great city without adequate public transport. In that respect I endorse also what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to whom we owe a debt for arranging this debate about what he calls the geriatric infrastructure of London. The tragedy is that we are not considering only the problem of neglect today. We all know that the time span for planning and execution is immensely long. So, even if this or any successive Government made a decision to remedy the problems of infrastructure, it would be 10, 15 or even 20 years before we achieved the full benefits.
That having been said, the failure of the present Government over 15 years to support major capital projects, and their extraordinary changes of mind, have been most destructive. I think of the sudden switch from King's Cross to St. Pancras as the terminal of the
1152
Channel Tunnel rail link, after vast expenditure, a great deal of it in the private sector, on planning for the terminal at King's Cross. Then we have the delay in proceeding with the high speed link. Again I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, about quality and high standards. But it is not as though it would have been impossible to build the high-speed link to a high standard by this time or soon after. There was hesitation, dithering, uncertainty—something I believe we should be thoroughly ashamed of when we consider the way the French dealt with the matter once the decision had been made to go ahead with the tunnel. Then there were delays in proceeding with the Jubilee Line and finally delays in proceeding with CrossRail.
The other day I came across a discussion document published by the British Railways board on a cross-London rail link. That was in 1980, 14 years ago. Yet we are nowhere near beginning and there is still a great deal of uncertainty about whether we will proceed with the CrossRail link, to which everyone attaches importance. It is an unhappy story of procrastination and delay.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to upgrading and extending our roads in London. There has been no policy about roads in London since the abandonment of the London motorway box 20 years ago. I remember the important part played in that by the noble Lord, Lord Jay. I took the view at the time that it was the right way to proceed. Having abandoned the London motorway box, there has been no policy at all about those improvements which are essential if we are to have a balanced transport policy for London. However much emphasis we put on public transport and the Underground and other rail systems, we must have an adequate road system, which means that there must be improvements, carefully chosen, which can improve the environment for living and working.
Even if we make some well-chosen improvements to the roads, even if we all make more journeys by public transport, it is still necessary to look at how the traffic should move in London, traffic management and especially our system of parking. I have to say that our system of parking in London is one of which many visitors and residents must surely despair. There is no coherent policy that I can detect for the use either of traffic wardens or of police, who often play a cat-and-mouse game with motorists which is not the way to deal with them, however much we may wish to exclude many of them from London.
Parking policy in London should be simple—by which I mean easy to understand; consistent over the whole of London and not different from one borough to another; and transparent —meaning that it is easy for the traveller to discover what the policy actually is. It is quite wrong to play a cat-and-mouse game with motorists and the policy should be enforced firmly and fairly. The aims should be explicit: to keep traffic moving, to allow space for pedestrians and cyclists and to put safety first. But the present policy results in confusion and resentment and in many unanswered questions.
May I just ask one question of the Minister for him to deal with when he comes to reply? Are parking

1153
meters in London part of the system of traffic management or are they a means of local taxation? Increasingly, it seems to me that they are becoming the second, while there is a proper role, which I have always strongly supported, if they are part of a traffic management scheme.
We all have our own anecdotes on these matters and perhaps I may tell one of my own. A few weeks ago I was in Bedford Square in the centre of London at 8 p.m. There were two young policemen helping someone who was employed to clamp vehicles. At that time they were clamping a car which was in a parking bay and which had been parked there half an hour longer than was allowed in an area where parking meters were in operation until 8.30. The clamping vehicle itself was parked half on the pavement and over double yellow lines. When I pointed it out to the two policemen concerned, they hurriedly moved it elsewhere. In that part of Bedford Square, there were empty parking spaces. So there were two constables concerned with parking one vehicle, so far as I could judge, belonging to someone who was a visitor to London, while a few yards away on Gower Street there was traffic travelling southwards at well over the speed limit and in some cases passing through red lights. One hundred yards away, cars could be freely parked behind the British Museum and were parked in every available space, sometimes dangerously on a corner.
When I said that to the two policemen who, I felt, were slightly self-conscious about their duties, they said: "We are working under the instructions of Camden Borough Council". It may well be that noble Lords are familiar with those procedures and that the Metropolitan Police are working under the instructions of London boroughs, but the policemen could offer me no explanation or defence of their priorities. I put it to the House that this is not the only example of a quite wrong use of police manpower, and that it is a waste of resources for police to be employed in traffic management where there are no considerations of the kind I suggested, either involving the free movement of traffic or of safety. That is not a way in which we should use manpower: it only causes resentment without contributing in any way to a solution to the problems which we have been discussing today.
We now have a Minister for Transport in London. I am afraid, rather like the document to which I referred earlier, it is a cosmetic appointment. Decisions about transport in London are made by the Secretary of State, by the Cabinet or by the Treasury or a combination of all of those. I hope that the Government will now concern themselves with the real issues which have been touched on today and not look for a cosmetic escape from problems in London which are not getting easier and will be most acute within another five years.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I have noticed throughout the debate the tendency for contributors to place before your Lordships their credentials for speaking. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, has never held a driving licence. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, uses public transport regularly. Therefore, I
1154
thought that I would begin my comments by placing before your Lordships my credentials for contributing to the debate.
I have to confess, as a Scot, that when I was asked to wind up the debate my natural reaction was: "Why me?" My own credentials go back to when I first came to London, to the other place, in 1971. I have been here now for 23 years, and have used public transport in London for many of those years. The only four years when I did not use public transport was when I had the luxury—and luxury it was—of a ministerial car, after which I had to go back to using public transport. Fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind; I see the Minister nodding in agreement. Back I went to using public transport. Like all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, I have a fairly wide experience of using public transport in and around London.
My first comment is one of gratitude to the staff of all forms of London transport who, in my view, work tirelessly, sometimes without thanks, to keep transport in London moving, often under difficult circumstances. It is as true today as when the saying was coined that serving the public is possibly the most difficult task that anyone can undertake. Serving the public in terms of transportation is, in my view, important because of the contacts that take place between those who drive the buses and trains and sell tickets and their customers. In my view, serving that public is an even more difficult task and therefore I express my gratitude to the staff of London transport in all its forms for the job they do on behalf of the people of London.
The only noble Lord to mention tomorrow's elections was the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. I am quite pleased that he did so. It gives me the opportunity to say— and I suspect that I may be taking a risk in doing so— that I hope that those who throughout the election campaigns have pedalled their prejudices against ethnic communities throughout London understand fully that the London transport system, and indeed many of our other public services in London, simply could not function without the part played by those of our people who have the privilege to be coloured. I hope that those who pedal such prejudices will pay a heavy price tomorrow at the ballot box.
I return to the question that is under discussion. My noble friend Lord Haskel, in an excellent speech, mentioned the city of Zurich and the way in which public transport is conducted there. One of the advantages that Zurich has, and London does not, is that at the railway station at Zurich airport one can get train connections to almost any other part of that area of Europe to which one wants to travel. That is not true here in London and it causes great congestion. Passengers arriving at Heathrow who want to continue their journeys by rail to any other part of the United Kingdom have to come into central London. There is a proposal to build a link between Heathrow and Paddington, but in my view when forward planning to deal with the problems of traffic in London most serious consideration must be given to providing a railhead at Heathrow airport (there is already one at Gatwick) at which passengers who wish to continue their journey by train can join a train to make their way to the various

1155
parts of Great Britain. That would make a contribution, however minimal, towards solving some of the problems.
I have to say that in the 23 years that I have been in London there were times when I thought that the city would come to a standstill and the Underground would come to a full stop. The skies above were congested before Terminal 4 was built at Heathrow and they are still congested. At times on the roadway between the Underground and the sky there has been almost nothing moving because of traffic problems. I am quite prepared, and quite happy, to concede that there has been a marked improvement. That is why I paid my tribute to the staff. They have played a major part in bringing about that marked improvement in London's transport.
We shall not solve these problems on the basis of the short-term view that is taken by the Government. I greatly look forward to the Minister's speech. With £48 million worth of advice available to him, I am absolutely certain that his brief must be the best that noble Lords will ever have heard read in this House. It is certainly the most expensive. I am looking forward to hearing answers to the problems that have been posed throughout our debate.
I am worried from two standpoints about London Transport not buying any new buses during this coming year. I am worried from the same standpoint as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, in terms of the bus manufacturers and the effect that it will have on those companies, one of which is in my former constituency of Falkirk, which manufacture buses and which in the past have received substantial contracts from London Transport. I am also worried about the opting out of the development of buses which disabled people can board with greater ease. Throughout the rest of the country a development is taking place on certain routes whereby there are buses which disabled people can board with relative ease. It would be sad indeed for London if the result of not buying any new buses is to opt out of that development.
I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I realise that the noble Lord has an interest in the motor trade and therefore in roads and all the associated items that relate to the motor car. But like the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, I believe that we have to get a balance between road development and the need to get traffic out of the city and stop it coming in. I accept that we need sensible road development in London. But I also accept that there is a need to look at policies and programmes that will stop traffic coming into the city. Sooner rather than later government will have to face up to the whole question of the amount of traffic that comes into London on a daily basis.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said that she was not in favour of pricing the motorist out of London. I strongly suspect that at the end of the day—unpopular though it may be—that may well be the conclusion that will have to be reached by the government in power at the time. I am a motorist myself and I know that motorists are by nature lazy. We look for parking spaces and drive our cars to the nearest possible convenient point to suit our needs. Unless we discipline ourselves
1156
and other motorists and stop them coming into London the problem that we have in this city will get worse instead of better.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made another point, about the contact between the RAC, the AA and the Royal Scottish Automobile Club with the Treasury on the question of taxation policy on motor fuels. I admired the noble Lord's naivety. If the noble Lord honestly believes that taxation on fuel has anything to do with transport policy, he really ought to have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Taxation on fuel is a Budget question. It has to do with balancing the books and nothing to do with transport policy. I am not surprised that the Department of Transport, the Treasury, or any other government department, would not give the noble Lord the kind of definitive answer for which the associations to which he referred were looking.
Hypothecation was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and also by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. There is no question of hypothecation. As the noble Lord said, funds go in to the central Exchequer to be disbursed. That has always been the case. There is a famous story about Winston Churchill. He was asked about hypothecation when vehicle excise duty was being increased in the days when that duty was paid on the size of the engine of the car. Winston Churchill is on record as saying, "I'm away to have a drink now from the road fund licence fund"—although, of course, there is no such thing as the road fund licence fund. There is no question of hypothecation. We have to deal with these matters on a much more universal basis.
London needs a special programme for a special problem. It needs a long-term programme. We cannot devise a system that will last only until the end of the present century. We need a system that will take us well into the next century. Part of that system must be to move people freely about London and get them to and from work in comfort, and that is very important on long journeys. One of my noble friends told me that earlier today it took him an hour to get from Chelsea to this House. That is a disgrace in 1994.
These problems have to be addressed. I hope that I have been constructive and given the Minister an opportunity to respond to the debate in a constructive way that will hold out hope to the travelling public in the city of London.
My final words are in the form of a question. There has been much talk of CrossRail. In his reply, can the Minister tell the House exactly what is the position regarding CrossRail? Will it go ahead? There are many doubts as to whether CrossRail will ever be built. I hope that the Minister will give more detail on that issue. I conclude by saying that I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
5.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, this is the first occasion that I have had since I joined the Department of Transport to set out in a general way to the House the Government's policies and programmes for transport in London. It is

1157
not the first time that I have stood at the Dispatch Box. I have stood here at Question Time and answered questions about transport in London, a subject which seems to come up fairly regularly. It gives me the chance to have a little regular spot with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, on the subject of London transport and other transport.
It may seem ironic to some of your Lordships that the debate should be concluded by two people whose accents clearly show that they do not live in London. However, London is full of expatriate Scots with accents just like those of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, and myself. If it were not thus, it would not be nearly such a successful city.
There is no denying that transport is central to the quality of Londoners' lives. In considering the state of transport in London, I suggest that at the beginning of my remarks I can do no better than report what Londoners, visitors to London, and businessmen say when asked what is their view on transport in London.
First, let me tell the House what Londoners and visitors said in response to the Secretary of State for the Environment's consultation document, Making the Best Better. That document did not seem to meet with the unqualified approval of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. But, needless to say, most respondents had something to say about transport. London's Underground, buses and international air connections featured among the 20 most appreciated features—yes, the word was "appreciated"—of the capital. At the same time, just to be fair and to show balance in these matters, 60 per cent. of people commented that there should be an investment in public transport to make it reliable. Of course, there is that investment, as I shall show your Lordships. Much of London's transport is excellent. We should be proud of it and thankful to those who have gone before us for the foresight and investment they put into it. That investment and that work has to continue. One cannot stand still on these matters.
Let me turn to the dreary picture of transport in London painted by most speakers from the Opposition Benches. It was a kind of message to the rest of the world, "Visitor or businessman, avoid this city". That is not the kind of message that I should want to put out if I were batting for Britain or London and encouraging jobs and prosperity to come to the city and to the country. But, I am afraid, it is the kind of message that all too often we hear from the parties opposite. It must have been somewhat worrying for them when they looked at the report mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, about the survey by KPMG Peat Marwick of foreign owned companies operating in the UK. It found that the United Kingdom's infrastructure and transport were highly rated, with closeness to key markets and road, rail and air access all exceeding expectations. A Harris research survey of European senior executives conducted for Healey and Baker designated London the top location for existing and future investment. The main factor which counted with those businessmen was the quality of transport infrastructure. It was a survey of the people who really count when it comes to bringing business, commerce and employment to the capital. The businessmen did not
1158
score London first in that regard, although I should love to be able to tell the House that they had. They scored London second out of 27 cities. That rather contradicts the gloomy view of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, about transport in the city.
Those consultation exercises reaffirm the fact that transport affects most people nearly all the time. London's transport system, as the surveys show, is a positive asset. Great use and provision of transport are the signs of an economy and a capital working and providing great opportunities to further the quality of life, business and also—let us not forget, when we hear people knocking the motor car—personal freedom.
Conversely, heavy traffic and pollution in London are seen as major disadvantages to urban life. New transport schemes for rail and road which have clear economic benefits also bring with them noise and blight for local people. We cannot afford to ignore either side of that equation. The debate is all about balance. We take these issues seriously. We are playing a full part in developing London's transport system for the future.
Our strategy covers three main issues. First, we need to invest in order to improve the efficiency of all transport networks, and the attractiveness of public transport in particular, shifting the balance away from the private car. Secondly, we want those who are delivering public transport to adopt a more commercial approach so that services are delivered according to what customers—not the bureaucrats —want. Thirdly, we want the planning system at the local and strategic levels to provide the right framework so that decisions on land use and transport are more closely integrated.
I start with investment and the relative levels of public investment over different transport modes. We clearly favour public transport over transport by road, investing, as we do, roughly two and a half times as much money in London's public transport system as in its roads. Investment in public transport is at a substantial level. Over the next three years London Transport will be able to invest something like £3 billion.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, invited me not to go back to the 1909 Liberal Government. I do not need to do so. I need go back only to the 1974 Labour Government where I see figures that I mentioned the last time I answered questions on this matter a couple of weeks ago in this House. Over the next three years the planned investment by London Transport in total will be between £900 million and £1 billion at 1993–94 prices.
I brought out my calculator. I barely needed it because the addition sums were quite small. I decided to add up the total investment by London Transport in the years of the 1974 to 1979 Labour Government—again, at the same 1993–94 prices—so that it would be directly comparable with the figure of just under £1 billion a year that I have just mentioned. I found that I got £807 million. Before noble Lords say that that seems reasonably close to the £900 million to £1 billion a year that I mentioned for our in vestment over the next three years, I must say that I needed the calculator because that £807 million was for all the five years of the last

1159
Labour Government. So I do not feel that we can take any lectures from the party opposite when it comes to the investment we have made in London.
There are, however, limits to what the taxpayer can reasonably be expected to contribute, in view of the other pressing needs that we hear about in this Chamber and the other place day after day. That is one of the reasons why we want to harness the resources of the private sector, spelt out by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, through the Government's private finance initiative.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I sit here today, having something of an interest in London but with more of an interest in the northern parts of the country. I was interested to hear the vast figures of investment over the years. The other day the Prime Minister said—and we were very pleased about it in Leeds, where we make engines—that the Jubilee Line is to kick-start the economy. Does the Department of Transport have any say in letting contracts to make sure that the money is spent in this country, as the Prime Minister said, to kick-start the economy. We are faced with 300 redundancies in the Hunslet Engine Company, which has supplied 15,000 engines to all parts of the world. I have seen them. Will that money be applied to British firms?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall come to the Jubilee Line in a few minutes. I appreciate, as do the Government and the Prime Minister, by the remarks he made in Leeds, the importance of this kind of investment. But on the question of public investment the noble Lord known that one cannot completely control the whereabouts of the investment in relation to the European Union. However, I and my colleagues are confident that United Kingdom companies—perhaps the one mentioned by the noble Lord—will win that contract and will build the engines and trains. I shall come to the Jubilee Line in a few moments when I reach the appropriate place in my remarks.
Several major public transport infrastructure projects are now being taken forward as joint ventures, with substantial financial contributions from the private sector. Last year we gave the go-ahead for the Jubilee Line extension. There is a private sector contribution of £400 million to its construction. We have also the £300 million Heathrow Express rail link being constructed under joint venture arrangements between BAA and British Rail. That will connect people who land at Heathrow with the rail network, although I suspect that many of them will have to come into central London in order to radiate out. It would be unrealistic to pretend that in the south east of England we could possibly re-design all the rail network so that it started its radiation at Heathrow or perhaps at both Heathrow and central London. We know how difficult it is to find a second link to the Channel Tunnel that does not offend almost everybody without trying to re-route all rail lines into Heathrow. The £300 million investment in the Heathrow Express will help those people who wish to transfer from air to rail.
1160
In addition, we recently announced the invitation by London Underground to various firms for proposals for the new, privately financed train for the Northern Line. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, asked what progress we were making. It is the intention of London Underground Limited to progress the competition for the scheme as quickly as possible with a view to making an award, assuming a suitable deal can be struck before the end of the year. Timing for delivery of new trains would depend on the supplier and of course on the deal struck. But we believe it could be within two or three years. We must wait to see what kind of interest comes forward for that project.
CrossRail is also a prime candidate as a joint venture. We believe it will have significant potential benefit to passengers and is likely to be attractive to the private sector. I was asked by one or two noble Lords where we are with CrossRail. Everybody knows that it is in Committee in the other place. As a government-we have given the project our full support. If I understand correctly what noble Lords opposite said, they too give it their full support. We can only hope that it overcomes the legislative hurdles in the other place and this place and starts on its way into the proper design and construction phase. The Croydon Tramlink is another private sector development which we believe is a potential runner—it will greatly help the traffic management in Croydon—as are a number of other projects, looking perhaps more into the future, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mountevans.
In general, our investment in London Underground is considerable. A number of projects are actually under construction—new carriages, new engineering on lines, replacement of old equipment and refurbishing of trains. All those are under way; on some lines the improvements are already in existence. The plans in hand will keep London Underground right at the forefront as one of the key factors in transporting people around the city.
The same is true of rail. My noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned the importance of rail and the number of people it brings into central London every single day of the week. It is by far the greatest carrier. There is considerable investment taking place in the South East in order to improve rail connections. Over the two years 1991–92 and 1992–93, British Rail invested around £895 million in the South East rail network. New vehicles have been delivered and are under order; electrification has taken place; and projects of route modernisation have continued. There are many projects which I could easily list. However, I would quickly run out of time if I gave your Lordships a geography lesson around the rail networks of the south where improvements are taking place.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth made his case for roads. We all recognise that the scope for major road building on the M.25 is constrained. Central London is well served by public transport; only 14 per cent. of commuters travel in by car in the morning period. The position in other parts of London is different. Two-thirds of London's jobs are outside the central area. It is less easy to serve the outer areas with public transport. So we need to improve orbital routes,

1161
including the M.25. We need also to cater for the creation of employment and housing in East London, where regeneration is a priority. As far as possible that should be done through public transport with schemes such as the extension of the Docklands Light Railway arid the Jubilee Line. But there will still be increased traffic and the planned improvements in our roads programme for London concentrate on tackling that growth.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, appeared to agree with me that roads, motor cars and so forth have a part to play, although he asked an interesting question. He asked whether parking meters were a system of traffic management or a system of local taxation. I shall not be tempted into that debate. It is the potential subject of a splendid university essay, depending from which side one comes. That is what matters. If one has just been fined for parking one probably looks upon it as a system of taxation. However, if one discovers that one can park readily for the half-hour or so that one needs, then it becomes a system of traffic management.
Our roads policies and programmes focus on how to make better use of existing networks through traffic management measures such as red routes, parking controls and traffic control systems. As your Lordships know, red routes are an idea that is just beginning. Some work has already been done. There have been some excellent benefits from the red routes already in existence. For example, traffic journeys along the red route are 20 per cent. faster and their reliability 40 per cent. better; bus journeys are 20 per cent. faster and their reliability is 33 per cent. better. Since the start of the pilot project in 1991 on the 43 and X43 routes, the passengers using buses have increased by 11,000 a week. That is a 10 per cent. increase in comparison with an overall decline in bus patronage in London over the same period. Clearly the red routes offer a way for improved traffic management and give the surrounding housing areas the benefit of concentrating that through traffic on the red route and taking it out of the suburban streets. That must be an important aspect.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans asked about red buses. I can assure him that red buses will remain in the centre of London. That will be one of the conditions of purchase of any of the LBL companies. My noble friend asked also about the River Thames. The working group received evidence from over 100 organisations in response to a questionnaire about the transport potential of the Thames and the constraints that inhibit that realisation. Important environmental planning and leisure issues were raised. The group commissioned a detailed analysis of the responses and plans to complete the report and publish its conclusion later this summer.
Noble Lords asked a number of other questions to which I probably cannot detail an answer in the time available. In regard to fare dodging I can say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that London Underground is optimistic that it will be able to reduce the amount of fare dodging going on, which is to the detriment of all the paying passengers. London Underground estimates that it loses around £30 million. It hopes to be able to recover at least some of that and reduce the amount of
1162
fare dodging. It would be a foolish and totally unrealistic person who suggested to your Lordships that we could stop fare dodging entirely.
Some people seem to think that the Government's privatisation programme implies a weakening of our commitment to the future of public transport. But as our record on investment shows, the opposite is true. Our aim is to establish a framework which allows maximum freedom to those involved in providing and using transport, consistent with protection for those affected adversely by transport, for the environment, and for safety. We are putting the customer centre stage. We are seeking to revitalise public transport as a means of travel. It is central to our approach that government cannot dictate how people travel. Customers should have a say in transport provision, through the operation of the market.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I asked the noble Lord some questions about the cost of privatisation. I asked whether a number of figures concerning what the Government have been spending on privatisation are correct. Is it possible for the noble Lord either to say that those figures are correct or to let us know when the Government will give us the true figures?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do riot recognise the figures that the noble Lord mentioned. I would not deny that there are costs of privatisation but I do not recognise the figures mentioned. The costs of privatisation that we have identified are very small compared with the total amount of turnover which the railway system has in any given year. We would expect the benefits to be considerably greater over the shorter term—over the years ahead—than any costs of privatisation. However, I shall look into the points that the noble Lord made, source the article he quoted and write to him about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised a nice debating point when he mentioned the fact that the Department of Transport employs 14,000 people and only 244 of them are employed in the public transport division. Earlier in his speech he accused the Government—why he should have thought so I cannot say—of deceiving the public, of deceiving Parliament and of deceiving themselves. The statistic he used has made possible all three deceptions. The reason is simple. Out in the public services involved are where the people who run the railway, who run the Underground and who run the aviation system work. That is where they are, not sitting in the Department of Transport in Marsham Street. The noble Lord's nice little debating point looks good, but when one peels off the outer skin of it one sees that a lot more people are employed in managing, running and predicting the patterns of public transport than just those employed by the Government in Marsham Street.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the reliability of our public services in London. The Citizen's Charter initiative has the objective of encouraging London Transport and the railways in the south-east to meet demanding standards of service for their passengers. The Underground met or bettered all 'the service performance targets set by the Government for 1992–93.

1163
Tougher targets were set for 1993–94. According to current figures, London Underground is meeting nine of the 12 quality of service targets, which is a little different from the dismal picture of London Underground painted by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. Over the two years since the introduction of the Passenger's Charter for rail services, performance on lines in the south-east has improved. On average, over the past year 13 out of the 15 commuter lines in the south-east achieved their charter targets for punctuality and 11 achieved their target for reliability. That is a great tribute to the people who work on the service and are reacting to customer demand.
In conclusion, the Government's strategy for London's transport is to fulfil the goal of an efficient transport system for the capital. We have been spending a considerable amount of public money in investing in London transport. We heard today, if we heard anything, calls for additional public expenditure on London transport. I wonder whether the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Ewing, cleared with their colleague, Mr. Brown, who rejoices in the title of Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, these extra commitments. Mr. Brown said on the BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme on 28th January this year:
"These commitments, or so-called commitments, about public spending simply do not exist … We will spend what we can afford to spend and only as growth allows. We've made that absolutely clear. I have said there are no manifesto commitments at this stage to public spending".
He went on to say:
"unless you can quote me chapter and verse about commitments made in the House of Commons then those were not made".
I notice that he did not mention the House of Lords, so perhaps commitments made in the House of Lords have a different status about them. I suggest that they do not.
We, as the Government, have put considerable money and planning into having a properly maintained and properly managed system of public transport in London. London's transport has had a great history and it will have a great future. With all the investment plans in hand and programmes for the future we believe that the capital will have a public transport system which will enhance its status as a capital city, encourage more people to bring their employment to this city and improve the quality of life of all those who have to live and work in the city.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, at the outset of my very brief remarks in conclusion I wish to thank all noble Lords who have participated in this short but interesting debate, not least the Minister for making his maiden speech in a debate on transport. He was characteristically extremely engaging, missing most of the points. There was a remarkable lack of harmony between what the Minister had to say about the needs of London transport and the views that are expressed to me and other noble Lords by London Transport and by British Rail. There is a clear need for them to get together.
Many of the speeches produced some extremely interesting points. Those should not be thrown out of the
1164
window. As my noble friend Lord Haskel said, it is necessary to learn from the experiences of others. Perhaps in some respects they can also learn from us, but there are many benefits which those who travel abroad, particularly on the Continent of Europe, will have perceived in terms of public transport which would be to our advantage overall.
On the question of public expenditure, the Minister kept on insisting that I had not cleared my remarks with my right honourable friend Mr. Gordon Brown. The fact of the matter is that I said in my speech and have said in other speeches I have made that it is a question of reorganising priorities. The Government are spending far too much on the road programme and we believe that that point needs to be tackled urgently.
The Minister spoke to what my noble friend described as the most expensive brief in history—a £48 million golden brief. But like so much of what we hear from the Government, although the noble Lord spoke very engagingly and eloquently, I have heard it all before. As with so many of the expenses incurred by the Government on consultants, I fear that this £48 million has been thrown away as well. Nevertheless, it has been an interesting and good-humoured debate. I thank noble Lords for participating. Many of the ideas that have been brought forward are certainly worth pondering on. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sport in Schools
5.39 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick rose to call attention to sport in schools; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in the debate. I think it is an important subject for those of us who are concerned with children and their sports and recreational opportunities. Although I differ from the Minister in a political sense, I know that she has the care of children as much in her heart as anyone in your Lordships' house. This matter has nothing to do with the election tomorrow, because I believe that people have already decided which way they are going to vote and this little debate will not alter anyone's point of view. That is as good a reason as I can give.
Although the debate is specifically targeted at sport in schools, I have no doubt that it will possibly range a little wider, but I shall do my best to keep it within the parameters which I have set down on the Order Paper. The Minister will know that periodically I and other Members of your Lordships' House have questioned the availability of sport or recreational facilities in schools in the hope that they can be expanded instead of what appears to be a continuing contraction. That is why I am pleased that I have been able to have this debate on the situation.
My concern with sport has always been with the children at the base of the pyramid. I am not referring to the Olympic performers, because they have made it and

1165
they perform reasonably to very well. My concern is for children at the bottom of the pyramid, beginning with those at primary school.
A few weeks ago I attended in one of your Lordships' committee rooms the launch of a document entitled A Charter for School Sport launched by the Central Council of Physical Recreation. That is the umbrella organisation for nearly 300 bodies dealing with sport across the widest spectrum other than the professional sports. One man encapsulated in his few remarks what I consider the issue to be about. That was Roger Utley, who was at one time a top-class Rugby Union player. He captained England with distinction. After that, I believe that he was manager of the union team.
He cut through all the other discussion which was taking place. He said that if children were to succeed and be happy at sport and achieve anything, they have to start when they are very young. He cited his own lifestyle and said that in his very early teens he bought a bicycle. He spent most of his spare time riding up and down the hills in the North of England. In doing so he built himself a strong pair of legs and he also developed, in his term, his "engine room"—his heart and lungs. When he decided that his objective was to play rugby at the highest level, he had the equipment to do so. But he could never have made that possible unless he had done what he did in his younger years. That is the point that I am making—we are talking about our seedcorn. Whoever is in government and whoever is trying to look after the interests of children, we owe it to them to give them the maximum chance to develop their talents.
I have had numerous messages of support from the British Olympic Association, the London Federation of Boys' Clubs, the Sports Council and the Royal College of Physicians. They are all in complete agreement that something has to be done to deal with the situation. As an aside, perhaps I may say at this point that I feel, as I am sure most of your Lordships do, as a former inner city boy for the children who are not the achievers in the education system. All children will not finish up with a clutch of O-levels and A-levels. Disappointment takes place and if they have nothing else to do because of their academic failure, even at an early stage we should be in a position where we are giving them an alternative to which they may apply their talents. They may be very talented in other than an academic way.
For example, I read a report at the weekend that dyslexia has now been identified in one out of 15 children. I have had dyslexia in my family, but luckily, with the advice of friends in this House and because I have some resources, I have been able to deal with that problem pretty well. But what about the child who does not have someone to support him? He sits in the classroom and everything is going over his head. He is unhappy. Sadly, the resources are not there in depth to deal with the problem. However, some of these children are very highly intelligent but they have this flaw. Some of them are very good achievers in sport, given the chance. All I am asking is that, whatever comes of this debate, we look at making a happier time for children at school outside the curriculum of hard and fast academic lessons.
I know that there has been disagreement between Mr.
1166
Sproat, the Minister responsible for sport, and John Patten, the Secretary of State for Education. But I do not want to dwell on that because that is a matter for them. No doubt that disagreement will be resolved. However, I take issue with Mr. Sproat on one point. I believe that he referred in a statement to compulsion. I do not believe that there is any joy in sport if you are compelled to do it. Happiness comes from doing what you want to do and being happy when doing it, even if the element of competition is introduced. I come from that body of people who believe that competition is a damned good thing anyway and most children I know—certainly in my own family and those from my own background —would support that.
It has been said that the National Union of Teachers reacted badly to government statements on this subject. I do not want to become political but to state facts. Teachers have been bitterly disappointed at some of the Government's arbitrary actions against them. In my time in local government local authorities never became involved in deciding teachers' salaries, although the educational costs amounted to 50 per cent. of any local authority budget. That matter was always decided by the Burnham Committee which was an independent body. Quite stupidly, Kenneth Baker decided almost overnight to wipe out the Burnham Committee, without any consultation. I believe that he was warned by Members on the other side of your Lardships' House that he was treading on dangerous ground, but he still went ahead. There has been disenchantment in the teaching profession since then, but good will has to be re-established.
I do not believe that it is the job of ordinary teachers to deal with the kind of activity we are talking about because I do not believe that they are equipped for it in a general sense. If we are to have children involved in sport who will not be hurt by doing so and who will attain a reasonable level, the opportunity has to be provided by teachers with a special talent who love to take part in sport. Such provision should not be carried out in the form of 10 to 12 hours overtime each week just when it suits a particular organisation.
The Central Council of Physical Recreation has made some recommendations and it is only fair that I put them before your Lordships as quickly as I can. The first is:
"The need for co-ordination of sport and recreation at the local level in order that Schools, Leisure Departments, the Youth Service and the Voluntary Sports Clubs work on a collective basis".
It is unfortunate that at present these organisations are working in isolation and very often they duplicate each other's work, which is a waste of time and sometimes of talent. Another recommendation is:
"The repeal of DES Regulations 909 and the halt of the sale of playing fields".
I am not going into statistics as to how many playing fields have been sold off. Somebody else who speaks after me may do that. But there is no doubt that there are cases where schools which are in a dilapidated condition and which have the benefit of being in large grounds have sold off quite substantial parts of that land in order to carry out major repairs to the school or to keep the school running. That land is lost for ever to the school.
The worst places affected are the inner cities. I never saw or played football in Manchester on a blade of grass until I was in my late teens. We always played on shale because there was no space available. We have to halt that situation as quickly as we can.
Another recommendation is for:
"Mandatory rate relief for voluntary sports clubs and exemption from corporation tax for national governing bodies of sport and associations".
I believe I am right in saying that charitable sports organisations in this country are the most heavily taxed, or are the only ones taxed, in Europe at present. So we are not dealing with a level playing field. We are treating them more harshly than our colleagues in Europe.
Another recommendation of the CCPR is:
"A minimum of two hours of physical education each week for school children".
That should cover a variety of activities.
Another recommendation is:
"Grant aid to national governing bodies of sport from the Sports Council to be inflation-indexed".
We do not want the money that is now being donated or accorded to those bodies to be reduced on the basis that a comparable amount will be found from the national lottery fund. We believe that any money from the national lottery fund should be additional and should provide further incentives for people to become involved.
A further recommendation is:
"A secure guarantee that access to recreational activities will be maintained under any consideration being given to the privatisation of the Forestry Commission".
There is a danger of losing such access if the commission is privatised.
Further recommendations are:
"All private and local authority sports centres who employ individuals to instruct in hazardous activities must appoint staff who hold appropriate national governing body coaching awards. The money to be distributed from the National Lottery for sport must be additional and not a replacement of existing money for sport.
To seek Treasury support for the harmonisation of the EC Sixth Directive within the United Kingdom so that voluntary sports clubs are exempted from VAT".
It appears that only voluntary sports clubs in this country are charged that tax. Those are some of the ideas of the CCPR.
It is not true that only organised bodies are willing to help. People in the private sector are willing, able and ready to help our youngsters to develop and to give them the chance to do so as early as possible in their lives so as to enable them to look forward to a wholesome future.
Only today I had the privilege of meeting in your Lordships' House some representatives of the Butlins holiday and hotel company. At present it is running a scheme in conjunction with the Central Council of Physical Recreation, called the National Pentathlon Award Scheme. It starts with children in primary school. It is a marvellous scheme. That is just one company that is prepared to give money and to help. I do not expect the Minister to reply on that point today because it is a fresh point, but I hope that she will consider asking someone in her department to talk to
1168
those people because what they are doing and what they are prepared to do could be seen as a role model for others who are interested.
It is not just a case of involving large sponsors. I do not see why Olympic athletes should be the only athletes to be sponsored. What is wrong with sponsoring some of our future Olympic athletes from the age of five upwards? I believe that there are people who are ready to show good will and to do that. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond on that point.
I close on this note: this is a very interesting subject, but unless we start to deal with it now the situation can only deteriorate. I have tried to make an objective, non-political speech on behalf of the children who are our future. I want to see them develop. Finally, I thank those Members of your Lordships' House who have been good enough to put down their names to speak. They are doing an enormous service to the youngsters of this country and I thank them.
5.54 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject this afternoon. I am also very grateful to those who drew up the list of noble Lords who are to speak this evening because I am placed between two very eminent Members of your Lordships' House, who are both well known for their interest in sport at all levels.
I find that a number of adults are very worried about the situation and take the line that we must encourage young people to take part in sports of all kinds. It was many light years ago that my father, an excellent all-round sportsman, encouraged all his five children to play games. As the eldest, I remember the fun of playing rugger at fly half and wing three-quarters, usually being shouted at to, "Pass the ball" just as I was going to score a try. That was a long time ago.
As with everything else in life, it is enormously important to start young. The encouragement which children receive at school will last them all their lives. Sport, in this context, means all competitive games, played both indoors and out on the playing fields. It includes swimming, athletics and physical education. All are included in our interest this evening.
It is becoming vitally important for the future of sport in this country that no more playing fields shall be sold off by local education committees. I understand that there are a considerable number of such sales in the pipeline, and I would urge the Minister responsible for sport to call in all such applications in the future and to give the plans his personal attention.
We cannot expect another Linford Christie or Sally Gunnell to be in all our schools, but we must give our children the opportunity to try to be as brilliant as they are. Competition, which is vital in adult life, can be instilled in the young, and pride in partaking in teams and occasionally winning is, I believe, part of being a successful adult.
We have heard recently that teachers in schools are unwilling to coach at games. That is understandable if they have no aptitude in that direction. I do not know how widespread that is, but I do know that at least five

1169
universities—four of which are Bedford, Birmingham, Brighton and Liverpool—have courses in PE and sport. Coaches can surely be found among the graduates. There are also many recently retired men and women who would, I am sure, help to relive their youth by teaching the young how to play.
I would urge the Minister responsible for sport to appoint some interested dynamic people who could use their initiative and imagination to get school sports back on the fields, tracks and in the baths. It must be done at government, regional and club level. Without this, we might be doomed to never winning the Ashes, never winning the Triple Crown, never winning at Wimbledon, never winning the Ryder Cup or even having the excitement of seeing one's club win the FA Cup. How awful a prospect it is. We must do something about it.
Finally, there is another side to my interest in this debate. As chairman of a juvenile court for many years, I knew that the main reason for the young offenders coming before me was boredom. They needed some excitement and they needed to go to bed exhausted by exercise. I am so glad that the Minister is in her place this evening and I hope that she will use her considerable influence to see that her ministerial colleagues, and principally the Prime Minister, are aware of our deep concerns this evening.
6 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Dean and the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, in this interesting debate. Sport, as has already been stated, is of vital importance to the future of the country and is not, or should not be, related to party political differences. We should all be united in our purpose here. I am glad to say that there are signs of the Government being increasingly willing to listen and to deal with these matters.
As has been said. school sport is vitally important to the health of the nation. That should perhaps be our first consideration. It is of great importance because it provides enjoyment for millions of young people. They learn to enjoy the challenges of sport and recreation. They obtain great personal satisfaction, and it enables them to extend their capacity for enjoyment in their own private lives. It is also of great importance to the future well-being of national sport, as the noble Baroness has just said. She mentioned Wimbledon. If we ask ourselves why we seem to have little hope of finding a British player to win at Wimbledon for some time, we need only look at the paucity of tennis being played in our schools and the lack of teachers able to coach tennis. We then get the matter into some sort of perspective.
No one can doubt the serious decline in school sports that we see today. The Secondary Heads Association has done us a service by carrying out a survey. It shows that in 1987 38 per cent. of all pupils aged 14 and under spent less than two hours per week involved in PE and sport. In 1990, that 38 per cent. had deteriorated dramatically to 71 per cent. That is a serious situation.
I shall say a word about swimming. I regard it as an essential subject to be taught and enjoyed in schools. Perhaps I may tell the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who
1170
I am delighted to see will be responding to the debate, that at the last election both parties' manifestos contained a commitment to the effect that it was essential that every child up to the age of 11 should have the right to learn to swim and be able to enjoy swimming. But in 1990, the Secondary Heads Association tells us that 44 per cent. of 11 year-olds; 59 per cent. of 14 year-olds; and 54 per cent. of 15 year-olds enjoyed no swimming. Between 1980 and 1990 there was a steep decline in swimming for 11 year-olds in state schools. That is the extent of the problem which both parties are committed to put right.
If we look at the PE timetable, we see that in 1987 38 per cent. of 14 year-olds had less than two hours' PE or sport per week in their school curriculum; but in 1991 that figure had deteriorated to 71 per cent. Likewise, there has been an appalling deterioration in the state of playing fields. We should contemplate the state of our cricket. Perhaps I should draw attention to the fact that it is impossible teach boys or girls to play cricket properly if they are not playing on proper wickets—if the wickets are not maintained, rolled and kept properly. As a result of the alterations introduced into local government, we have had gang mowing. One cannot play cricket on a gang-mown playing field. There is therefore a deterioration in school cricket. There are also great difficulties in obtaining properly qualified PE staff.
As I have said, the Government's new thinking., as evidenced by statements from the Minister with responsibility for sport and the Prime Minister, is much to be welcomed, whatever we think about them and whatever criticisms we may have of them. I have some, but that does not detract from the fact that it is to be welcomed that the Prime Minister, the Minister with responsibility for sport and the Department of National Heritage are now beginning to get to grips with the subject.
In the leaked document from the Minister with responsibility for sport—or the letter that he has to write to the Prime Minister—he put forward some proposals which I shall mention in passing. I believe that he should rethink them. The first was a £500 additional payment to teachers for teaching sport or taking sport voluntarily, which he considered to be adequate. I do not believe that it will be adequate. Secondly, he wants to redefine certain sports as core subjects. He suggests that every teacher should be required to take a sport in addition to their traditional subjects. That is totally unrealistic, as some of us know who suffered from the supervision of school sports by teachers who did not have the faintest idea of what they were doing. I suffered cartilage damage playing football at school. It is an injury from which I never recovered, because I had an art teacher who did not have the faintest idea what to do about a sports injury. That teacher allowed me to writhe in pain and to go home instead of having the matter treated. That caused me to become a football referee, so it may have done me a service—I do not know —as I found difficulty in kicking a ball thereafter.
Then we have the proposal from the Prime Minister, I regret to say, that all the playing fields that have been sold at the behest of the Government should be bought

1171
back out of National Lottery money. I can only describe that as a futile proposal, having regard, as I said on a Question the other day, to the enhanced value planning permission gives to those playing fields immediately they are sold. It is unrealistic to think that anyone can buy them back.
We must think about the national curriculum. This is not a debate on the national curriculum. The Minister is probably much better able to deal with that subject than I. As an amateur in educational matters, the national curriculum seems to me to be far too big. We are trying to cram far too much into it. I hope that we shall have more flexibility in it. The CCPR and the NAHT have called for a minimum of two hours' sport, plus changing time. If pupils have to travel, as most of those in inner city schools have to do, to a playing field on the outskirts, then two hours including travelling time is grossly inadequate. But two hours is double what I understand Sir Ron Dearing is proposing. He is proposing about one hour. I am glad to hear that he might be rethinking that matter. I hope that that point is confirmed.
If one-half day a week for sport is good enough for the public schools—I have always admired the fact that they make one-half day a week available to their pupils —it should be good enough for the state system also. One cannot encourage school sport, and coach team games especially, unless one has that amount of time in which to do it. That is in addition to playing competitive matches against other schools—something which I regard as important.
We must introduce youngsters to a whole range of sports in schools. At the end of their school life they will then be enabled to choose which of the sports or recreations they want to follow. I accept, as has been said, that they will not necessarily want to follow team sports. I have to make the point, in view of what I have heard from some PE colleges, that there is no contradiction between those who want to play team sports and those who want to enjoy individual recreation in the countryside. There is no contradiction, because most people like to do both.
How can we go forward? I support the action plan of the CCPR/NAHT, which has been mentioned. I have consulted the National Association of School Sports. I am surprised that it does not receive more support from the Government and the Sports Council. It is responsible for drawing up all the fixtures, generally overseeing school sports, and arranging all these matters. It should receive much more positive support from the Sports Council. I am pleased that my city of Birmingham recently held a schools sports conference. All those bodies have produced excellent proposals.
My first priority relates to the machinery of government. I had the privilege of serving in the departments involved, which are now the Departments of National Heritage, Environment and Education. We must have vision and imagination. However, we shall not achieve the necessary co-ordination unless the Prime Minister sets up a ministerial committee. It should include Ministers from all those departments and include those from the Welsh, Scottish and Northern
1172
Ireland Offices, and it should probably be chaired by the Minister for Sport. There should be a co-ordinated government plan for sport and the committee should pursue and monitor it month in and month out. That can only be done at ministerial level. It is no good expecting sports councils to do it because they might be in conflict with education departments and local authorities. The lead must come from the top.
I am glad to say that the All-Party Parliamentary Sports Group, of which I am privileged to be chairman, met the National Association for School Sports and issued a plea of priorities which was sent to Ministers. The all-party group wants a government circular to be sent out, again as a priority, asking all schools to state in their brochures their programmes for school sport and recreation. That must be followed up year on year. We need an annual report from every school showing what is being done in respect of sport and recreation. We must ask governors of schools, in particular in light of their new freedoms and responsibilities, to take up the challenge and to provide proper facilities and resources. There is some evidence that some of the headmasters of grant-maintained schools are jealously hanging on to what they have but are not making proper provision.
It all starts in the teacher training colleges. If we do not produce teachers who are taught how to teach sport in schools, we shall get nowhere. Nothing like enough concern and supervision is being given to that. Sport in primary schools is also important. Many primary schools do not have a qualified PE teacher—in fact, I doubt whether there is a qualified PE teacher in any primary school in this country. That is where qualified people should be providing the basic skills.
We must also assist teachers to take sport outside school hours. That is the key to competitive sport. We must pay their expenses and, if we want them to turn out every Saturday morning or afternoon, we must consider giving them time off. If as a nation we recognise that that is a desirable teaching activity we must provide compensating time off. We cannot escape the need for more teachers and there is no doubt that that will cost more money. However, we can reorganise our education expenditure to provide for the priorities that I have listed.
I turn to children's play, on which the National Playing Fields Association is keen. We must provide open spaces and proper playing fields and therefore we must ensure the proper design of school buildings. I and the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, are keen on the use of school buildings for community purposes. That means that we must have proper design and the Departments of National Heritage and Education must be brought together to provide for that. Not only will the school be provided for but also the surrounding community which it seeks to serve.
I trust that the debate will help to focus attention on the main sporting needs of our schools, which means the main sporting needs of our country in the long term. If it does that, we shall have served sport well.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when we debate sport in schools we are effectively debating education in sport. The fact that we are debating sport in schools shows that there is a problem. The simple fact of the matter is that schools are not the sole educators in sport, and that is increasingly the case. For many years there has been a trend to take away from schools the basic education in sport. That has happened for one simple reason: school sport has become more popular and diverse. People are channelling their energies through clubs, which are more effectively training young people who want to take part in sport. That is a well-established trend.
In researching for the debate I came across an FA report on soccer in schools. It showed that, although in 1984 more soccer was being played, less was being played in schools. That trend has been accentuated by the changes resulting from the Education Act 1988. For whatever good or bad reason—I make no judgment—teachers suddenly found themselves with greater commitments on their time; they had to fill out test forms, reports and so forth. We are not debating whether that is good or bad, but as their time was taken up it had to be clearly accounted for. It meant that the extra-curricular activities in sport became squeezed. We must remember that it was not the games lesson that was the foundation of team sport in schools but the extra-curricular activity.
We must look closely at the role of school sport. Are we going to turn back the clock and return to the days when sport was taught in schools in a certain way? I do not believe we can because the same cultural background for sport does not exist now. We did not always get the best out of our pupils when certain sports dominated in schools. How many people were put off sport for ever by sitting in the middle of a muddy football pitch, with horizontal rain hitting them in the back of the neck, while a crowd of people merged round occasionally kicking them and the ball? Those who were slightly less active or less keen would sit in a crowd around the goal wishing that they could die or that the bell would go for the next period. The film "Kes" shows a wonderful example of what many people remember about their school sports fields. Bearing that in mind, we should not be too keen on returning to the good old days. For every good player who had a wonderful time in a good school team dozens did not enjoy school sports. Dozens of people happily played football in a playground with a tennis ball but hated the school game. We must bear everything in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, has gone into a great deal of detail on the subject. I do not disagree with him on ally particular point, which may be dull for the debate but it shows a general degree of consensus. We should be looking at schools as a sampling ground for all sports. Dozens of different sports are played in this country: there are two codes of rugby, there is association football, basketball, cricket, softball and so forth. If we develop the sporting culture of our country we must look upon schools as being the sampling ground for all sports. Schools will then carry out a
1174
function for which they are well placed. It is not necessary to have a wonderful schoolboy team at a junior level. Whether school or non-school, all that. matters is that there are under-18 teams or under-16 teams. Indeed, within the 16 to 18 year-old bracket it is common to find two competing teams. I suggest that the pursuit of excellence is no real bonus because there is a. divergence of talent. We must stop looking at sport as being contained within tight parameters.
It is all very well to say that we should have universal competitive team games, but we shall not achieve anything if that is at the cost of other types of sporting activities. If people are pushed into playing games that they do not like, especially when they are in no position even to register a protest, a great deal of resentment will be created. I can think of several people with me at university who were great athletes and who represented their schools at virtually every sport. Let us be honest, anybody who has a reasonable turn of pace and reasonable hand/eye co-ordination who is given some degree of tuition can play most sports to a reasonably competent level. However, my friends at university who owned a variety of exotic blazers and scarves refused point blank to take part again in sport for at least one or two years, and often for ever. They had had enough. Sports must be sampled and people must be attracted to sport on their own terms.
Team games teach people how to co-operate with others, to work for a common goal and to take on certain tasks. However, one ultimately plays for a team for oneself as part of a team and not for some mythical beast —the greater good of the team or the greater good of the school. One may take pride in one's achievements and wish to represent one's school, but first arid foremost one becomes involved on one's own terms. We should not lose sight of that. Anyone who is a voluntary member of a team is there because he wants to be there. Generally, he is not a member of that team for the greater good of those around him. We must bear that in mind as we try to instil into young people enthusiasm for sport.
I suggest that the Government have a wonderful opportunity to build on much of the good work that has been done by outside sporting bodies in co-operation with schools. Indeed, the schools can give back to those outside bodies one very important asset which has already been mentioned—playing fields and sports facilities. It is extremely expensive to acquire a sports ground. Most countries in Europe do not require teams to own their own grounds. In France many towns have a municipal stadium, where teams can play soccer and rugby. Changing rooms are provided, as are bars so that social functions can take place too. Coaching is provided for the juniors.
I do not expect the Government to build new stadia. I merely ask them to allow easier interaction between clubs and schools. I know that that interaction takes place now, but I ask the Government to build on and encourage that as it is surely the obvious way forward. That system also provides a selection of qualified coaches. As has already been mentioned, it is difficult to find qualified coaches. I suggest that it is almost impossible to guarantee a sufficient number of qualified

1175
coaches in any one school, especially if it is decided that we wish to provide the ability to sample many different sports. If we do not do that, many pupils will be forced to play sports for which they are temperamentally unsuited.
I have already mentioned unpleasant experiences with regard to soccer. A friend of mine told me that he was forced to play rugby and he did not like it. He described the same experiences—the driving rain, mud and waiting for the whistle to go—but he added that in rugby somebody also runs at you and tries to knock you over. Looked at from that angle, I can understand why people regard the game that I play with a degree of dread and contempt.
Finally, I suggest that the Government must take a look at the fundamental role which schools can play in the sporting life of their students. Such a role can only be the base for further sporting careers. It would be very sad if the end of school life was regarded as the end of sporting activity. The advantages of sport for health reasons are self-evident. If one is reasonably fit, fewer things go wrong with one's body, and that provides a ground of investment in itself. It is an investment in the health of our nation and provides an insurance against heavier costs to be borne by the National Health Service in the future. We should encourage schools to play a constructive role in the sporting life of this country.
6.25 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Dean has initiated this debate today, because sport in schools is very important. There has been a great deal of discussion about it in the newspapers in the past few months. I think that we want to know from the Minister whether the Sproat/heritage side of the argument, or the Patten/education on the other side, have come amicably together to a conclusion or no. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the Government's up to date position from the Minister and I hope that she will not say that we have got to wait for Dearing.
On the Sproat side, as one article put it, we have:
"Flexing their muscles and running on the spot, health freaks who are all in favour of compulsory games, believing that they are a cure for delinquency, rounded shoulders, pimples and under-age sex".
On the other side, we have those who hated games at school and would forbid all compulsory games. But there is of course a middle way.
But there does now seem to be a nostalgia for Victorian times and Victorian values. We are reminded of the Royal Commission on Public Schools 1864, which said:
"Cricket and football are not merely places of exercise and amusement; they help to form some of the most valuable social qualities and manly virtues".
In 1908 Baden-Powell said:
"Football is a grand game for developing a lad physically as well as morally, for he learns to play with good temper and unselfishness".
And now we have Mr. Sproat saying:
"If we had more organised sport in schools, we'd have fewer little thugs like those who murdered James Bulger".
1176
One does somehow query that a bit when one sees some of the TV pictures of professionals tackling each other in a pretty brutal manner. However, the connection between sport and moral fibre does seem to be fairly embedded in our national psyche. I do wonder how much the present enthusiasts for team games are influenced in their opinions by our very poor performance in international cricket, football and tennis. But should sport be designed to produce cricket teams that can beat the West Indies or should it be an enjoyable activity, designed to improve the personal fitness of teenage Billy (or Bessie) Bunters? I am for the second.
Iain Sproat, in his 8,000-word report, asks that all pupils over 11 are offered five core sports: soccer, cricket, rugby, hockey and netball, to promote the supposed character-building qualities of competitive sport. He advocates the virtues of winning modestly and losing gracefully. But he also hopes to contribute to a revival in the dismal fortunes of our national teams. He is willing to offer more pay for teachers if they work after school hours and talks of National Lottery money bringing back school playing fields.
Let us look at the facts. There are far fewer schools sports fixtures at weekends and after school than there were. We expect sport and PE to be cut to 80 minutes a week. In the public sector, the average spent on a pupil's PE is £11 per annum; at Eton, it is £111. Since 1982, 5,000 playing fields have been sold, the land being used for anything from supermarkets to housing estates and roads. The National Playing Fields Association says that a further 200 school fields and 200 council-owned estates also have, or are seeking, planning permission for developments, so that, even if the National Lottery money emerges, it will not be possible to buy back many of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said. It was DES Regulation 909 which resulted in local authorities selling off playing fields deemed to be surplus to requirements.
As yet, there is no national register of playing fields or sports facilities throughout the UK, although the Government ring-fenced £½ million of its grant-in-aid in 1989 to the British Sports Council for this purpose. Can the Minister tell us about the progress of that register and whether the Government are monitoring the loss of sports sites?
The Central Council for Physical Recreation (CCPR) indicates that every day for the past two years £100,000-worth of sports fields have been sold for development. Surely it would make good sense for schools and the community to get together and organise joint use of many of the facilities so that they can be used all day and every day, as recommended by the CCPR, whose Charter for Schools Sport, published in March of this year, is, I should like to say, an excellent document. I believe that the council's recommendations should be supported.
And what about the teachers? There is no doubt that the goodwill which resulted in many committing themselves to out-of-school hours and weekend sport has gone. In a 1991 survey, it was found that 92 per cent. of primary teachers who had some responsibility for PE had no formal qualifications. Moreover, 56 per cent. of all schools said that they could not deliver the new

1177
curriculum for PE. That is serious. I think that the national curriculum for primary schools is very good, but, if the qualified staff and adequate time are not there, what then? There is inadequate provision of INSET; and some further PE training should be included in all initial teacher training.
HMI reporting in 1993 was critical of the lack of knowledge and expertise of those teaching Key Stages 1 and 2. Many of the poor lessons—and that was about one-third of the total—suffered from weak planning, inadequate organisation of pupils and equipment and inefficient use of pupils' time.
Of course, there are also other problems. In one article that I read, a teacher was quoted as saying:
"I am keen on sport. The difficulty is getting children to take part. The highest rate of truancy is during PE. Compulsory extra games would cause a stampede for the school gates".
There is also the question of health. The Sports and Health lobby says that at least two hours' PE a week is needed to keep pupils fit. The sort of activity does not matter. The Honorary Secretary of the Conference of the Medical Royal Colleges said:
"We are not in a position to say whether it should be football rather than rugby. What we are saying is that PE in its broadest sense does contribute to the fitness of the child and, therefore, to that of the young adult".
Sadly, over 10 per cent. of children between the ages of seven and 10 are overweight and a similar percentage of service applicants in their mid-teens fail their entry fitness test. I cannot help wondering how much children being overweight is due to lack of exercise and how much to having chips with everything. The unhealthy diet that so many have, particularly now that the well-balanced diet of the school meal is available to so few children, must have quite a lot to do with it.
The medical colleges went on to say:
"The sensible attitude of some schools in emphasising fitness over competition has meant sports menus are offered so that children can mix activities, which might include aerobics or dance".
But Mr. Sproat would argue that aerobics is not as character-building as traditional competitive games. However, the Physical Education Association, representing teachers, lecturers and advisers, argues that PE is far more than competitive games. Schools must find a niche for every child and not just those with a talent for sport. What about the aquatic sports, gymnastics, athletics and dance?
I should like to say a special word about dance. It is very good for girls and for boys. It encourages listening to music, which I believe to be a very good thing. It also encourages the aesthetic and the creative sense. What is more, it is cheap and I am told that there are plenty of teachers around.
I want to tell your Lordships about Hare Hill Middle School in Leeds. In the 1980s, it had a very comprehensive dance programme. It was inspirational for the kids as they had a brilliant teacher. The whole school danced. There were two consequences. First, professional dance in Britain had more graduates from Hare Hill than any other school except the Royal Ballet school; secondly, while the dance programme was in full swing, Hare Hill moved from a mediocre
1178
performance to top of its league in soccer, cricket and other team sports because of its high level of fitness. So., I put in that special plug for dance.
My own attitude is that team games should not be compulsory, although I do not deny that they have some value. Working as a team with a commitment to others, and taking pride in doing well, is not to be despised. I believe that some physical activity should be compulsory and I have spoken of the special advantages of dance.
However, what I do think should be compulsory is swimming —and my noble friend Lord Howell spoke on the subject—for both safety and health reasons. It is one of the best forms of exercise and something that you can go on doing for the rest of your life, It is shocking that 25 per cent. of primary schools have no access to a pool. The cost of transport should not be an impediment. I ask the Minister to tell us whether her department is saying that every child should be able to swim by the age of 11 and whether they are going to make that possible? Indeed, we heard that they made a manifesto commitment so to do.
My final word is on boxing. It should be banned—most certainly in schools. I know that my noble friend Lord Howell does not agree with me, but I believe that it is a barbaric sport. The damage to sight and brain can be horrific, and we know about that from what happened last week. Some 40 years ago, an ophthalmologist gave me some pamphlets that he had written telling of the conditions of patients he had to deal with following blows to the head. Ever since, I have been a passionate anti-boxer.
To conclude, sport in schools is not in a satisfactory state. There is not enough time for it; there are not enough people adequately qualified to teach it; and acres of sports fields have been sold off so that there are not enough facilities for it. For 15 years—and that is the whole of a child's educational life from the age of four to 18—this Government have been in control of our education and our schools. They are responsible. Are they happy with the state of affairs in sport at present? Are they happy that, in fact, the UK provides less time for sport in schools than do other countries in Europe? I understand that France, Switzerland and Portugal provide twice the hours for PE in secondary school education. I see that the Minister is shaking her her head. Well, she will have time to contradict me when she replies. I look forward to hearing her response.
6.37 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, "It is only a game" is the phrase which is heard when the discussion turns to sport. The implication is that there are more serious educational issues with which we should be concerned. Such a view has often prompted complacency. That complacency, in my opinion, has contributed, as many speakers have already mentioned this afternoon, to a serious decline in both the standard and the quantity of sport being played in our schools.
If it is only a game, the fact is that there are certainly plenty of runs required. I suspect that the last man has already reached the crease. When I say, "the last man", perhaps that individual is Mr. Iain Sproat, the Minister

1179
with responsibility for sport. It is certainly encouraging to see that he has started, as it were, to swing the bat. I welcome his recently announced blueprint for the revival of sports in schools, although in certain state schools "resurrection" may be a better word. I very much hope that many of his proposals will be accepted. His views have certainly found firm support among the All-Party Parliamentary Sports Group, of which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is chairman. I am pleased that the debate has again been re-opened and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, for pressing the Motion once again.
As most noble Lords have already said, it is important for sport to be an enjoyable exercise. Many speakers have already discussed the importance of sport in a balanced education. Surely it is preferable to have our younger generation exerting and enjoying themselves on the sports fields rather than aimlessly hanging around video arcades or, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, eating chips in their spare time. Fit bodies make fit minds, they once said. That certainly is still true. By sport I do not mean stepping on and off benches or walking around the countryside. I am referring to football, cricket, rugby, athletics, swimming and the like: real, competitive, constructive sport with a clear purpose. Clearly, effective school sport improves general health and instills discipline. I was interested to learn from a senior teacher at a state school yesterday how some of his children who were unruly in the classroom could often be reined in and reformed on the playing field.
In the longer term a sound school sports discipline can only enhance the prospects of British sporting teams in the international arena. A tree is only as strong as its roots. We cannot pretend that the decline in schools sport is totally unconnected with the fact that the England cricket team has lost 11 out of the past 15 Tests, or that not one of the four home countries has qualified for football's World Cup finals later this year. This does matter. There is little in British life which arouses more public passion and interest than sport and there is little which unites the British people across all barriers like a national sporting triumph. There was a time, not long ago, when such valuable boosts to national prestige were common—when the England football team was unbeaten at Wembley, when Roger Bannister became the first man to run the mile in under four minutes, when England occasionally won the Ashes. Those were the days when schools, I believe, were far more committed to sport.
To expand on a few of the statistics already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. In 1974, British schools allotted four-and-a-half hours each week to sport, quite apart from evenings and Saturday mornings set aside for practice and matches. In 1984 just over three-quarters of pupils were still getting two hours of sport a week. But today I understand that less than a third of pupils spend two hours a week on physical education. This decline is most pronounced in the state sector, in contrast to the vast majority of independent schools which have continued to promote sport; incidentally, with the result that Britain continues
1180
to excel at those codes such as rowing, sailing and rugby which are traditionally pursued in the public schools. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, has already said, in the state sector the amount spent on each pupil's physical education is only £11 a year, whereas at Eton the corresponding figure is £111.
I have little doubt that this steady decline of sport in state schools is of concern to many, and it powerfully begs the question: what can be done? The Government have, of course, included physical education in the national curriculum and this is to be welcomed, but I believe the central challenge is to reverse the trend that grew from the teachers' strikes in the 1980s, when disaffected teachers refused to coach sport after hours as a form of industrial action.
As time passed the teachers' protest has seemed to become a habit, and the infrastructure of schools sport, in my opinion, has begun to decay. The combination of shrinking fixture lists due to fewer schools fielding fewer teams, inadequate equipment and facilities and, above all, many teachers, unenthusiastic about sport, started to transmit a clear message to pupils, many of whom began to conclude that, "If the teacher cannot be bothered with sport, why should I?" A decade ago, it was widely regarded as an honour and a privilege to represent your school at sport. Regrettably, in many schools this is no longer the case.
I believe that government action should seek, first, to raise the general status of sport in state schools, and then, specifically, to revive enthusiasm—a point that has already been made by many noble Lords—among more of the teaching profession to get out there and start teaching sport once again. The first aim could be achieved, in part, by a decision to cease the sale of school playing fields. As a result of an unholy alliance between ideologies—on the left, those teachers and local authorities who did not believe in competitive sport and, on the right, the marketeers who rushed to buy land for new developments—no fewer than 5,000 sports fields have been sold during the past decade. This is particularly alarming in view of the Department for Education's figures which predict that, in some 10 years, there will be almost 17 per cent. more children in school.
Furthermore, it is generally accepted that a healthy acreage of playing fields in a given area is six acres per 1,000 children over the age of eight. It seems obvious that we cannot afford to be selling these assets.
Secondly, I believe provision could be made for greater use of specialist coaches and in-service organisers. I am aware that some insurance policies require a member of staff to be present at all school sporting events. But it remains true to say that sport, like anything else, is most effectively taught by those who truly care about sport and, most importantly, by people with a profound knowledge of sport. This past week we have been harshly reminded how dangerous sport can be and, within schools, safety and high standards of professionalism should be paramount. In this respect, the sports Minister's proposal that each and every teacher should coach at least two sports may be a bit

1181
impractical. Forcing disinterested academics to pull on track suits would probably prove counter-productive for many concerned.
Some teachers, and indeed the national teachers' unions, have argued that "after-hours" sports coaching should be properly remunerated, and this point has been rightly addressed by the sports Minister. Certain teachers have also suggested that recently introduced administrative duties leave no time for pursuing sport. This may be true to a degree, but the ongoing review of the national curriculum will, I believe, reduce the teachers' workload—and it often seems the case, that where there is a will, time will be found. For example, I am sure there are relatively few teachers who cannot find the time to supervise a skiing trip to the Alps during the school term. However, coaching the under-15 Bs on a wet and windy afternoon might seem a less glamorous prospect, but it is no less worthwhile.
In conclusion, the sports Minister has set out boldly on the path towards restoring sport in our schools. I dare say there are a number of seasoned campaigners in both this House and the other place who reckon that his initial enthusiasm will eventually be ground down by the slow march of the educational establishment. But I hope that the Minister is successful in his aims. School sport is something well worth fighting for. It is much more than just a game.
6.49 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I join everyone else in thanking my noble friend Lord Dean for giving us this opportunity. Unlike other speakers this evening I bring to the debate absolutely no expertise in sport at all, having managed, I am ashamed to say, to avoid all organised sport in my extreme youth and having been brought up in a rural district where the only place to swim was an icy mountain river. I managed to avoid that as well. Therefore I know what I have missed because I can see now, from observing my own children and indeed my grandchildren, what a great benefit school sport can be.
A report from the Central Council of Physical Recreation, to which others have referred, opens by saying,
"that it is every child's entitlement to learn the pleasures of sport and the fundamentals of lifelong good health through physical activity while at school".
That statement appears to have unanimous support. It will also have the support of most parents and, no doubt, of many members of the public who are not parents but who have a firm belief that the inclusion of sport and physical education in the list of school activities solves all the problems of health, happiness and juvenile delinquency. That belief has been subscribed to by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, and my noble friend Lady David.
It is true that the decline in school sports seems to have run in parallel with a general deterioration in the health of young people and with an increase in juvenile offences. But we should beware of linking those factors too closely. Life as lived by young people today is much
1182
more complex than it used to be. They are subjected to many outside influences and pressures which were unknown a generation ago.
I think we agree that sport and physical education are important for health, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, and, I would add, for social and mental development too. School is the obvious place in which to start the process. However, it is essential that the community as a whole must be involved in the exercise. Through local authorities and parental encouragement it should support and develop the school initiative. Here, it is important that there should be co-operation among all those involved. I understand that at present local authorities and voluntary sports clubs work in complete isolation from each other. I am afraid to suggest that they may work in competition; but I believe that that may be so too. In some, probably most, areas, the supply of sports facilities and playing fields is inadequate to meet expanding needs. As we heard, the Central Council of Physical Recreation paints a depressing picture of declining provision both in facilities and in the availability of trained staff.
Others have drawn attention to the deterioration in the number of playing fields available. Local authorities have been selling them off, as we have heard, since 1981. The factor that I find most worrying is that in 1990–91 just under £65 million was raised on those sales. That indicates to me an accelerating disposal rate rather than a slowing down process. The Minister shakes her head; I shall be delighted to be told that I am wrong.
We have heard about the adequacy of numbers of staff, not only trained in the proper skills but also willing to give their time and take on extra duties which may well spill over into their free time and weekends. My noble friend Lady David said that goodwill has gone; certainly, morale is already low in some sections of the teaching profession. I do not propose to go into the possible reasons for that, but it is a fact. I have talked enough to teachers in various areas to know that they feel undervalued and in many cases overworked. Any proposals to add to their burdens are unlikely to be received with enthusiasm. And enthusiasm is absolutely essential in the teaching of sport and physical education if we are ever to persuade the present generation of young people away from the computer keyboard.
In company with almost every speaker, I do not favour making team games compulsory. The keen will play them willingly; the less keen can be encouraged to take part. But in every school there is usually a small group of young people who lack co-ordination and an aptitude for games. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, painted a graphic picture of miserable children sitting in the rain on sports pitches. I know that that occurs. The marks that such experience can inflict on a child's character are not funny. They can persist into adulthood. Those children need to be able to exercise in different ways. I would not excuse them the need to exercise. However, the situation has to be approached in a different way, as my noble friend Lady David and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said. Those children must be given the same degree of consideration and

1183
encouragement as would be applied by a good teacher in any other class subject. Sport is just as important and needs to be raised to that level.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, said that sport is to be enjoyed. He is absolutely right. If children are not enjoying sport, something is wrong either with the teaching or with the fields of activity into which that child is being pushed.
I welcome the renewed interest everyone now shows in sport and PE as desirable school activities. It will need considerable effort from everyone to bring us back from our present low state. I admit that there are schools where that is not so. I know that there are good schools where sport is being taught and the PE is good. But so many schools have little going on.
I believe that with the right policies, with investment in facilities and in the training of staff and with co-operation between central and local government—it is important that they work together—together with the active involvement of local communities, the rewards can be great. Perhaps in future even our international image may be improved, as others have suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, said that the debate was not aimed at achieving Olympic standard. However, I believe that if the right action is taken now, Olympic standards come more easily within our reach. I hope that the Government will continue along the lines that we see emerging from the department and that from now on sport in schools will have a much higher profile.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Nicol, I, too, come new and inexperienced to the subject. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean, for introducing the debate. It has been one of the most interesting debates in which I have taken part. I am one of the last to speak before the reply from the Government, but I hesitate to call it that because I do not believe that the subject needs a reply. I do not believe that it requires a contest between the Opposition, Government and the Cross-Benches. I cannot detect any difference of opinion in this Chamber about the importance of sport in schools. That leads me to the conclusion that there is no difference between noble Lords on sport in school.
Perhaps I may introduce what might be a slight difference. I apologise since that is the last thing that I intend to do. The last time I debated the question of sport in school, and sport for schools, was when I was responsible for an expansion of Liverpool at a place called Speke which shared its authority with a place called Widnes. We had built several new houses. We had moved people from slums. The only recreational field those people had was a building site. I became involved because of the delinquent problems that occurred in Speke. I suggested that it might be better to give the children something to do rather than to provide them with the ready ammunition which they had been used to in the blitzed sites in Liverpool. With new buildings and new windows we were having about 250 windows broken each day, which cost a great deal of money.
1184
The only time that I took part in sport at school was when I entered the sports gala. I had only just learnt to swim. I was left with hardly a sport to take up, so I entered the competition for diving. It was good, the teacher was pleased, he was a nice man and he said: "Sefton, you have picked diving, you will dive". So I went to the high diving board; in my eyes it seemed to be about 300 feet high when in fact it was about six feet. I went to dive, slipped on the board and did a big belly flop. The whole of the baths laughed and when I got out the teacher realised that I might have hurt myself. He immediately came to me and inquired after my health, I was stinging all over. What did it teach me? First, to take part in sport even if you can only do a belly flop. Secondly, it taught me that if the right sporting attitude is exhibited in your performance you feel pleased about it. I was pleased that the teacher came to me and while everyone else was laughing he inquired after my health. To me that symbolised real sportsmanship.
My contribution tonight is along those lines. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, about what happened in public schools and how 20 or 30 years ago there seemed to be a different attitude to sport. We were doing well nationally and internationally and everyone seemed to be united in sport, even on the field. But something happened. Dare I suggest that it coincided with the time when professional football was getting into its stride? When I see games on television with the players racing down near the goal and suddenly someone goes "head over tip", as we used to call it, and a goal is scored, I wonder. I say to myself, "I wonder why he did that, it wasn't a nice thing to do". But then I realise that when there is a nice fat bonus for every goal scored, the motive to score becomes stronger.
Because I am idle person, I am a fan of snooker. Ray Reardon and the other old players were my heroes but even when they were playing in the finals of the world championship they could both have a laugh and make it an amusing experience for everyone. Do we get that today? We see two young people at the snooker table and it takes all their time to crack their faces and even to relax for a moment. Why? Because there is £180,000 at stake.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I think that in defence of modern day snooker players, we should draw my noble friend's attention to the magnificent gesture shown in the recent world snooker championship.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I was going to mention that, you have spoilt my line now !
Lord Howell: You're snookered!
Lord Sefton of Garston: We realise that that was a great gesture and it has always been one, but no longer. Why? Because people have only recently become addicted to money being the prize. My noble friend Lady Nicol said that she did not particularly agree with competition in sport. It depends on what the competition is for. I believe in competition, but the aim should not be to amass a large amount of money; it should be to prove that your team is the best and you are the best sportsman in the game. If that is what people are competing for, to get that title, I have no objection. I am

1185
a working class lad, I hate giving compliments to the ruling classes under which I was born, but I learnt this from school because of a good teacher: if you are playing a game, there is the saying:
"Not for the sake of a ribboned coat,
Or the selfish hope of a season's fame".
I think that is true.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I must correct my noble friend. I did not say that I did not believe in competition, I said that I did not believe in compulsory sports. It is slightly different.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I apologise. I said at the beginning that I did not want to introduce any differences of opinion but there have already been two. I conclude on this note. I have heard in the debate indications that someone expects the Government to declare a policy. It was even suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that perhaps we could have a ministerial committee to consider the question of sport in schools. I go much further than that. I say, perhaps in the frame of mind of Kennedy when he said to the people, after being elected President of the United States:
"Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country".
We can do something for sport in schools. I believe that if we get the proper emphasis on sport in schools, the right intellectual and cultural approach, it will make a tremendous difference to all in our society. We are breeding the next population and we must get away from the idea that daily is being instilled in young people that success is measured by the amount of money they get at the end of the day. They are drinking in that philosophy to such an extent that when I refer to the pursuit of a goal for the sake of money, there they are behind the terraces, punching away, expecting their favourite player to achieve that goal. They do not realise what they are doing. Why is it that a team like Liverpool, with all the support it has, can punish the young people in Liverpool by blithely accepting the sponsor's desire to change the strip every two years and to put a levy on the young kids? Why do we not do something about that?
I can remember the days in Liverpool when we could see dozens of football matches going on in one sports ground. We cannot see it now. What we must do is—and I hate to use the phrase "back to basics"—take two steps back. We must get over the problem that so-called sport is related to the amount of money that goes through the tills and to the medium of television. I am sick and tired of hearing loyal Liverpool and Everton fans in Liverpool complaining about—
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I regret interrupting the noble Lord but long live Everton! I am delighted.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I did not quite hear that.
Lord Lyell: The noble Lord knows well enough that I have a blue pen.
Lord Sefton of Garston: I do not know anything about that. The point I was trying to make is that I am sick and tired of hearing supporters complain that they
1186
buy a season ticket in the expectation that the games will be played at regular intervals. Then they find suddenly that television has decided that the game should be played on another night. That is wrong. Sport is now being dictated to by money in the pocket, and how much it is. We must stop it. I would not object to a levy on the sponsorship that is paid to the major sporting events with that levy being devoted to the provision of sport in schools and elsewhere. My own preference would be not to devote the money to schools for the provision of sport, but to school arenas which can be used by everyone anywhere at any reasonable time. That is the best way.
I was telling the story of Speke and juvenile delinquency. I finally managed to get baths built in Speke and during the first week in which the baths were open I had a conference with the chief constable. I asked: "How are things?" He told me that they had not had one single case of juvenile delinquency all the week. That started a decline in juvenile delinquency which practically transformed the housing estate. It was all because the kids were so tired after they had been to the baths that they did not have enough energy to get into trouble!
I have a whole list of points I could have referred to, but I had better not. I conclude on that note. believe that it is not a ministerial conference that we need, it is not a ministerial job. It is a job for all of us. I put to the Government a proposal which may be revolutionary in this House. A committee should be set up to look at the whole question of sport in schools. There should be no political division about it; we should be able to get on pretty well. The Minister should invite every party and the Cross-Benches to nominate representatives to that committee. Then we shall stop talking about what someone else will do for school sport. That committee should make itself responsible for examining the problems and finding solutions for sport in schools.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: I am most grateful to noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for giving me an opportunity to speak in the gap. I hope that noble Lords will not be too cross with me for taking this opportunity. I thought that I would be involved with Guy's Hospital this afternoon. In fact I got through things more quickly there than I had expected. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, will be very pleased to know that that hospital, which has the oldest rugby football club in the world, is proudly proclaiming that it has just won the women's rugby cup for the hospitals. I do not know who played stand-off half. I shall try to find out.
I have one or two points that I should like to read quickly into the record. One relates to the national curriculum and physical education in primary schools. We spoke to the now president of the Rugby Football Union, Ian Beer, and discovered from him that there were shortages of learning material for primary teachers. That was discovered by the Health Promotion Research Trust. I hope to be able to bring the Minister and the Secretary of State a very nice video that we want to make on the start of primary school physical education classes. We feel that, if boys and girls in the

1187
primary schools are not really confident in physical education, that will have an adverse effect on the enthusiasm which we all know is very important in school.
Secondly, I should like to mention some research that the Health Promotion Research Trust did among students. This is a very important health point. It was shown that those students who took just a little exercise— usually kick-about football, or whatever it might be— for about an hour a week had far less mental breakdown during the examination period. I am sure that the Greeks—"healthy mind in healthy body"—knew something about this. We need to pick up that old adage and use it to help us to re-establish sport in schools.
Other research by the Health Promotion Research Trust has shown that, if people do not get interested in sport when they are at school and follow it up when they are at college and university, unless they are from a family of sports people the chance that they will go on playing some kind of games into middle life is not high. Again, I feel that maintaining a continuum right through from the primary school teachers, through school, into universities and colleges—and almost all will end up going to college—and into middle life will bring a major bonus for health. Not least it will encourage people to keep the tone of their thigh muscles. That is terribly important when you get to be a bit older than I am, into their 80s. It is the people who cannot do what I am doing, stooping a little bit, who are most likely to become disabled.
I should also mention that the, as it will become, British University Sports Association, with which I am associated, is very concerned that afternoon time for games—which means the opportunities for competitive matches—is under threat in our tertiary education system. To me the importance of competitive games is that they just give people that little bit of "needle". Noble Lords must probably all have felt that for their maiden speeches. In my case it is true even this afternoon, when I am bursting into the gap. That is a good part of our general health programme.
I should like to conclude with some all-embracing remarks. How much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about people sampling games. Of course, unless you know that you want to swim, if there are no games at all the chances that you will sample swimming are very remote unless you have a sporting family. People enjoy games according to their aptitudes. Give them a big, wide menu at school and we shall find that many more people are keeping fit into their later life. The remarks that were made about swimming are terribly important. It is frightful that children face the possibility of drowning because they have no swimming experience.
Lastly, I have a remark for those who are well off. Please consider leaving some money to your school for astroturf. It changes the business of sitting in mud which we heard about. I am so strongly in favour of sport in schools that I found this whole debate very moving and inspiring.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I too wish to thank my noble friend Lord Dean for providing this occasion and for opening the debate so well. It has provoked a series of first-class contributions from noble Lords and noble Baronesses—especially, I would say, from the noble Baronesses. It is excellent and very encouraging that one-third of the speakers in this debate have been female. That is significant because school sports need to involve girl pupils as well as boys and women teachers as well as men. Without that, sport will never recover. So I say a particular thank you to them.
School sports matter very much to very many. I believe that they matter especially to the underprivileged children in our inner cities. It was a long time ago, but I know that in my youth it mattered more to me in those kinds of circumstances than anything else. It provided the bright spots in many otherwise dreary Northamptonshire weeks.
It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, that sport has to some extent moved from the schools to the clubs. I say to the noble Lord that the inner-city under-privileged are less likely to join clubs. In my view schools should remain the central focus for children's sports. They will do that if the facilities and the sports teachers are there.
During this debate two undisputed facts emerged: first, the belief that sports are good; and, secondly, that sports in schools have been in decline. The value of sports has been stated by all noble Lords, and was well endorsed in the 1991 Commons committee on education, science and arts.
Sport, apart from being at the root of our national sporting successes or failures, benefits a number of aspects of life. It benefits health. We know the problems of our young being overweight and of adults doing little exercise. It has educational value in the training of the body, as the Greeks taught us. It improves the morale of the school. It improves the relationship of teachers with pupils. It helps develop sporting interests which are very valuable in adult life. And it does, I believe, improve social behaviour. We had that from two impeccable sources: there is research in Canada; and there was the contribution of my noble friend Lord Sefton. I believe that sport leads to less delinquency. I wonder whether the behaviour of several younger Ministers in the Government somehow reflects the fact that there is now less sport in schools. The good of school sport is unquestioned, even if it leaves some individuals a little unhappy when they are cold and muddy. But I have a feeling that that may not be too bad for them in the long term.
The decline in school sports is equally well documented, especially in the CCPR's impressive charter for school sports. Nearly a third of schools fail to provide the mandatory two hours physical education. Some 60 per cent. have cut spending on PE and 70 per cent. have reduced sporting activity in the recent decade. Many children, like my own, have recently emerged from an inner-city comprehensive school with no sporting ability whatsoever. In my view, as they know, they are the worse for that.

1189
The reasons for the decline are intriguing. I believe that it is a mixture of recent social and political fashion and government policies. In terms of social philosophy, in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s the Far Left of the political spectrum held beliefs hostile towards school sports. It was hostile to competition and therefore to competitive games. It appeared hostile to excellence or elitism and was therefore against winning. Perhaps it was hoped that if there were no winners, there would be no losers. Its influence on the public service unions was one of hostility to unpaid, extra work, and that rubbed off on teachers, while the women's movement may have hated team games because men appeared to enjoy them.
The Tory Right was equally reprehensible. I believe that Mrs. Thatcher's materialism, which argued implicitly that only money mattered, devalued unpaid public service. The same source of excessive individualism, with the stress on individual choice, tends to devalue team games in schools. I notice that a teacher wrote about the dangers. One of his students was pressed to play rugger and answered that he preferred cycling. Certainly he preferred cycling to football. When he was asked where he intended to cycle, he honestly replied, "Home". Mrs. Thatcher's assault on teachers' remuneration and morale also assisted in destroying the teachers' willingness to give the extra after-hours service that is needed to monitor sports.
So the Left and the Right of the political spectrum provided a lethal cocktail which, I believe, damaged sport in schools. Much of that trendy nonsense of the Left and Far Right is, we hope, behind us. This debate certainly encourages that hope. But we are still left with the same government. The fact is that the Government's policies have been equally damaging in practice and not just in theory. In a generally non-partisan—in my view a welcomely non-partisan—debate, I hope that it is permitted to remind the House of a few political facts.
The sale of 5,000 playing grounds was mentioned more than once. I shall not repeat those observations. I ask how the Government hope to increase school sports when there are fewer facilities and we expect more children in schools. Certainly, that dilemma makes the issue of dual use of school and local authority facilities very important. The importance of such co-operation was well stressed by my noble friend Lady Nicol.
But cuts in local authority spending also mean fewer local authority sports facilities to share. The pressure to impose full pricing on local authority sports facilities especially affects swimming pools and their use for schools' competitions. Swimming, above all, needs expensive facilities; yet one third of our primary schools have no access to a pool.
The new national curriculum itself has brought problems, with its emphasis on examination success and the consequential bureaucratic pressure on teachers' time, which leaves less time available for sports and physical education. I notice that the Minister shook her head when my noble friend Lady David mentioned how we provide less physical education than elsewhere in Europe and that she had seen a graph—I imagine that it is the same graph and the Minister is welcome to it—which showed Britain's position in Europe.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. On that specific point, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was talking about French schools versus English schools and not about sport in France as opposed to sport in England.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may just interrupt and say that I think that the noble Baroness misunderstood me. I was not speaking in that way.
Lord Donoughue: Perhaps we are getting a little entangled. I thought it was about physical education. I shall provide the Minister with the graph in which Britain comes bottom—as it does, sadly, in most graphs these days.
We are waiting for the Dearing proposals for the curriculum. I should like to ask when the Minister thinks that Parliament will have them. We certainly trust that they will restore the status and morale of physical education teachers. We hope that they will set a minimum of two hours a week for PE and will also improve teacher training for sports and PE, as my noble friend Lord Howell said. Above all, what is needed to restore school sports—which is at the heart of the matter and without which the proposals will not work—as several of my noble friends, including my noble friends Lord Howell, Lord Dean, Lady Nicol and Lady David, stressed, is the restoration of teachers' morale. There cannot be satisfactory school sports without the willing and wholehearted support of the teaching profession.
Whether that requires incentive payments for evening or weekend sports is a tricky question. The Government cannot complain if the teachers insist that all work should be paid, because that has been part of the recent philosophy. But it is a difficult matter and it is hard to see that applying only to sport. One wonders about drama, dance, music and so on. So we await with interest, and even impatience, the Government's proposals for improving school sports. As has been demonstrated already tonight, on this side of the House we shall respond positively, given the opportunity. On this Front Bench officially we are against compulsion in sports. My noble friend Lady David mentioned the possible exception of swimming. I can see the case for that. She also mentioned banning boxing. I have to say that, whereas in principle I sympathise with her, in practice I watch every boxing match on television even until two o'clock in the morning. What she said about brain damage is worrying and may be helpful. I was captain of boxing at school, which may explain a few things.
We are against compulsion but in favour of competitive sports. Above all, we support the provision of more sporting options and more PE teaching. There need to be more teaching, more facilities and more sporting options for the pupils to sample. Team sports illustrate our view—or certainly my view—of society. Team games have been defined as,
"Exercises in structured co-operation and the sublimation of individual ambitions for the good of the team".
For "team" read "society".

1191
Like my noble friend Lord Howell, I welcome the Prime Minister's genuine support for that view. The efforts of Mr. Sproat—I mean on sport and not on D-Day—should also be supported. That is encouraging. We ought to be able, as my noble friend Lord Sefton said, to reach a consensus on this important question. I look forward tonight to the Minister's contribution to that consensus. She speaks to a House in which the support for more school sports has been unanimous.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is usual on these occasions to welcome a debate in your Lordships' House. In doing so I make a particular point. This has not only been a valuable and informed debate, as one would expect, but very well timed. I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for the opportunity to discuss this important subject. Not only have we heard from experts in the subject, but enthusiasts too. Unless it escaped your Lordships' notice, the Deputy Speaker, who was sitting on the Woolsack for a good part of the debate and who has now taken his place behind me on the Benches, is a stalwart supporter of Everton football club. I hope that is not fighting talk in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston. I understand that the motto is, "Nil satis nisi optimum"—"Nothing but the best".
I say also to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, who made a marvellous speech, that his sporting activities after Lords and Commons ski meetings are legendary. However, I shall not go into the detail of that now. The other joy for me is that ageism has not crept into our debate today. Again, it will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, who is not in his place this evening, skis competitively at the age of 80, which is absolutely wonderful.
The Government are considering the question of young people and sport. We are open and receptive to ideas and contributions. The House can be assured that this debate will be studied carefully. To set the scene, let me refer to the position in schools today. Doom and gloom, and many of the statistics that I heard tonight, are misplaced. Physical education continues to command the fifth highest time allocation in secondary schools behind only English, mathematics, science and modern foreign languages. The lion's share of that time is devoted to traditional team games. The independent schools inspectorate reports that the quality of 70 per cent. of the physical education inspected last year was satisfactory or better. That is not a picture of decline in our schools.
Many school pupils also play sport at school outside the formal curriculum thanks to the voluntary commitment of dedicated teachers. That voluntary commitment to sport is especially healthy in grant-maintained schools which characteristically attach importance to sport as part of the corporate life of their schools. Our schoolboy and schoolgirl national teams do outstandingly well in international competition in soccer, rugby, hockey and netball. Sadly, that success is
1192
not always replicated by their elders—or at least not in men's competition. Our women cricketers and rugby players are, of course, the reigning world champions.
I am not saying that all is well. But we do a great disservice to hardworking teachers and schools if we denigrate their work. The Government are determined to enhance physical education and sport in schools. Physical education makes a vital contribution to physical fitness and the health of the nation. Sports and team games in particular help to instil discipline and collective endeavour and teach our children to come to terms with both victory and defeat: to display magnanimity when they win and good grace when they lose.
The Government have given ample proof of that commitment. With the establishment of the national curriculum, physical education is now compulsory for all five to 16 year-olds for the first time. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, says that he is against compulsion in sport. If so, he must take PE out of the national curriculum because what goes into the national curriculum is a requirement for all children—I prefer to say a right for all children—to have sport in school. But that right means also that it is a requirement.
The national curriculum sets demanding targets for physical activity for all pupils whether they are star athletes or computer addicts. All pupils must be taught to swim by the age of 11. We have established training courses to ensure that primary teachers have access to physical education expertise. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister launched his initiative to look at ways of promoting team sports in schools. We must now build on that solid foundation. But in doing so we need to be clear what we want to achieve and what levers are available. As is apparent from this debate there are apparent distinctions to be made, too often confused in the popular press. We need to distinguish between the formal physical education curriculum in timetabled hours; sport in schools as part of the formal PE curriculum; school sport outside that time; and young people engaging in sport outside school. All those points were well made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and all of those aspects are very important.
Sport or games are part of physical education but not the whole of it. Physical education goes wider than that. It is to do with awareness of, care for and respect for the body. It concerns the development of the body and motor skills. It embraces activities such as swimming, athletics, outdoor games, and gymnastics. Equally important are the opportunities for sport in schools. They are not confined to and do not depend exclusively on the formal PE curriculum. Many pupils play sports and team games as part of school teams at lunchtimes, in the evenings and sometimes at weekends.
It is against that background that the Government approached the review of the physical education national curriculum. The national curriculum cannot bear the full brunt of reviving sport in our schools—a point well made in the debate. The objective of the review is to free time for teachers to use at their own discretion. It would be a perverse response to that

1193
objective to make physical education alone of the national curriculum subjects more prescriptive or to add to the physical education requirements.
But the Government are determined that the review of the physical education curriculum should achieve two things: first, to ensure that physical education retains its place within the mandatory curriculum for all pupils of compulsory school age; secondly, to strengthen the place of team sports within the physical education curriculum. Consultations on proposals for the revision of the national curriculum will be launched later this month. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, I believe it will be around the 9th. Your Lordships will understand that I cannot therefore anticipate the detail of those proposals now. However, I hope that noble Lords contributing to this debate today will also quite separately contribute to the discussions about the revision of the physical education curriculum once the proposals are published.
Manipulating the physical education national curriculum is not enough on its own. Much sport is necessarily played outside school time, thanks to voluntary commitment of teachers. That is where the opportunity lies to increase and improve opportunities for sport and participation in team games. If sport is to be promoted we must also reinvigorate that voluntary commitment—again a point well made in the debate.
The Government cannot act alone in that regard. Governing bodies and head teachers must give the lead within their schools by demonstrating the importance which they attach to sport as an integral part of the life of the school. Sports bodies and associations should actively form links with schools to offer expert coaching and promote interest in their sports. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, emphasised that point. Sponsors must come forward for local, regional and inter-school competitions. Professional clubs must help to foster games in local schools by involving themselves actively in coaching as many professional football clubs now do. It is heartening to see how many professional clubs are making a contribution to the life of children both in school and in the community.
Turning to some of the individual points raised in the course of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, who opened the debate so well, talked of developing the talents of children. As an example, he spoke of a child with dyslexia. That was a point well taken because education is about developing all the talents of young people and that includes the sporting talents. But with regard to the child with learning difficulties, whether dyslexia or some other form, one must not be concentrated on to the exclusion of the other. It is important to address the learning difficulty just as it is to make sure that sporting opportunities are available for all children.
The noble Lord went on to mention the Burnham Committee and how it should have stayed in existence for longer. I have some pretty painful memories of the Burnham Committee. It is my view that the Burnham Committee and the way it worked did much to show teachers in a poor light to the general public and to parents. It is so much better to have a proper pay review body and I hope that that will continue to be so.
1194
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, also made an important point regarding the co-ordination of local facilities which was echoed by many other noble Lords, We must go on increasing the co-ordination and making it more effective at a local level. The noble Lord also referred to the lottery funds and to the issue of additionality. The point is well taken. The intention is that the lottery should complement, not substitute for, sports funding either from grant-in-aid by the sports councils or from local authorities' own expenditure.
My noble friend Lady Macleod brought to our attention the problem of children who are bored and who suffer from a surfeit of unspent energy. That is a very important point. If we can not only introduce young people to sport but help and encourage them to enjoy the sport, a point made by all noble Lords, that will use up that energy in a productive way rather than seeing it being spent in a negative way, perhaps on our streets.
The vexed issue of the disposal of playing fields was mentioned. There is a great misconception here. It is important to get the disposal of playing fields into perspective. The government funded Register of Recreational Land shows that the proportion of playing field sites which are under threat is very small indeed. Outside London, planning permission has been granted or is being sought for under 2 per cent. of the existing sites. That is 2 per cent. of 24,000 sites. Nor is it right to assume that disposals automatically curtail opportunities for schools to play sports. Schools have a duty to ensure that they have appropriate facilities available to meet the requirements of the national curriculum. That, of course, includes facilities for providing physical education, both indoor and outdoor.
Inevitably, there will be some schools and local authorities which have land which is surplus to requirements even after they have met their obligations. Often this land incurs significant maintenance costs and can be a drain on precious resources. Where that is the case, it is only common sense for the surplus land to be, sold off, especially when the proceeds are used to improve existing facilities. The sale of surplus land can be used to finance the installation of good quality, all-weather pitches which enable round the clock use during daylight hours and, if floodlit, in the evenings, too. Compared with the recommended seven hours per week maximum usage of a well drained grass pitch, this represents a huge increase in efficiency.
There are so many examples up and clown the land of enterprising schools and local authorities. I want to give two examples. I understand that a school in Bolton has allowed the local authority to build indoor tennis courts on its land in return for free use of that facility during school hours. A school in my local authority area and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol—Cambridgeshire—sold one of its two separate playing field sites. The proceeds from the sale were used by the school to build a new sports hall which is used principally for indoor football and for cricket. I could give many more examples.
There has, I know, been local concern about the proposed development of Central Cricket Club in Hastings. As it was not mentioned in the debate, I

1195
simply use it as an example of the kind of concern we are talking about. The local authority has provided a fully adequate alternative site for cricket on the outskirts of the town. That site offers easier access and is closer to a number of schools. There are also plans for an artificial pitch at the new site, a development for which there was no scope at the old one. That is another example of where land has been sold but the alternative provision has been an improvement for the children of that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, called for annual reports from schools and suggested that they should refer to sport. I am happy to say that it is a requirement now for all schools not only to produce an annual report referring to all the activities that go on in schools but also to have an annual meeting with parents where these matters can be discussed as well. The noble Lord went on to say, quite rightly, that the national curriculum was far too big and that something should be done about it. The noble Lord will now know that Sir Ron Dearing has done a sterling jot- He has addressed that very issue and in a few days' time Sir Ron Dearing's proposals will show that he has fulfilled a promise—to free up the equivalent of a day a week for key stages 1, 2 and 3, and the equivalent of two days a week for key stage 4, to allow professional judgment to reign, for them to make judgments at local level as to how that time should be used and also to allow vocational options to come in for children post-14.
The noble Lord said that public schools set aside half a day and he suggested that, if it is good enough for them, it is good enough for our own schools. I shall be able to tell him in a moment or two, using a statistic, that we go a long way down the road to achieving that. I must also say that the public school day is longer, as indeed is the week, because they invariably work on Saturday mornings, too.
The noble Lord made an important point about using schools for community purposes. The noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Nicol, and myself all come from a local authority that pioneered the use of schools by the community. That is well established and is now common practice throughout the country. It is also worth recording that, according to the two surveys carried out so far in each of the previous two years, the involvement of grant-maintained schools with the community has increased rather than diminished.
The noble Lord talked about the incentives available to encourage teachers to become involved with extra-curricular sport, a point echoed by other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, not only referred to it as an issue but also referred to some of the difficulties that arise from it. Why should we consider the extra commitment of the teacher to sport any differently from the extra commitment of the teacher to other school activities? Under the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document, schools have flexibility, if they wish, to recognise teachers' involvement in extra-curricular sport through the award of additional spine points for responsibility. Many schools do that for teachers who co-ordinate drama and/or sports activities within the school.
1196
The issue of swimming and the national curriculum was brought up by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Howell, my noble friend Lady Macleod and the noble Baroness, Lady David. Swimming is recognised universally as an essential life-saving skill. The Government believe firmly in the importance of children receiving swimming tuition as part of PE at school. The national curriculum for PE requires that by the age of 11 children should be taught to swim at least 25 metres unaided and to demonstrate an understanding of water safety. The great majority of schools are already in a position to meet that requirement.
Evidence from surveys conducted by the department in all local authorities and in a sample of primary schools at the end of 1991 showed that extensive swimming provision was already being made by schools and education authorities, particularly at primary level, before the introduction of the national curriculum. Of the schools responding, more than 80 per cent. from the LEAs themselves indicated that they already provided swimming as part of the PE curriculum. Of those not providing swimming, only 28 schools in the country said that they were more than five miles from the nearest swimming pool. The Government have nevertheless taken steps to give this small minority of schools time to prepare.
Implementation of the national curriculum for PE began in August 1992 and the provisions relating to swimming were deferred until August 1994. That should allow local authorities and schools time in which to make whatever arrangements are necessary before implementation. The Government believe that they should be able to meet the overall costs involved from within the existing budget, given the time for preparation.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, gave figures for swimming. I do not want to take issue with them but they conflict with the figures we have in the department. There are many statistics. I have used some of my own and others have used them during the course of the debate. I should be pleased to look at the noble Lord's figures if he could possibly provide the source of his information.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that a third of primary schools do not have access to a pool. I have just given the figures. The survey conducted by the department showed that 80 per cent. of schools already provide swimming as part of the national curriculum. Only 28 schools were more than five miles away from a pool. We have recognised that factor in giving time to achieve the requirements of the national curriculum.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, asked about mandatory relief for voluntary sports clubs. We are not absolutely convinced that a mandatory rate relief policy would be the most effective way to maximise sporting benefit to the wider community. Sports clubs vary so very much, from small clubs fulfilling a genuine social need to large commercial organisations which may have little financial need of rate relief.
The noble Lord went on to talk about the taxation of sports bodies. Although we welcome the valuable contribution made by sporting bodies, it would not be

1197
right to single them out for special tax privileges which other equally worthy bodies do not enjoy. As it is, many sports bodies are incorporated associations, which means that they pay no tax on income from subscriptions and many fund-raising activities, nor do they pay any tax on gratis donations. The Paymaster General announced in July 1993 that non-profit organisations would be exempt from VAT on their supply of certain sports and physical education services. A Treasury order to give effect to that was laid before Parliament on 10th March and came into effect on 1st April.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we have some difficulty about figures. My quotation was from the survey carried out in 1991 by the National Association of Head Teachers. It was one-quarter and not one-third of primary schools which had no access to a swimming pool.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if it is a quarter, it is 5,000 schools. The local authorities would certainly have given that information and reflected it. It is the local education authorities which have given the returns to my department. If the noble Lord would like to furnish us with the statistics, we shall check them and I shall certainly write to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was concerned about other statistics. I have a survey here from the Secondary Heads Association which again has been referred to in the course of the debate. It was also referred to by the noble Lord. It is only one source of evidence. The most reliable evidence is provided by the regular secondary schools' staffing survey, which is an annual event. That shows that the time allocated to PE has remained broadly stable between 1988 and 1992. PE had the fifth highest allocation of time, behind English, maths, science and modern foreign languages, as I said earlier. The average amount of time spent on games was three to four periods a week, which is about two to two-and-a-half hours and in the second half of every school day.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made a very interesting point about compulsion versus voluntary sport We all have some sympathy and some of us even identify with the little body in the mud on a cold, wet, rainy day. I believe that we have got the balance right. The prescribed physical education in the national curriculum is the minimum. It is important that it should be the experience of all children to be exposed to physical education. I have mentioned that time will be freed up in the curriculum for either more PE or more of other things, depending on the school. But what is important are the other aspects and benefits from physical education—physical activity, a healthy body leading, as the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, said, to a healthy mind. So it is a healthy body, and a healthy lifestyle. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that the end of school should not be the end of sport.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I briefly intervene. The main point I was making was that school sport has a function as a sampler for the whole range of sports. That was the main point and not the level of sport and thus
1198
becoming a trial area. That was the main point I was trying to make and not the actual amount of time involved.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we do not prescribe time in the national curriculum which has to be a matter for local determination. The range of sports involved in the national curriculum will at least have an attraction for the noble Lord. I invite him to read the new order when it is published in May. The noble Baroness, Lady David, said that she hoped that I would not say that we must wait for Dearing. I have had to say that we shall have to wait for Dearing. It would be wrong and quite inappropriate for me to pre-empt in public debate the details of Dearing in advance of publication.
The noble Baroness also referred to the issue between Mr. Sproat and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. My honourable friend the Minister responsible for sport is naturally very much involved in the review initiated by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. He has expressed typically forthright views about how the Government's objective of promoting school sport can be achieved. Those views will feed into the Government's collective consideration of the best way forward. I prefer to accept what the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, said; namely, to make the distinction between what is compulsory within the national curriculum and all sport which takes place both within the freed-up time in the curriculum in the school day and all the extra-curricular sport which goes on too.
The Government are committed to promoting sport in schools. To that end my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has asked my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for National Heritage to conduct a review of the current state of school sport in consultation with other interested colleagues. The work initiated by the Prime Minister will go well beyond the current review of PE in the national curriculum. It will consider how best to rekindle the commitment of schools to sport outside the curriculum. It will consider how the sporting bodies and the associations can best be mobilised to support sport in schools. My right honourable friend will be reporting to the Prime Minister shortly. I have no doubt again that the outcome of the review will be announced in due course.
An important point was made about teacher training. In the secondary school over 90 per cent. of PE lessons are taught by teachers with a post A-level qualification in physical education. Quite naturally, primary school teachers are generalists. They most often cover the full curriculum with their pupils. Nevertheless, the Government have acted to enhance access to PE expertise in schools. We are funding, with specific grant from this year, 56 courses of between five days and 20 days which are designed to equip serving primary school teachers with PE experience and expertise. The teachers who attend these courses will act as PE consultants for their own colleagues at school, so it will be a cascading system.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked whether we are happy with the past 15 years of government. I would say that yes, we are. First, there is more sport; there are

1199
more facilities; and there is better co-ordination all the time between schools and the community. The national curriculum has sport within it as a compulsory subject for the first time by any government. It is the right of all children to receive a sports curriculum. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has shown personally a special interest in this issue. We shall be able to read Hansard tomorrow where there is a difference between us. But, as regards the French issue, France does not timetable sport into its curriculum. Sport happens outside the school curriculum and therefore it is very difficult to compare a country where sport is timetabled inside the curriculum.
As regards the register of recreational land, the Government's sponsored register was launched in October 1993. It identified 23,380 sites in England and has data on over 73,000 playing pitches. The register is currently being updated by Coopers & Lybrand. That is funded by the Sports Council and it should be completed by the end of this month. It is said that 200 sites are being lost to development each year. That figure is pure speculation. The point is that we do not actually know and the register will be very helpful to that end. The Central Council of Physical Recreation says that playing fields to the value of £100,000 per day are being sold off. That figure is grossly exaggerated. The register of recreational land, of which the CCPR is a co-sponsor, shows that only 1.66 per cent. of the 24,380 sites it identifies are the subject of any possible development.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, talked about the importance of dance. I can give her an absolute assurance that under the current physical education national curriculum, dance, gymnastics and athletics are compulsory for all pupils from the ages of five to 11. They continue to be options for pupils aged 11 to 16. The proposal for the revision of the PE national curriculum will be published shortly and I do not believe that she will be disappointed when she reads it.
The noble Baroness also spoke about the inclusion of PE in initial teacher' training. That is again a very important point. Initial teacher training courses for generalist primary school teachers must provide a grounding in all national curriculum subjects including physical education. But recent changes in the criteria governing these courses will allow for the development of courses with a particular specialism which could include PE.
The opening up of school facilities for wider community use was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the need for clubs and schools to work together. I believe that we all agree that that is very important. The Government have a longstanding policy of encouraging the community to use school facilities with the community. Only last year we included changes in the 1993 Act to facilitate joint management by different partners involved with school-community use of facilities. New partnerships at local level are also being encouraged by Champion Coaching, a quality after-school coaching scheme run by the National Coaching Foundation. Through the scheme, local youth sports advisory groups have been established to bring
1200
together local youth sports organisations and to enable them to work more closely together. Champion Coaching was initiated by my honourable friend, Mr. Robert Atkins, when he was the sports Minister, and it receives funding from the Sports Council. I understand that there is some concern about continuing its funding. My information is that that is being discussed at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, talked about the voluntary commitment of teachers. The picture is not as bleak as he portrayed it. The independent schools inspectorate, Ofsted, reported that in 1992–93 a great deal of sport was being played in the evenings and at weekends. That extra-curricular sport rested on the voluntary commitment of teachers. It is a disservice to teachers if we do not recognise their important commitment.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, was right to make a distinction between the aim of sport in schools and the level of professional sport where very large amounts of money are involved. School sport is about a healthy body leading to a healthy mind and, wherever possible, cultivating an enjoyment of sport, as my noble friend said.
My noble friend Lord Butterfield talked about the Health Promotion Research Trust. I shall look at the video that he mentioned. However, even if a pupil or student takes only modest physical exercise, he will usually be more relaxed, less stressed and less mentally anguished. I also take my noble friend's point about astro-turf.
I understand that I am out of time, but I must say that there remains much to be done in building on the foundations which the Government have laid. That is why the Government are actively looking at these matters and that is why this debate has been timely. As always, I shall convey all the points that have been made in the debate to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I conclude by thanking again the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I should like briefly to thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. It has been surprising that there has been no repetition. Most noble Lords have covered different points. During the 10 years in which I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, I have taken part in quite a number of debates and when I started this debate I did not know what would happen in it. However, I have to say that, because of its objectivity, it has been the most rewarding debate in which I have participated. It has pulled together different strands and united noble Lords from all parts of the House who are concerned about the future of the children of this country. I hope that such co-operation will continue in your Lordships' House.
Once again, I should like to thank all noble Lords and particularly the Minister. She made a long speech in reply. Nevertheless it contained much valuable information, although her figures may conflict with some of ours. I am not inviting her to respond now, but I ask her to take on board the last point that I made in

1201
my speech. I refer to those outside people who are waiting to try to help, such as those from Butlins with their national scheme for youngsters. As I said earlier, perhaps she or someone in her department could talk to those people. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

National Parks Bill [H.L.]
8.3 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the National Parks Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, it is my duty and pleasure to bring the National Parks Bill before your Lordships for its Third Reading. I believe that the passage of the Bill has demonstrated the interest and support of Members of this House—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I understood that the Question had been put. I hope that the noble Lord is now moving, That the Bill do now pass.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport): My Lords, if it is of any help to the House, my paper suggests that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, should move, That a privilege amendment be now agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
I shall start again. It is my duty and pleasure to bring the National Parks Bill before your Lordships for its Third Reading. I believe that the passage of this Bill has demonstrated—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again at this early stage, but is the noble Lord moving, That the Bill do now pass?
Lord Norrie: My Lords, yes. As I said at the unopposed Second Reading, the origins of this Bill lie in the report of the National Parks Review Panel. I am most grateful to the panel for its work, which has consistently informed and assisted your Lordships in your considerations.
I should like to thank the 24 speakers from all sides of the House who spoke in support of the Bill and those who assisted at Second Reading, Committee and Report stages in clarifying those positions. My noble friend Lord Arran, who is unfortunately absent today, has been most helpful in providing assurances of the Government's intentions not only in regard to this Bill but also about future legislation. I am grateful to him for playing such an active role.
I am also indebted to a fellow vice-president of the Council for National Parks, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for her active involvement. She has joined me on
1202
fact-finding missions to the parks and has worked tirelessly with me in gaining support for the Bill. That is a further illustration of the fact that the Bill transcends party political boundaries.
As your Lordships are aware, I am most anxious that the Bill, which fulfils a government manifesto commitment, should succeed in this parliamentary Session. It was never my intention that the Bill should be viewed as a stalking horse. The timetable for local government reorganisation could produce a situation where the administration of the national parks is left in limbo or it could require interim arrangements for the administration of the parks which would be far more complex than acting on my Bill. Those scenarios are in no one's interest and could damage the parks themselves. The success of the Bill in this Session will ensure that that does not happen.
The Government have promised to legislate on several of the recommendations of the National Parks, Review Panel. It has been agreed that that other legislation would include the national park statutory purposes and associated duty. Many noble Lords who spoke on Report agreed that revision of purposes and duty would not be appropriate in a Private Member's Bill, and therefore. that debate on that subject should be deferred until a government Bill is introduced.
My Bill is a narrow Bill with one simple objective: to set up new authorities to run all national parks. As a Private Member's Bill, it has to be precise in its focus. That strategy has won the support of your Lordships. Only by maintaining that clear and narrow focus will the Bill succeed. The National Parks Bill is a first step towards the introduction of those other measures by the Government, but it is a first step that must make a clear and lasting imprint. With the support of the Government and of the other parties and with the backing of many organisations outside this House, including those from the local government sector, there is every reason why this popular measure should now succeed. It goes to another place having had the full scrutiny of this House.
The Bill benefits the parks. It has advantages for those who live, work and have other interests in them. It will be welcomed by those who make the 100 million visits to the parks each year. The time is right for the Bill to become law. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(Lord Norrie.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may have my word. The House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for what he has said this evening and for his conduct during the passage of the Bill. He has conducted himself, if I may say so, with great dignity and expertise. We are grateful to him. I imagine that the Government will also be grateful to him for producing the Bill in the first place.
I wish the Bill well. As I said on Second Reading, it has my personal support. It also has the support of my noble friends in this House; and it has the support of my right honourable and honourable friends in another place, as far as I can tell. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, is well aware, I can speak only for the Front Bench in another place, and the other place has its own procedures.

1203
The problem, as I see it, is that this is really a government Bill. I said so, I think as clearly as I could, in accusing the noble Earl, Lord Arran, of being disingenuous in Committee when the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, raised the problem of whether this should not be properly adopted as a government Bill, produced in the normal manner that government Bills are produced. The rest of my speech assumes that there is a government in place, which is by no means certain after the events of recent days.
There are, as I understand it, those in another place who dislike the Bill, and, if it is a government Bill, then it is a government responsibility to ensure that the Bill is not killed in another place. Now I accept that the Government have not produced it from the Front Bench, but I have been party, if I may say so, to discussions at an early stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, knows, and, as the noble Lord quite properly said, it is a manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party. Therefore I assume that the Government will take responsibility for the Bill.
Unfortunately, the Government refused to introduce this Bill, or indeed many other Bills on environmental matters, as their own Bills. So it is a curious arrangement that it is farmed out to the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, who, as I say, has conducted himself with exemplary discipline and skill; but, nevertheless, the Bill has been drafted by parliamentary draftsmen and it is essentially a government Bill. So the Government must ensure that it goes through. That has been clear from the start. Otherwise—there is an otherwise—if that does not happen, then I am afraid that I have to say that the Government have been wasting the time of this House. Because, if there is a commitment in the Conservative Party manifesto and if a Bill is produced to meet that manifesto commitment and if the Government cannot in one way or another ensure that that manifesto commitment is met, if we have a Private Member's Bill in your Lordships' House which we discuss, as the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has said, in some detail, and the Government do not ensure that that manifesto commitment is met, then I can only say to noble Lords on the Government Front Bench that they have been wasting the time of the House.
Not only will they have been wasting the time of the House, but they have also been wasting the money of the taxpayer, because it takes money to keep this House going, and, if the Bill does not go through, we will be noting how much money has been spent in keeping this House sitting, as the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, well knows, well into the night: on Second Reading, and, indeed in Committee. We shall be noting what the Government are doing to make sure that the taxpayer gets a proper reward for his or her investment. So the ball, to my mind, is very firmly in the Government's court.
The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has done his best, and his best has been extremely good. I support the Bill. As I have said, my noble friends in this House support the Bill. The Front Bench in another place of my party and, I believe, of the Liberal Democrats—we shall hear later from them—support the Bill. The question is whether
1204
the Government can get the Bill on to the statute book. That is the real question. Are they prepared to meet their manifesto commitment?
I can only conclude by saying that I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, that the national parks require the Bill, particularly, if I may say so, in Wales, and that the sooner the Bill is on the statute book the happier a lot of us will be. There it is. So I look to the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, who will reply for the Government to give us an absolute, guaranteed assurance that the Bill will go through and get on to the statute book.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I shall not weary the House by repeating a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said, with which I agree almost entirely. It would however be discourteous not to repeat the tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and those who have assisted him in bringing the Bill to the House. They have worked extremely hard. They have dealt with all the problems with great courtesy, and as a result we have a Bill with which we can be pleased.
But the fact remains that this should have been a government Bill. In fact I think that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, say in his first couple of sentences that the Bill fulfils a pledge made by the Government. It does absolutely no such thing. It is the only thing that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, said which was not quite so: it fulfils the pledge of the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, to do what the Government have found themselves unable to do, and which they should have done, instead of putting through the House, and sometimes not entirely through the House, Bills of much less worth upon which your Lordships have had to spend a great deal of time taking to pieces and sending back again.
This is a good Bill. It is a Bill upon which there is wide agreement. Both the Front Bench and the Back Benches of my party in another place will support it. I only hope that the Government will find some way of fulfilling the pledges which they owe and which they have not yet shown any sign of paying. We wish the Bill well, and we thank the noble Lord, Lord Norrie.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I wish to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for the way in which he has brought forward the Bill, and to make two points briefly in congratulating him on his success so far tonight. Perhaps I may first reply to some of the criticisms made outside the House as we have been progressing through the Bill, that this is somehow an attempt to take the national parks out of local government. On the contrary, the Bill creates a statutory framework for national park authorities consisting of local government representatives. It also ensures that a financial basis of national park funding from local government will be secure. That is a point which needs repeating as the Bill goes to another place.
The second point relates to what my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel said. I was present at the national park authorities' conference in Brecon where the commitment to legislate on the Edwards

1205
recommendations for independent park authorities was made by the Minister of State at the Welsh Office, Sir Wyn Roberts. That same commitment was made simultaneously that day for the national parks in England. Therefore, this is a clear government commitment. I endorse all that has been said from both sides of the House; that it is up to the Government's managers in another place to ensure that the Bill goes through.
There are those of us who see this as a test of the Government's willingness to do something in the area of environmental legislation. If we cannot have other more major environmental legislation, which we have been promised, at least we can have this Bill. All that it does is to place our national parks on a secure footing at a time of local government change. That is the least the Government can do for the environment in this Session of Parliament.
Again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for the way that he has conducted the Bill. I also thank those advisers in the voluntary national park organisations and the Council for National Parks and others who have supported the noble Lord. In particular, I thank him for the excellent letters in Welsh which he sent out recently.
8.21 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, enough has been said about the difficulties facing the Bill and about the purpose of it. I shall confine myself to saying a few thank you's, which are necessary. Obviously, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, who has worked extremely hard, As my noble friend Lord Williams said, he conducted himself with great dignity and much credit is due to him.
Many people have been involved in work on the Bill. I wish to thank members of the Council for National Parks, who put a great deal of work into the measure. They collaborated with the Department of the Environment. Although it is unusual, I wish to thank those in that department who worked hard on drafting what proved to be a difficult and tricky Bill. I suspect that their work is not finished.
I wish to thank in particular the staff of the parks we visited last year. They gave up a tremendous amount of their time at a busy time of year in order to show us the work they had done. I thank the farmers and the residents of the parks who were willing to talk to us and put forward their points of view. They proved by their comments that it is possible to have good relations between the national park authorities and residents and farmers. Special thanks are due to them.
Finally, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Arran, who had a difficult. part in this little play. He spoke for the Government but not for the Government, and he did so most skilfully. I hope that his noble friend Lord St. Davids will manage with equal skill. I wish the Bill every success in another place and I remind the Government that there is urgency in getting it through.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, for what he has done. On Second Reading I said that I considered myself to be a midwife to the
1206
Broads authority Bill. I suppose that the few of us who are in the Chamber tonight may consider ourselves midwives to this Bill. I hope that the birth will be happy and fairly imminent.
I wish to make one comment—and bother the politics! That is why I sit on the Cross Benches. important that the Bill will have benefits. It will benefit those who in future run the parks and those who live and work in them. If the other authorities work as well as the Broads authority, they will do very well indeed.
8.24 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Arran, I wish to begin by apologising for his absence tonight. As we speak, he is in attendance at the UN Global Conference on Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. I know that he would have liked to have been here to congratulate my noble friend Lord Norrie for the way in which he has handled the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. But instead that pleasure has been left to me.
We are grateful to my noble friend Lord Norrie for the way that he has presided over the Bill and we admire the support which has been demonstrated for the establishment of independent national park authorities.
The Government are committed to safeguarding the future of the 10 national parks in England and Wales. In reply to the work of the National Parks Review Panel, we set out our proposals for the future of the parks in our January 1992 policy statement. In it, we accepted the central recommendation that we should introduce legislation to establish independent authorities for all the parks as soon as there 'was a suitable opportunity to do so.
I know that there is much disappointment that because of pressure on the parliamentary timetable we were unable to bring forward a government Bill this Session, but I congratulate my noble friend on promoting a Bill which addresses this central issue of establishing a new and common administration for all the parks. As my noble friend Lord Arran indicated at the Bill's Second Reading, the Government are pleased to offer their full support.
We recognise that this Bill fulfils only part of the commitments that we made in response to the review panel. However, we believe it to be the most important and urgent part. As my noble friend Lord Arran made clear when we debated the Bill at Second Reading, and as he reiterated at Report stage, it remains our firm intention to introduce further legislation to meet the rest of our commitments as soon as there is the opportunity to do so.
This Bill places the national park authorities on a sound footing and ensures that the framework within which they will operate will enable the parks to be managed more effectively. The founding national parks legislation is now over 40 years old and no longer adequately reflects the need for the parks' administration to reflect up-to-date practice. Furthermore, I believe that the Bill will form the basis of a better relationship between the parks and those who live and work in them.

1207
Your Lordships will appreciate that the need for independence for the park authorities is seen as urgent in the light of the unknown outcome of the review of local government. The timing for local government reorganisation in areas affecting the parks will depend on the Local Government Commission's recommendations and Parliament's decisions on them. However, whatever the outcome of reorganisation, this Bill will secure the future administration of the national parks.
There has been much discussion during the passage of this Bill about the membership of the new authorities. Indeed, the Bill has emerged from your Lordships' House with three amendments all of which relate to this issue. My noble friend Lord Arran made it clear at each stage of the Bill that it is our intention that the current balance of representation between local authority and Secretary of State members will be maintained so that two-thirds of the total will be appointed by the local authorities and one-third by the Secretary of State. And, indeed, the amendment of my noble friend Lord Derwent, which was agreed in Committee, sets out beyond any possible doubt that there will always be a clear majority of local authority members on each national park authority.
My noble friend Lord Norrie's amendment, which was agreed at Report stage and which developed the intention underlying the earlier amendment of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, will ensure that the composition of the committees and sub-committees of national park authorities will reflect the proportions of local authority and Secretary of State members on the authority itself.
Debate on this Bill has also drawn attention to the important role which parish and community councils play in the affairs of the national parks. Arising from this discussion, my noble friend the Minister assured your Lordships that in due course we intend to issue guidance through a departmental circular to the new authorities which will strongly recommend that they should make formal provision to ensure that the parish and community councils in their areas are given the fullest opportunity to make their views known.
During the passage of this Bill we have also touched on a number of issues which merit wider debate and discussion; for instance, the economic and social responsibilities of the national park authorities. My noble friend Lord Arran listened very carefully to the arguments put forward on this issue during discussion of
1208
my noble friend Lord Peel's amendment tabled on Report and expressed his sympathy with the arguments surrounding my noble friend's amendment. I am happy to reiterate our commitment that the Government's legislation to update national park purposes will clarify the need for national park authorities to take full account of the economic and social needs of local communities. This Bill addresses the central issue of the status of the authorities responsible for managing these most precious areas. We are committed to implementing its provisions at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the long-term administration of the parks is secured.
During its passage through this House your Lordships will have become aware of the almost universal support for the Bill and the amount of goodwill which my noble friend Lord Norrie has generated by its introduction. I have been especially aware of, and heartened by, the full and constructive contribution which my noble friend has been offered by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Beaumont, and the continuing support which they have demonstrated for this Bill.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has apprehensions for the future of this Bill in another place. The noble Lord will be aware that the Government cannot guarantee this Bill a safe passage but I can give him our assurance that we shall do all that is within our power to assist its progress. We shall continue to work as closely with its sponsors in another place as we have with my noble friend in this House. I wish the Bill well and hope that it enjoys continued success.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, it remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. If I were to summarise the Bill I would say that it has a narrow focus and aims solely to set up new authorities to run all the national parks. There is widespread support both inside and outside Parliament for the principles of the Bill. It is a first step towards the package of measures recommended by the National Parks Review Panel, which it is expected the Government will introduce at the earliest opportunity.
My Private Member's Bill is a timely opportunity to provide the national parks with the best level of administrative arrangements for the future and to enable them to withstand the rigours of local government reorganisation. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before nine o'clock.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK, ASHFORD
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK, ASHFORD
  WHEELCLAMPING ON PRIVATE LAND
  WHEELCLAMPING ON PRIVATE LAND
  BRITISH COAL: LAND OWNERSHIP
  BRITISH COAL: LAND OWNERSHIP
  MEDICAL ETHICS: SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT
  MEDICAL ETHICS: SELECT COMMITTEE REPORT
  ALCOHOL UNITS
  ALCOHOL UNITS