Sitting of 17 October 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Madam Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of Dr. John Graham Blackburn, Member for Dudley, West. I am sure that Members on all sides of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the hon. Member's family and friends.
Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    Railways
    Mr. Alex Carlile: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the performance of rail operations as part of the Welsh transport infrastructure; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I welcome to the Dispatch Box my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. I extend heartfelt thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) for all his assistance in the past. He, of course, knows the real questions to ask, so I shall keep a particular eye on him during our proceedings.
    2
    The rail network in Wales is in excellent order and is extensive. We need to encourage more people and businesses to use it and therefore run more trains. This evening I shall make a longer speech on ways in which rwe might do that.
    Mr. Carlile: In the light of the Government's own evidence of the damage caused to the environment by the increasing use of roads for freight, what specific proposals will the Secretary of State be able to present to the House in the next Session to ensure that more freight is carried by rail in Wales, and that some freight is carried by rail in central Wales?
    Mr. Redwood: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's aims. I shall point out this evening that our breaking of the British Rail monopoly will open up a great opportunity. Where formerly only whole trainloads of freight were wanted, there are already businesses which are prepared to offer 50-tonne load haulage, and that is a major move forward. I shall add to that with freight grants and I hope that freight proposals will be included in strategic development schemes. I have asked the Welsh Development Agency to make sure that, where possible, a rail freight option is opened at industrial parks.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Secretary of State admit that the privatisation of railways has been the most unpopular of all privatisations so far and that rural, valley and off-peak services may be threatened by no fewer than seven competing train companies in Wales? Cannot he see that the money that is being squandered on that privatisation would have been much better spent on improving and expanding our railway network, which has been subject to years of neglect under his incompetent Government?
    Mr. Redwood: Labour has made that claim for every one of our privatisations, and every one has increased investment, profits and business opportunities and has strengthened competition. The hon. Gentleman does not say that the monopoly business in the post-war period was not prepared to take the rail freight of most businesses in

    3
    Wales because it wanted trainload traffic. I notice that he did not refer to the fact that we have already broken through in that crucial respect, now that our new policies are being introduced. In terms of passenger traffic, I suspect that our subsidies will go much further and will mean more trains and more satisfied passengers than if we had continued the monopoly.

    General Practitioners
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients in Wales have been removed from general practitioners' lists during 1993 and 1994.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): I understand that some 277,975 patients were removed from GPs' lists during 1993, according to family health services authority data. A further 165,944 patients were removed between 1 January and 31 August 1994. The most common reasons for the removal of 99 per cent. of those patients were moving home, emigration, adoption, death and the retirement of the GP. In 1993, only 1 per cent. or 2,769 patients were deregistered at the request of the GP. The corresponding figure for 1994 is not yet available.
    Mr. Wardell: Can the Minister assist general practitioners who are facing increasing strains, especially as the scourge of drug addiction sweeps through the Principality? Can he advise GPs who are frequently threatened and harrassed in their surgeries by drug addict patients? How can they prevent such problems in future?
    Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are absolutely determined to wipe out drugs—unlike the Liberal party, which is not. General practitioners should not distinguish between patients, but when a patient is behaving unreasonably and the professional relationship has broken down, a GP has the right to remove that patient from his list. However, I would expect a GP dealing with a drug user to make allowances for the fact that addiction may cause unusual patterns of behaviour. No general practitioner can be compelled to continue a relationship that has irretrievably broken down. Nor would doing so be necessarily in the patient's interests.
    Mr. John Marshall: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion. Does he agree that the important facts for patients and general practitioners in Wales are that, because of the Government's health reforms, a record number of patients are being treated and waiting lists are being cut? Should not Opposition Members welcome that, which is good news for everyone in Wales?
    Mr. Richards: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He was absolutely right in the facts that he gave to the House. In addition, since 1979 there has been an increase of 363 in the number of general practitioners in Wales.
    Mr. Wigley: The Minister referred to general medical practitioners. Will he confirm that dozens of general dental practitioners in Wales have removed patients from their lists during the past year? Is he aware of a case in Bangor only last week, when a dentist notified his patients that because he could not maintain standards on the national health service, he had no choice but to move
    4
    away from the NHS? Is not that a disgraceful reflection on the Government's failure to maintain NHS dental policy in Wales? Will the hon. Gentleman give a categorical commitment to the House that anyone needing NHS dental care anywhere in Wales will be able to get it?
    Mr. Richards: There are more dental practitioners in Gwynedd now than there were in 1979. As the hon. Gentleman should know, the Government have allowed Gwynedd family health services authority to employ four additional dental practitioners. The hon. Gentleman should also know that my right hon. Friend has set aside £50,000 for Gwynedd FHSA to improve dental treatment.
    Mr. Morgan: First, I shall summon up all the verbal powers at my command and congratulate the new junior Minister on his promotion to the bridge of a sinking ship.
    How does the hon. Gentleman justify this year's blatant anti-Welsh discrimination against general practitioners, patients and hospitals in Wales? Unlike the position in England, the Secretary of State has decided not to fund the national pay awards to doctors and nurses in Welsh hospitals as they attempt to meet their contracts. Is that an example of the so-called English backlash against which the Secretary of State waxed so lyrical at last week's Tory party conference in Bournemouth?
    Mr. Richards: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcoming remarks, which I know came from the very bottom of his heart.
    The basis of pay awards in Wales is no different from that in England.

    Defence Jobs
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to increase the proportion of defence and defence-related jobs in Wales.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State of Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Decisions on military facilities are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I am, however, pleased that the Royal Welch Fusiliers and 14 Signals Regiment will now be permanently located in Wales.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I join the Minister in welcoming the locating of the Royal Welch Fusiliers in Wales. I was with him at the celebrations on Saturday. However, that is only a very small way of redressing the enormous imbalance in defence-related expenditure in Wales compared with the remainder of the United Kingdom.
    When the Secretary of State is making his pronouncements on cuts in Government expenditure in Wales, will he bear in mind the fact that only 1 per cent. of total Government expenditure on defence goes to Wales, despite the fact that Wales has 5 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for joining in my welcome to the two regiments that will now be based in Wales. However, the rest of his question was somewhat remiss, in view of the fact that his party is infiltrated by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—with all that it has done to attack the important defences of the United Kingdom, including defence employment.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to contrast the thrust of the present

    5
    questioning with the contents of the amendment to today's defence motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? If so, he will have seen that members of the Labour party are as much at odds with each other on defence as they are on everything else.
    Mr. Jones: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's contribution. He shows that he will continue to speak with a substantial voice on behalf of all the people of Wales. How appropriate for my right hon. Friend to point out the amendment tabled by the official Opposition for debate today and tomorrow, stating that defence spending should be reduced and Trident cancelled. Despite the attempts of Labour's new leader to throw unfashionable policy overboard, the Labour party is still wedded to it.
    Mr. Rowlands: To attract defence-related or any other jobs to south Wales requires selective financial assistance. Will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that he is not campaigning or arguing inside the Government or in Cabinet to scrap, amend or cut selective financial assistance to Wales?
    Mr. Jones: I am sure that I speak for my right hon. Friend when I say that he will remain resolute in securing the best possible share for Wales in every activity of Government work.
    Mr. Sweeney: While my hon. Friend temporarily widens his brief to cover defence, will he take the opportunity to join me in congratulating the Royal Air Force and civilian workers at RAF St. Athan on their excellent high-quality work and on their success in winning contracts in competitive tender with outside organisations?
    Mr. Jones: Knowledge of the abilities of RAF St. Athan is common in south Wales and this shows what it can achieve in a competitive environment. I am glad to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the workers there.

    Young People (Employment)
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy for promoting the employment prospects of young people.
    Mr. Redwood: I intend to promote young people's employment by urging higher school standards, continuing the system of new apprenticeships that we have launched, strengthening and increasing vocational qualifications, continuing our successful programme of youth training and promoting a better careers service—among other measures.
    Mr. Jones: In addition to the unacceptably high number of young people who are unable to find permanent, well-paid work, I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that there is a particularly acute problem in respect of young graduates this year. Will he examine that problem, to ensure that the talents of a whole generation of young people in Wales are not wasted? Will he urgently introduce measures, such as bringing the careers services and training and enterprise councils together to identify job opportunities, and one-off grants to companies to recruit graduates in specialist areas? Will he also examine ways of encouraging students,
    6
    particularly graduates, to enter management training, in view of the acute shortage of managers in many parts of rural Wales?
    Mr. Redwood: I believe that graduates do have better job opportunities and I will certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The House should note that in the United Kingdom there is 10 per cent. youth unemployment, compared with 35 per cent. in Spain and 23 per cent. in France. The fact that we do not have a minimum wage is extremely important in that respect. The Labour party has a lot to answer for, with the job-destruction policies for which it voted at its annual conference, against the advice of its leader.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the employment prospects of young people in Wales would evaporate as quickly as socialists seem to be evaporating from the new-look Labour party if we were ever to see the establishment of a separatist Welsh assembly in Wales, wedded to the job-destroying minimum wage policy supported by all those on the Opposition Benches, to which my right hon. Friend referred?
    Mr. Redwood: I agree, and that is material to the prospects for youth employment, which is the subject of the question. When I watched the Labour party conference, I thought that it was an episode from "Gladiators", with Labour's gladiators making sure that every time their leader proposed a policy, he bit the dust.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Secretary of State agree that one method of improving youth employment prospects would be concerted action at European Union level—or does he agree with the former Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is not one economic benefit to be derived from Britain's membership of the European Union?
    Mr. Redwood: Of course, the Government believe that there should be concerted action at the European level as well as at national level, which is why we put on the agenda, through my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others, many items that we think will make a great improvement in employment prospects throughout Europe. If only more people in Europe were prepared to listen to our points, we think that they, too, could have lower youth unemployment. But we are not satisfied with our level, which is why we are continuing the policies that I have identified.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to discourage prospects for youth employment would be to pay 16 to 18-year-olds unemployment benefit, and that it is far better to target those resources to ensure that young people get proper training, therefore increasing the prospect that they will seek employment after training?
    Mr. Enright: On the big dipper.
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was a fatuous comment from a sedentary position, saying that it is a big dipper to offer young people training and better education. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think better of that silly remark.

    7
    Of course, the way to get more employment for young people is to have better training and better education opportunities. That is our policy. The Labour party does not seem to agree.
    Mr. Ron Davies: The Secretary of State should not be so complacent. He should realise that the young people of Wales have been let down both by his Government and by the free market system. In Wales one in five of our 16 to 18-year-olds drops out of the system entirely. They have no employment, no training and no further education. In addition, some 40,000 young people between the ages of 18 and 25 are long-term unemployed. The economic and social consequences of that evil should be the highest priority of any Government. I urge the Government and the Secretary of State now to set up a special unit in the Welsh Office to co-ordinate all the instruments, all the agencies and all the departments that are at his disposal to start to tackle the problem.
    Mr. Redwood: I am attacking the problem and I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that we do not want anyone dropping out. We want to raise the sights and the ambitions of young people, because there are jobs available, there will be more jobs available and we have policies that can help those young people. I hope that the Labour party, which has such influence in local education authorities and in school governing bodies throughout Wales, will heed the advice of its leader, who said that if there are bad teachers they should be removed from office. He went further than I did, but I am just waiting to see action from the Labour-controlled education authorities in Wales. Of course it matters. We want better education and better results. The Labour party must answer.

    Cheese Industry
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he is bringing forward to assist the Welsh cheese industry; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Grant aid and advice is available to the Welsh cheese industry from the Welsh Office and its agencies and from Welsh Food Promotion Ltd.
    Mr. Llwyd: I am not encouraged by that answer. Is the Minister aware that there is a crisis in the dairy industry in Wales? Recently, the price of milk has gone up by 3p a litre, which means that at least one Welsh creamery will be in some difficulty during the next fortnight. Indeed, its continued existence is in the balance. I urge the Minister to consider intervening to prevent even more cheese imports from coming in and to ensure that that important Welsh industry is looked after and propped up.
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman will have to appreciate that European competition law places severe restrictions on any interventions that my right hon. Friend or my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food might contemplate. I appreciate that an ending of the rigid marketing arrangements that were set up many years ago is bound to bring changes, but I am convinced that short-term difficulties will be greatly outweighed by longer-term advantages, both to the industry and to consumers.

    International Eisteddfod
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to support the international Eisteddfod at Llangollen.
    Mr. Richards: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be receiving a report on the international Eisteddfod's financial position, prepared in conjunction with the Eisteddfod's organisers, and will consider any proposals for financial support in the light of that report.
    Mr. Hughes: When that happens, I hope that the Welsh Office will recognise that the international Eisteddfod has the potential to be the leading international singing festival not only in the Celtic world but in Europe. It has huge potential in terms of revenue as well as culture for Wales and the United Kingdom. I ask seriously that the report be given as much support as possible and that Ministers take the lead in trying to build up the potential of Llangollen to be one of the leading arts events in the international calendar.
    Mr. Richards: We recognise the excellence of the international Eisteddfod and, indeed, congratulate the organisers of the event, which annually attracts about 2,000 competitors from about 50 countries across the world. As I said, we will definitely look carefully at the proposals contained in the report.

    Local Authority Boundaries
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ask the Local Government Boundary Commission to consider whether it would be more appropriate for the communities of Ewenny, Saint Bride's Major and Wick to be part of the Bridgend or Vale of Glamorgan unitary authorities.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: We intend to direct the Local Government Boundary Commission to consider aspects of the boundary between the new Bridgend and Vale of Glamorgan authorities.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Minister for moving at least an inch. I wonder if he will now move a mile, and say that the boundaries of all three communities will be examined in relation to their position between Bridgend and the Vale of Glamorgan, rather than only one small aspect being considered. May we have the whole lot, please?
    Mr. Jones: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I have not moved an inch. I am saying exactly what we have said before in a number of debates, both here and in another place. We appreciate that there is a possibility of anomalies in regard to the industrial area in the Ewenny community and I imagine that the Local Government Boundary Commission will need to examine that area in particular.

    Secondary Education
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the figure for 1978–79 at constant prices.
    Mr. Redwood: In constant prices, in 1979–80 the amount per secondary pupil was £1,449, and in 1992–93

    9
    it had risen to £2,372. That is a real increase of 63 per cent. We do not have the figures for the previous year, 1978–79.
    Sir David Knox: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that that impressive increase in expenditure has been reflected in an improvement in standards?
    Mr. Redwood: Not enough. As I have often told the House and the Welsh Grand Committee, money on its own is not sufficient; we require a great deal of commitment from governors, teachers and all involved in schools, as well as help from parents. Let me repeat my plea for Labour authorities in Wales to take their duties in regard to quality and performance more seriously, and do what their leader is instructing them to do.
    Mr. Hain: What proportion of the expenditure went on school sports, about which the Prime Minister made a great deal of noise last week? How does that compare with the attacks that his Government have mounted on the teaching profession, which have undermined the ability to provide school sports throughout the system, although they are—or should be—such a vital part of education?
    Mr. Redwood: I do not have the exact breakdown by category or subject matter. I will let the hon. Gentleman know what my office knows after Question Time. He may wish to know, however, that there has been a 57 per cent. real increase in teachers' pay and that the increase per pupil has been even greater. That means that extra money has been available for books, materials and school sports. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: competitive team games are very important and we intend to pursue that policy vigorously in Wales.
    Mr. Ron Davies: The Secretary of State should spend a little less time attacking the Labour party and a little more time addressing his own responsibilities as Secretary of State. He should realise that the education system in Wales is still grossly underfunded. It is an absolute disgrace that he is wasting money that should be spent on our schools—on improving education—in forcing the re-running of ballots on opt-outs, just because he does not like the result of those ballots.
    Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when he ordered the re-running of the West Mon ballot last month, he did so because he thought that the ballot had been influenced by misleading information? Given that solemn pledges made at the last election have been broken daily by the Government, how long does the right hon. Gentleman think that he and his Government would have lasted had they applied to themselves the test that they are now applying to West Mon?
    Mr. Redwood: Money is given in great quantities as a result of the Government's recommendations and the votes of the House. As I have explained, each secondary pupil is enjoying 63 per cent. more in real terms than when Labour left office. Does not that mean that when Labour was in office education was chronically underfunded? We have more than put that right and we have more than matched the substantial increase in teachers' pay, so I reject that part of the question implicitly. As for not liking the results of ballots, I like any fair ballot result, whether it is yes or no because I believe in local choice and local democracy, which Labour is always running away from in this case. Were the hon. Gentleman a little more fair-minded, he would
    10
    agree that that particular ballot was not well conducted because of the information put round. May there now be a fair result, whether it is yes or no.

    Male Unemployment
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the male unemployment rate in Newport and Gwent at the latest available date.
    Mr. Redwood: The male unemployment figure in September 1994 for Newport travel-to-work area was 12.6 per cent. and for Gwent 13.2 per cent. That compares with 15 per cent. for Gwent a year earlier and 14.1 per cent. for Newport—a very good result.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that those figures are still very high, particularly for a town like Newport which has such favourable geographical advantages? Does he further realise that the whole area will be blighted if he gives the go-ahead for the proposed Browning Ferris waste disposal plant? Why does not he veto that application without delay and join Newport and Gwent in their quest for new jobs?
    Mr. Redwood: I am happy to join in the quest for new jobs. Indeed, I do that every working day when I go about my business for Wales. I am pleased to see unemployment falling and I think that the hon. Gentleman was a little churlish in not recognising an extremely good fall when we see one, but of course I agree with him that there are still too many people out of work. I will take on board his representations on the issue, but he will understand that I cannot answer them across the Dispatch Box and that I have to take into account all the representations and issues in that particular case. He can rest assured, however, that we are working hard for Newport and for Gwent, as we are for the rest of Wales. He and other hon. Members might like to know that by 7 November we want proposals in to the Welsh Development Agency for a new freight terminal in south Wales which could help business throughout that area.

    Dental Services
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has had concerning provision of NHS dental services in (a) Clwyd and (b) Wales.
    Mr. Richards: During the two-year period between 1 October 1992 and 30 September 1994, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received 142 written representations about the provision of dental services in Wales, 13 concerning services in Clwyd.
    Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply, but his predecessor may recall that I wrote at least threé years ago to the effect that no dentists were accepting new national health service patients in Denbigh, a town of 10,000 people. The nearest dentist practices were at Ruthin, eight miles away. That position has not changed in three years. What will the Government do about that and is not it the case that the NHS is not safe in Tory hands?
    Mr. Richards: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman could make that remark at the end of his question having heard the Prime Minister's brilliant speech at Bournemouth last week committing his party to

    11
    the national health service. Furthermore, more dentists now practise in Wales than ever before. There are 811 dental practitioners, representing an increase of more than 34 per cent. since 1979. There are 109 dentists in Clwyd, representing an increase of 56 per cent. since 1979. If any of the hon. Gentleman's constituents are having difficulty receiving dental treatment on the NHS, he should take the matter to the family health services authority. Having been a member of the FHSA until recently, he should have known that.

    Democracy
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to improve the quality of democracy in Wales.
    Mr. Redwood: We are taking many steps, but I should like to report to the House that democracy is alive and well in Wales. We are creating more powerful, all-purpose unitary authorities; I have recently transferred some economic development powers to local government; and we are creating true local participation through our policies on schools and hospitals. We are very keen on a vigorous debate; I only wish that its vigour was sometimes matched by its accuracy and the Opposition parties' helpfulness to Wales.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Secretary of State realise that, rather than being alive and well, democracy in Wales is in a deep coma because the Conservatives rule everywhere although they are a minority of a minority Opposition, having won only 32 of the 500 county council seats and only 14 per cent. of the votes in the European election? Why are the democratically elected representatives of the people of Wales overruled by a Conservative nomenklatura of unelected, sleazy quangocrats plus lords lieutenant, high sheriffs, the least democratic second Chamber in the world and a discredited and dying monarchy? Is not it time that democracy was given a chance in Wales?
    Mr. Redwood: Many of us will wish to dissociate ourselves from the hon. Gentleman's very unpleasant remarks about the monarchy. Members of the Opposition may have been in a coma all summer, but I suspect that they will wake up soon, although it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman woke up to make that ridiculous intervention. He does not understand the first thing about politics in Wales. He said that the Conservatives ruled everywhere in Wales but went on to say that Labour controlled most of the councils. Labour does, indeed, have a strong hold on councils in Wales, and the councils spend a great deal of money and have a great deal of discretion. That, too, is an interesting matter for political debate.
    Mr. Dafis: Is not the Secretary of State deeply embarrassed by the fact that he has no democratic mandate to occupy his present office? Is not he especially ashamed of his attack last week on European regional policy and its relevance to Wales? Is not it time that he accepted that the only way we can ensure that Wales takes its place as a nation in the European context is to have a Parliament of its own and to no longer be left to the tender mercies of people like him?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman should read my speech because it was a warning to him and his party. I pointed out that if he formed an alliance with centralisers
    12
    in Brussels, far from getting a stronger Welsh language, a stronger Welsh nation or a stronger Welsh policy, he would find that powers and money were siphoned out of Wales to Brussels. That is what the centralisers want, and it is very odd that his party should be in alliance with them.

    Tourism
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest statistics for tourism for Wales.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: There were 7.7 million domestic tourism trips in 1993 and 670,000 overseas visitors to Wales, spending £132 million in 1992.
    Mr. Enright: More than in Dorset.
    Mr. Bruce: May I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) for mentioning the wonders of Dorset? Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great cards that Wales and Britain in general can play is our heritage and that people come for that and often because of our monarchy? They certainly come more for that than to see the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).
    Mr. Jones: I very much agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's question. Indeed, I have acknowledged that some parts of Dorset, especially that which he represents, are as attractive as Wales. We shall continue to make the most of all our natural advantages, especially our heritage. The Welsh tourist board and Cadw are playing an important role in that.

    Waiting Lists
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on waiting lists in Wales.
    Mr. Richards: In the 12 months to March 1994, the percentage of people waiting more than three months for a first outpatient appointment fell to 39.6 per cent. and the proportion of patients waiting more than a year for treatment fell to 14 per cent., the lowest percentage ever recorded in Wales.
    Mr. Ainger: The figures reveal a slight drop in waiting lists in Wales in general, certainly not in the Pembrokeshire area. The latest document produced by the East Dyfed and the Pembrokeshire health authorities, which contains details of their purchasing plans for 1995–96, makes it clear that, because of the need to spend a large additional sum on cutting waiting lists, they will have to make cuts elsewhere in their budget, especially in community hospitals, the community services in general and the ambulance service. Instead of preaching about waiting lists through their patients charter, when will the Government start providing health authorities with sufficient resources so that they can tackle the problems rather than having to cut vital services?
    Mr. Richards: This Government are putting resources into the national health service—in fact, sufficient resources, I must remind the hon. Gentleman, so that in-patient and day cases in Wales since 1979 are up by 77 per cent. and new out-patients are up by 40 per cent. In the hon. Gentleman's own county of Pembrokeshire, in-patients and day cases are up by 95 per cent. and new

    13
    out-patients are up by 32 per cent. There have, indeed, been problems meeting the guarantees of the patients charter in Pembrokeshire and we are aware that measures are in hand which we are, obviously, monitoring carefully to ensure that the guarantees are met. Those include extra theatre sessions, alternative venues for treatment and a new system to identify all patients approaching three months from the guarantee. The hon. Gentleman would be better spending his time congratulating the doctors, the nurses and all those involved in health care in Pembrokeshire who are doing their best for his constituents.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Breast Cancer
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to increase the resources of the Medical Research Council for research into the treatment of breast cancer.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert G. Hughes): It is for the Medical Research Council to allocate its spending according to its own priorities and the funding proposals it receives. Currently, it spends £3.1 million on breast cancer research.
    Ms Lynne: Is the Minister aware that more than 300 women die each week from breast cancer and that it is the biggest killer of women between 35 and 54? Does not he realise that more money must be spent on medical research and that there is no point in the Government just washing their hands of that?
    Mr. Hughes: I am also aware that the United Kingdom was the first country in the European Community and, indeed, one of the first in the world to introduce breast cancer screening for women between 50 and 64. As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, the Forrest report showed that there was insufficient evidence to support mass screening for women under 50. To confirm that, the MRC is conducting research to assess the effects on breast cancer prevention of screening from age 40.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Speaking as co-chairman of Friends of Medical Research, a body in this House, may I welcome the comments that my hon. Friend has just made? Will he endorse the importance of the United Kingdom co-ordinating committee, of which the MRC is a member, in ensuring that there is no duplication of research within the cancer bodies? Such duplication is not only nonsense per se, but it creates confusion in the perception of generous donors to cancer bodies.
    Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no doubt that the collaborative effort between the MRC and cancer charities, each playing its part, is absolutely vital. After all, £90 million, a third of the total budget, is currently spent by the MRC on areas relevant to cancer. It would be very easy to duplicate and to waste money, and none of us wants that.

    Civil Service Reform
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on civil service reform.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. David Hunt): Several.
    Mr. Cohen: Is not there a great deal of opposition to the Government's proposed reform of the civil service? Do not people talk of the quality of service being damaged by privatisation and huge job cuts? Why have the mandarins remained untouched? As they are now little more than highly paid political advisers, should not their immunity from radical reform be ended?
    Mr. Hunt: My predecessor published a lengthy and detailed White Paper on civil service reform. Since then, we have had a number of representations. I cannot recall one expressed in the terms in which the hon. Gentleman has now put his views. No doubt he will communicate them in the usual way. I am a firm believer in a high-quality civil service of the highest integrity. That is what we have and I am determined that we should build on an already strong base.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the progress to date of next steps agencies? What plans does he have to introduce further such agencies?
    Mr. Hunt: We have such plans. I am satisfied that we have already seen a sea change—a dramatic improvement—in the service being given while maintaining high-quality performance and improving it where possible but, above all, giving good value for money. That is why the programme will continue.
    Mr. Mandelson: Does the Minister agree that there is an urgent need for a new code of ethics governing the work of civil servants and their relations with Ministers which would help to clear up the impression that standards of integrity and of independence within the civil service have fallen? Will the Minister give positive consideration to that proposal, as his predecessor undertook to do?
    Mr. Hunt: We saw a number of accusations flying during the party conference season, particularly at the Liberal Democrat conference, made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I felt very ashamed at the remarks which attacked the integrity of civil servants and those who give evidence to Select Committees. I am always looking for ways in which we can improve. I ask the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) to recognise that we already have an extremely good code. Obviously, we want to see it improve wherever possible. However, we have a public service of the highest standards, which is recognised right across the world.

    Civil Service Reform
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce further civil service contractorisation or next steps agencies in Dorset.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Departments and agencies in Dorset, as in all parts of the country, keep all their activities under review to improve the quality and efficiency of the provision of public services.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he assure the House today, as the Minister responsible for the civil service, that he will ensure that the civil servants who are currently working for the atomic energy authority at Winfrith in my constituency, who were first told that the authority was to be privatised in one way and have now been told a second way, are properly consulted and that the best way comes forward for either privatisation or contractorisation, which will preserve their jobs for the future?
    Mr. Hughes: What the people working in Winfrith can be sure of is that they will receive the normal, steadfast support of their Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). We know in Government that he will be absolutely rigorous in ensuring that we keep up to the standards that he expects. We are committed to frank and timely communication and consultation with the staff. I know that my hon. Friend will keep us up to the mark.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that the Labour party now regards South Dorset as a marginal constituency? Is he aware of the deep concern being expressed by people throughout South Dorset, especially in the industrial part of that constituency, about the effects of contractorisation, privatisation and market testing on their home and family lives? Does he realise that many families are being destroyed by the insecurity that the Government are bringing to many people in South Dorset?
    Mr. Hughes: I am aware of two things. After listening to the Labour party conference, I believe that the Labour party probably thinks that water can run uphill. Secondly, I am aware that the Labour party does not care at all about the quality of delivery of public service. It does not care what it costs, it does not care about the quality of it and it does not care whether people get the services that they want. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset does care. If Labour Members believe that they are going to win South Dorset, I look forward to seeing it.

    Research Councils
    Mr. Heald: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to take forward the National Week of Science Engineering and Technology.
    Mr. David Hunt: I am delighted to announce that the National Week of Science Engineering and Technology 1995 will be from 17 to 26 March.
    Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this year's week was a staggering success, in the words of the New Scientist, that his announcement will be a huge boost for science in Britain and that organisations such as the Chemical Industries Association, which has been arguing
    16
    for better promotion of science, will be very pleased and satisfied to hear of the Government's commitment to British science?
    Mr. Hunt: Two points—first, I have authorised grants of £190,000 in total to the British Association for the Advancement of Science and the Committee on the Public Understanding of Science and I believe that the week will be a tremendous success. Secondly, I agree with my hon. Friend that Britain is a world leader in chemistry. In the current financial year, we have authorised a further £4·5 million, making a total of £22 million being spent on chemistry research.

    Public Bodies
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the progress he has made in modifying the research councils, as outlined in the science White Paper.
    Mr. David Hunt: The new system came into being on 1 April and is working well.
    Mr. Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that all the research councils and industry not only work competently together, but try to show the country that they are doing that, so that those of us who help fund the research councils realise that we are getting value for money and that it will help the prosperity of the country?
    Mr. Hunt: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. First, it is important to establish a positive partnership between all the key players to promote scientific research. Secondly, we must get the message across in language that everyone can understand, so that people recognise the high quality of research being undertaken and the significant advances that are being made right across the spectrum. We want a much greater public understanding of science to develop.
    Dr. Bray: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ask the research councils jointly to undertake a review of the career structure and prospects of research scientists, particularly at the post-doctorate level, because they are continuing to deteriorate?
    Mr. Hunt: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the career prospects of research scientists. I want the leading scientists who come out of our universities and other academic institutions to be given much greater recognition in industry, not only in terms of pay, but with regard to their place in it. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular ideas about how better we can promote that aspect, I would be extremely pleased to hear from him.
    Mr. Batiste: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the fruits of "The Forward Look" programme will be incorporated into the priorities of research, especially that of the research councils?
    Mr. Hunt: Yes, because one of the most fascinating aspects of our White Paper, "Realising our Potential" has been the establishment of 15 technology foresight panels that cover key areas right across the spectrum. Leading industrialists, leading scientists and leading users of science have sat down together to work out new programmes that look forward five, 10, 15 and 20 years. My hon. Friend is right; when we publish "The Forward Look" next year we will be able to incorporate in it the preliminary results from some of those technology

    17
    foresight panels. The results of that process can only be very good because it will feed into the research councils the priorities that we need to maintain in the coming years.
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consideration he has given to promoting greater accountability and openness on the part of quangos, agencies and non-departmental public bodies.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The setting of performance criteria, quality standards and targets and publication of more information are examples of how the Government are encouraging greater accountability and openness.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does not the Minister accept that after 15 years of accepting a deterioration in and an undermining of democratic institutions, and substituting rule by 1,000 quangos, it is time for the Government to call a halt? Will the Minister now concede that there is a case for an open and public review of the work of all quangos and that subsequent decisions should be taken to replace wherever possible non-democratic bodies with those that are democratically accountable?
    Mr. Hughes: Arising directly from the hon. Gentleman's question, now it is rule by nearly 1,000 fewer quangos than before. As well as the delivery of services, people believe that it is important that information is made available to them. The whole thrust of public sector reforms has been towards more transparency, clearer allocation of responsibility and greater responsiveness to the user than before. However, I would not expect the Labour party either to know or to care about that.
    Mr. Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend confirm that since 1979 the number of non-departmental public bodies has fallen by 36 per cent? Will he also confirm that it was the last Labour Government and previous Labour Governments who were particularly keen to set up quangos, especially in Labour local authorities, such as Lancashire county council? Does he agree that it is Labour Governments who are particularly keen on putting Labour placemen in power wherever possible and Labour local government which believes in non-democratic institutions and the appointment of Labour placemen?
    Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do not need to hear what the Labour party says it would do, we can see what Labour does when it runs councils—it puts its Labour placemen in power. Although Opposition Members may say one thing today, we heard the Labour party spokesman on Scotland tell the Labour party conference that the party plans to create more quangos.
    Mr. Meacher: When will Ministers have the guts to stand up for the work of their own Departments? Is not it obvious that it is not Derek Lewis who should be taking the rap for high security prisoners escaping from Whitemoor gaol, but the Home Secretary? Is not it equally obvious that it is not Ros Hepplewhite who should be pilloried for the ill-judged procedures of the Child Support Agency, but the Secretary of State for Social
    18
    Security? When are Ministers going to stop hiding behind the skirts of the quangocrats they appoint and instead take responsibility for their own dirty work?
    Mr. Hughes: The Ministers responsible for any non-departmental public body or agency are accountable to Parliament and their degree of independence is useful in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. The National Audit Office is either auditor of, or has inspection rights to, non-departmental public bodies and, of course, it inspects what agencies do. It would be very useful if the Labour party stopped talking about mechanisms and for once mentioned the customer—whom the Labour party does not care about.

    Information Superhighways
    Sir Trevor Skeet: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what the Government have done to investigate the opportunities to improve services provided to the public presented by information superhighways.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: A consultative document on the information superhighways was published in June of this year. I can tell the House that my Department will co-ordinate a pilot Government information service using the Internet to gauge the interest in receiving information electronically.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Minister. What response has he had to the document since June? Which aspects of public life are likely to be affected? Will it be medical, retail or banking?
    Mr. Hughes: A total of 2,700 paper copies of the report have been requested, but at the moment we do not have information available about how many have been requested—(Interruption.] Clearly, Opposition Members do not understand the Internet. We do not yet have information about how many copies were requested electronically. After all, I am sure that Opposition Members would not want to delay information being placed on the Internet simply to put that technology into place. Opposition Members are silent now. The Internet, and the availability of information over the Internet, can bring better and faster information to people in all the areas mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) to improve the delivery of public services.

    Public Service Standards
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how the introduction of performance tables in public services are helping to improve service standards.
    Mr. David Hunt: Considerably.
    Mr. Brandreth: In warmly welcoming that concise reply, may I also welcome to the Dispatch Box my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary? What a magnificent team. May I also bring them best wishes from the Cheshire registration service which today was awarded a chartermark for the excellence of its service?

    19
    Does my right hon. Friend have plans to further extend the use of performance tables given the excellent results so far?
    Mr. Hunt: First, may I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Cheshire county council registration service? I had not realised until I met the officials involved—Roger Manley and his team—that Cheshire was the first registration service in the country to offer couples the opportunity of register office marriages on Saturday afternoons. The team responds very warmly to customers' suggestions and is a very good example of the 98 winners of chartermarks that we have been able to announce today from 120 commendations, more than 500 applications and 20,000 expressions of interest. I congratulate all those involved.
    With regard to performance league tables, the first national tables on the performance of hospitals and ambulance authorities were published in June. The revised passengers charter will be published early next year with comparative information on the performance of railway routes. We will also be publishing next year the first national tables on the performance of local authorities, including the police. The programme does gather strength.
    Mr. Garrett: Why does not the biggest spending agency—the social security Benefits Agency—have the take up of benefit as a performance indicator?
    Mr. Hunt: From my time as Secretary of State for Employment, I recall that that is a target for those working in jobcentres administering unemployment benefit which is a social security benefit. It is a target. As I understand it, benefits agencies have as a target that they give people the right information on take up. With my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Social Security and for Employment I am happy to look at ways in which we, with the chief executives concerned, can give an even better service. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the quality of service is better than ever before.

    Charters
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has for further charters; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Hunt: Forty charters have already been published and more are planned.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend say what my constituent, Mrs. Joshi of Manor road, Ealing, who is severely disabled, can do? More than a year ago, she applied for a disabled parking space outside her home in order to have any mobility at all, but she has failed to receive an answer from the bone idle Labour Ealing council.
    Mr. Hunt: I agree that it is common courtesy to respond. Whatever the answer might be, it is very important that all those who are involved in public service should respond to individual cases. I have no information about the case that my hon. Friend mentions, but I hope that his highlighting of the case here will lead to prompt action. However, my hon. Friend should not have to resort to doing that. I hope that he will be able successfully to urge his local authority to pay more attention to people.
    Mr. Winnick: Is there to be a special chartermark for a former member of the Cabinet who joins a privatised company which was directly involved with the Department of which that former Cabinet Minister was the head? If we are really concerned about the integrity of public life and if we want to end the sleaze which dominates this country today, would not it be a good example if Cabinet Ministers made it clear that they would not join any such company for five years?
    Mr. Hunt: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) produced an unofficial publication, but the present Prime Minister was the first Prime Minister to publish a guidance for Ministers. That is now in the public domain; the standards are available for all to see. I wish that Opposition Members would desist from throwing around unfounded allegations. Our standards of British public service and of our life of service as Ministers and as civil servants are the highest to be found anywhere in the world. One has to go abroad to recognise that. Why do not Opposition Members do so?

Train Crash (Kent)
3.32 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras) (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the rail crash in Kent.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): At about 8.50 am on Saturday, the 8 am train from Uckfield to Oxted and the 8.4 am train from Oxted to Uckfield collided head on near Cowden on a single track section of line. Five people were killed, including both train drivers and a guard. Eleven passengers were injured. I understand that none of the injured was detained in hospital.
I know that the House will want to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the families of the bereaved and to the injured. I warmly thank the emergency services, railway staff and others involved in the rescue operation and pay tribute to their professionalism.
British Rail and Railtrack have accepted responsibility for the accident. They are carrying out their own full technical investigation and internal inquiry into the circumstances and cause of the accident. The results will be made available to Her Majesty's railway inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive. The inspectorate started its own separate investigations at once. Four inspecting officers were on site on Saturday, one with specialist knowledge of signalling electronics.
I have decided to set up an independent inquiry under the Regulation of Railways Act 1871. The inquiry will be headed by one of Her Majesty's railway inspectors who will hear evidence in public. His report will be published, and I have asked that the inspector should report to me as quickly as possible.
In the meantime, Railtrack and British Rail will act immediately should the various investigations currently proceeding indicate the need for urgent measures.
The House will understand that I do not propose to speculate on the cause of the accident. It is for the inquiry to establish exactly what happened. For my part, I will study the inspector's report with great care as soon as it is to hand.
Mr. Dobson: First, may I express the concern and sadness of the Opposition about the injury and loss of life and offer our condolences to the bereaved, our sympathy to those who were injured and our heartfelt thanks to the emergency services? Everyone understands that the Secretary of State cannot give a detailed explanation of the causes of the crash and we welcome his decision to set up an inquiry, but the House will want answers to the following questions either now or at a later date.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that there is a history of signal failures on this line since it was modernised? Why was the route reduced from double to single line working in 1989? Does the Secretary of State accept that single line working reduces the margin for error by making any equipment failure or human error that does happen more likely to result in a crash? How many other recent crashes have happened on lines reduced to single line working? Was the present limited automatic warning system installed on this line and in these trains, and was it in working order?
22
Is it true that the trains involved were 30 years old? Can the Secretary of State confirm that newer trains are stronger and less likely to crumple or come off the track if an accident happens? Can he confirm that five years ago, the official report into the Clapham disaster recommended the installation of advanced automatic train protection throughout the railway system, and that his predecessor Lord Parkinson accepted that proposal and said that lack of finance would not stand in the way?
Is it true that five years later no start has been made on installing automatic train protection, and that the railway inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive, which is to conduct the inquiry, has not yet even submitted its advice on automatic train protection?
Can the Secretary of State confirm that a technical report from British Rail on automatic train protection has been on his desk since May? Will he keep or break Lord Parkinson's five-year-old promise? If it is a matter of cost, does he agree that to install ATP throughout the railway system would cost less than the £700 million the Government are currently spending on railway privatisation? Does he agree that the safety of passengers and staff should take priority over that?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for endorsing my words of commiseration and of thanks. The hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions. I am grateful to him for acknowledging that some questions may be answerable now and others may need to be answered on a future occasion once we have the result of the inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the shift of this section of railway to single track. That occurred in 1991. As I understand it, the decision was taken then to introduce new signalling and advance warning systems and to go from two tracks to one because one of the tracks was at that time judged not to be in a fit state for the carrying of passengers.
On the hon. Gentleman's more general point, I am pleased to agree with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) who said earlier today that there is nothing inherently unsafe about single line working. I am grateful to see that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) agrees with that. Clearly, in a single track operation, it is important that the signalling systems should be accurate and working appropriately. I have no comment to make on that at present. That is precisely part of the current investigation, and we will get answers to that question in due course.
There has been a continuous renewal of rolling stock. I suspect that this is not the occasion on which Opposition Front Benchers should start to get into politically motivated debate. We have spent about £4 billion on rolling stock since 1979. About a quarter of the rolling stock has been renewed since 1985. So a programme of upgrading is taking place.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the Hidden report referred to the importance of ATP. It would have been helpful if he had also pointed out that the report recognised that, technically, ATP was a difficult system to put in place. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North also recognised, pilot studies have been conducted on both the Paddington to Bristol and Marylebone to Aylesbury lines. The hon. Member for

23
Holborn and St. Pancras will be interested to know that the studies turned out to be much more complicated in feasibility terms than was originally expected.
Following those technical studies, the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers was submitted by British Rail to my predecessor at the end of March or beginning of April. He passed copies of it to the Health and Safety Commission and Railtrack, asking for their views. I expect to receive those views next month.
I confirm again to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras and to the House that the safety record of the railways is very good, despite this tragic accident. We are determined to see that those safety records are maintained.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I join my right hon. Friend in expressing the deepest sympathy to those who were involved in this terrible accident and, of course, their families. I saw the effects of the collision for myself on Saturday. I hope that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will understand why I do not make any personal comment on what I saw or on whether or not the carriages were strong enough. All those facts will come out, as they should, in a public inquiry.
I should like to join the hon. Gentleman in expressing my deep appreciation of the quickness and efficiency of response of the ambulance service, the police, the fire services, the voluntary services, including the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, and staff of British Rail and Railtrack. They all responded with extreme efficiency and alacrity and seemed to have worked out a good system of co-ordination.
I should also like to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his prompt response—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am waiting for him to put a question to the Minister. The Minister has made a statement which now needs to be questioned.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his prompt response in agreeing to hold a public inquiry? Will he look into the question of compensation for the victims of this tragic affair and the provision of an alternative service for those who live and work close to the site so that they can use the line without extra cost?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, particularly for his kind words about those who were involved. I join him in paying tribute not only to all those whom he mentioned but to members of the public who were also involved in a helpful way. I thank them, too.
My hon. Friend raised two points. First, British Rail and Railtrack have accepted responsibility, so compensation will follow in due course. I can tell the House that it will follow by application to a single agency, not to both bodies separately. Secondly, while the provision of alternative services is a matter for British Rail, I understand that it is already dealing with the need to run a bus service across that part until the track has been repaired.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Minister accept that my right hon. and hon. Friends join in the expressions of sympathy and of support for the work of the emergency services? Does he accept that we
24
think it right to wait for the outcome of the inquiry before commenting on the causes of the accident, but hope that in the meantime single-line working in the railway system will be the subject of particular care in the light of this experience?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said. I assure him that single-line working is always a matter of care, despite the tragedy that occurred on Saturday.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his statement and for the action that he has proposed. Both are proper. The accident happened in my constituency. I hope that you will bear with me, Madam Speaker, if I add my sympathy to all those involved in the tragedy and my thanks to the rescue and recovery teams which I saw at work yesterday morning. At least seven organisations were involved. They did the excellent job that we always expect of them. I also pay tribute to the civilian back-up, as I describe it, of the villagers of Cowden, who provided tea, cake and comfort to that team.
This terrible accident raises vital issues, and I have two points additional to those that have been raised. First, what will the railways do to ensure that there is sufficient rolling stock on this line of the type required to get the line operating again as soon as the track has been repaired? Will the Secretary of State confirm my understanding from Network South Central that this tragic accident will not affect the future of the line, which is of great importance to travellers in my constituency and in neighbouring constituencies?
Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for joining in the expressions of condolence and appreciation, especially as the tragedy occurred in his constituency. I agree that we must await the outcome of the inquiry before drawing conclusions. I have no understanding that the crash is likely to call into question the use of the line. I think that I can offer my hon. Friend the assurance that when the line has been repaired the service will be restarted with adequate rolling stock.
Ms Glenda Jackson: I thank the Minister for his statement, but will he expand on the issue of the financial underpinning of safety on the railways? It is five years since the Clapham disaster and, despite the assurances of the now Lord Parkinson that money would be found for safety, the recent British Rail board review on ATP makes it quite clear that it constantly has to balance the financial requirements of safety against the financial requirements of modernisation.
Dr. Mawhinney: I have two things to say to the hon. Lady. First, if she goes back to the Hidden report she will see that it stated that as soon as the technical feasibility had been established ATP should be phased in over five years. We are still in the process of seeking to establish the technical feasibility, given the difficulties that the pilot schemes threw up. I hope that the hon. Lady will understand that there is no hesitancy on these issues: they need to be carried forward thoroughly.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I visited the site of this tragic crash on Saturday morning and I hope that my right hon. Friend will join me in paying tribute to the emergency services and to all who brought speedy relief

25
to a terrible situation. Does he find it a matter of considerable regret that Opposition Members—perhaps not so much in the House but in the press—have seized upon this as an opportunity to make cheap party-political jibes? Will he join me in sending condolences to the family of Mr. Brett-Andrews, one of my constituents, who died in the crash?
Dr. Mawhinney: I certainly associate myself and the Government with my hon. Friend's comments on the tragic death of his constituent. I judge that the mood of the House is that this is not the occasion for party-political exchanges, and I shall exhibit the restraint that has been exhibited thus far.
Dr. John Marek: It is always sad to ask questions at such a time. Does the Secretary of State remember that about 10 years ago in search of savings, his Administration pressed for the introduction of many more automatic open level crossings? To its shame, the railway inspectorate acquiesced, the crossings were introduced and deaths multiplied, culminating in the Lockington disaster and the Stott report, which resulted in the matter being put right. This is a similar situation, so will the Secretary of State learn the lesson that, whatever the other factors, if the line had been double track the disaster would not have happened? That lesson is obvious to every hon. Member and we all know what should be done.
Dr. Mawhinney: First, I do not see the similarities that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. Secondly, I again agree with his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North that single-track working is not inherently unsafe. Thirdly, the new arrangements that were put in on this track in 1991 were fully approved by the railways inspectorate.

Kuwait
3.50 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the situation in the Gulf. I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary; he is accompanying Her Majesty the Queen on her state visit to Russia.
Over the past two weeks, we have again witnessed a serious threat by Saddam Hussein to the state of Kuwait and the stability of the Gulf. On 7 October, numerous Iraqi troops, including two divisions of the Republican Guards, began to move towards the Iraqi border with Kuwait. At the same time, the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council and a number of Iraqi Ministers made threatening statements against Kuwait and against the United Nations inspection teams.
In response to a request from the Kuwaitis made on 7 October under the terms of our bilateral defence co-operation arrangement, HMS Cornwall arrived in Kuwaiti waters on 9 October. HMS Cardiff has now joined her. Six Tornado aircraft have been deployed—they are in addition to the six already in the region patrolling the no-fly zone over southern Iraq. The
Government have dispatched the spearhead battalion to Kuwait. United Kingdom troops on the ground in Kuwait now number more than 800, increasing to more than 1,000 by the end of this week. More than 2,000 personnel will be deployed to the Gulf area.
In the face of the vigorous action taken by Kuwait's friends, the Iraqis are withdrawing their troops. However, it is too soon to say that the threat has completely subsided. Iraqi troops must return to the positions they held before the start of this crisis.
As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited the region from 11 to 14 October. He and the United States Secretary of State met the Foreign Ministers of the Gulf Co-operation Council in Kuwait. There was general condemnation of Iraq's latest actions, and agreement on the need to prevent a repetition. There was also widespread concern for the continued suffering of the Iraqi people at the hands of their government. We share that concern. The Iraqi Government have rejected the United Nations offer to allow limited oil exports in return for humanitarian aid. The immediate implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions 706 and 712 would bring huge humanitarian benefit to the Iraqi people.
In order that all sanctions can be lifted, Iraq must comply with all relevant UN resolutions, including the unambiguous recognition of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Kuwait and an end to the repression of its civilian population.
The Iraqis must not again pose a threat of that kind. We therefore welcome the unanimous adoption on 5 October of United Nations Security Council resolution 949 condemning Iraqi actions on the Kuwaiti border, demanding the immediate withdrawal of troops recently deployed near the border and further demanding that Iraq does not again use its forces to threaten neighbours or United Nations personnel. That is an important first step.

27
The Iraqi regime must understand that the international community has both the authority and the will to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Kuwait.
Dr. John Cunningham: First, I thank the Minister for responding to our request for a statement. Of course, we understand why the Foreign Secretary cannot be here today.
I welcome the Minister's statement and I want to add our support to that of the Government for Security Council resolution 949, which was unanimously agreed on 15 October. We also support the rapid and effective deterrent action of the Gulf allies in opposing the threat from Saddam Hussein to the territorial integrity of Kuwait.
I make it clear that we endorse the view that there is no possibility of the United Nations or anyone else removing sanctions from Iraq if Saddam Hussein continues not only to threaten Kuwait but to persecute the Kurdish people in the north of Iraq and the Shia Muslim communities in the south.
The Iraqi regime must comply with all Security Council resolutions and, as the Minister rightly said, accept the boundaries and sovereignty of Kuwait. Only then, if all conditions are met, can we consider the lifting of sanctions.
Does the Minister accept, however, that pre-emptive military strikes should be avoided and certainly not undertaken unless specifically authorised by a new Security Council resolution? I welcome the Minister's confirmation that paragraph 3 of Security Council resolution 661 on sanctions specifically excludes medical supplies and humanitarian aid, and that resolutions 706 and 712 presently allow Saddam Hussein to sell up to $1.6 billion worth of oil to finance medicines, food and humanitarian supplies.
Can the Minister advise the House in what ways the international community is seeking to reinforce those Security Council resolution provisions to alleviate the widely reported, undoubted suffering of the people of Iraq? Is he able to say how much progress, if any, has been made by Iraq on reparations and compensation through the United Nations compensation fund established following the Gulf war? Will Her Majesty's Government continue forceful diplomatic pressure to seek the objectives to which I just referred?
Does the Minister accept that there is some hope in the conclusion in the report of Mr. Rolf Ekeus, head of the United Nations special commission on Iraq, that at least the basic provisions of compliance are now being met by the Iraqi regime?
Is it not clear that we and our allies continue to pay a heavy price for participating in the build up of Saddam Hussein's war machine? Is it not the case that Britain's involvement in the illegal and covert supply of instruments of war against the United Nations embargo is a shame on our country?
Mr. Hogg: I agree with much that the right hon. Gentleman said, but I am bound to comment that he diminished himself by his last few sentences. I will respond to the right hon. Gentleman's substantive remarks.
28
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman supports resolution 949 and I am grateful for that. I am glad, too, that he supports the rapid deployment of United Kingdom and other troops to the region, and I am grateful for that, too. I am glad also that the right hon. Gentleman supports the robust stand taken by the United Kingdom Government with regard to sanctions and acknowledges the importance of persuading Iraq that she must recognise the sovereignty of Kuwait and the international frontiers delineated by, the United Nations. I also make the point that Iraq must provide full details of the Kuwaitis taken into captivity, whose fate is not now known.
As to future action, I agree that it is most important that any action taken against Iraq must accord with the principles of international law.
The right hon. Gentleman's point about humanitarian assistance is important. Under resolutions 706 and 712, Iraq could indeed sell oil to a value of $1.6 billion. It has chosen not to do so. Had it accepted that, the humanitarian disaster that we are seeing in Iraq would not have occurred. To that extent, it is the fault of Saddam Hussein. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we are bringing it to the attention of Iraq that the facility exists. The answer is yes, and I have, of course, done so in the statement that I have just made. We also attach very high importance to the payment of compensation.
Mr. Winston Churchill: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government on the very prompt action that they took in concert with our allies in deploying the spearhead battalion and six Tornado aircraft to Kuwait. But is it not clear that unless there is an early and favourable compliance with UN resolutions by Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government, it is essential that there should be an effective cordon sanitaire between Iraq and Kuwait? Whether it be called a heavy weapons exclusion zone or whatever does not matter, but it must be effective; otherwise, at a few hours' notice, regularly in the coming months, it will be in Saddam Hussein's power to put into action the very costly procedures, which we have seen put in train by the Gulf war allies in the past few days, of making deployments and reinforcements. It is of the essence that we should get that. Why were the Government of France so reluctant to join the allies in such an arrangement?
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I think that when he comes to study the terms of resolution 949 he will find that it deals with a number of the points that he has just made to the House: it calls for the withdrawal of the recently deployed troops to the positions that they held before the crisis; prohibits the enhancement of the military capacity of Iraq in southern Iraq; and it makes the point that threats to the neighbouring states would be contrary to international law. It makes the point, too, that Iraq must not redeploy southwards those forces that are in the process of being withdrawn. I think that that makes the point that my hon. Friend would like the House to know about.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister recall that the success of the Gulf war rested very substantially on the unanimity of purpose of the international community? In that circumstance, is he concerned that resolution 949 of 15 October seems to be subject to a number of rather widely different interpretations?

29
May I press the right hon. and learned Gentleman directly on a point? Is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that that resolution authorises military action, without further recourse to the Security Council? Further, is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that that resolution, without further recourse to the Security Council, authorises the creation of an exclusion zone or cordon sanitaire?
Mr. Hogg: I believe that I have already made the position plain to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I will repeat what I said. The Iraqi regime must understand that the international community has both the authority and the will to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Kuwait. There are a number of breaches of resolution 949—we could discuss them at some other time—which would clearly constitute a threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Kuwait, and they are covered, therefore, by what I have just said.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the problems in the previous conflict was lack of intelligence about the disposition of Iraqi troops before the land action to liberate Kuwait? As the world was apparently taken unawares by Saddam Hussein's recent manoeuvres, will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether he is satisfied with the quality of satellite surveillance of the area and, more importantly, the quality of the interpretation of the information gathered? Does he agree that, in the absence of such information, there is a danger of the threatening pattern being ever-repetitive and that there may not be an adequate opportunity to intervene diplomatically or, if necessary, militarily?
Mr. Hogg: I recognise that my hon. Friend has an unusual experience to bring to bear on the matter.
I hope that I do not sound complacent when I say that I think that the quality of our intelligence is good. The problem is not determining the whereabouts of any troop units at any one time, but determining the motives of those who are in command in Baghdad: that is much more difficult to determine.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Minister aware that the international community is not as united on the matter as he makes out, in that France, Russia and China take a somewhat different view? He should have drawn attention to that in his statement.
Bearing in mind the fact that three and a half years ago allied forces killed 200,000 Iraqis, that the Harvard medical team pointed out that 150,000 babies under five had died as a consequence of the bombing of water supplies, and the very widespread concern about the appalling hardship suffered by innocent people in Iraq, can the Minister explain why—now that Mr. Ekeus has reported compliance with the United Nations resolutions on weapons—the Government should follow the Americans in their insistence on continuing sanctions, which may have more to do with the re-election of President Clinton's party in the elections?
Mr. Hogg: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to point out that resolution 949 was unanimous. His criticisms of me would have had greater force had he done so.
30
Ambassador Ekeus has indeed reported encouraging signs with regard to the dismantlement of weapons of mass destruction; but—as the right hon. Gentleman will know full well from resolution 687—one of the questions that must be determined, which has not yet been determined, is whether the verification procedures that are now being put in place will be viable and adhered to. That test is necessary before further questions regarding the relaxation of sanctions can arise.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there was unfinished business at the end of the Gulf war, in the sense that Saddam Hussein was left in power, and that the Gulf will continue to be an unstable area and the Iraqi people will continue to suffer under sanctions until they rid themselves of this tyrant?
Mr. Hogg: There is no doubt that Iraq and the whole Gulf region will be a very much happier place when Saddam Hussein ceases to rule in Baghdad.
Mr. Greville Janner: Given that Jordan and Israel were on different sides during the Gulf war, might this be a good time to welcome the agreement for peace entered into today by the two countries? Will the Minister give a clear and unequivocal guarantee that we shall play no part in the removal of sanctions unless and until the Iraqis not only release the names of the Kuwaiti prisoners, but release the prisoners themselves?
Mr. Hogg: I certainly very much welcome the agreement initialled today between His Majesty King Hussein of Jordan and Prime Minister Rabin. I also welcome the robust support that King Hussein has given the action of the United States, the United Kingdom and the other friends of Kuwait in deploying to the Gulf.
As for the question of the Kuwaiti detainees, 600 persons taken to Kuwait are currently unaccounted for. That is a disgrace; we are doing all that we can to impress on Iraq the fundamental importance of telling the people of Kuwait what has happened to those people and, if they are alive, delivering them back to their families. This question will remain live, and will certainly colour the whole question of sanctions.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Air power—both the air transport force and offensive and defensive power—has proved the crucial determinant of crisis management vis-à-vis Iraq in recent years. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure—in consultation with the Ministry of Defence, in the maintenance of obligations with regard to the defence treaty with Kuwait—that, instead of relying on sudden deployments, we pre-position and regularly exercise in the Gulf co-operation area, in order to stabilise the region and reassure local Governments, especially that of Kuwait?
Mr. Hogg: I know that my hon. Friend, from personal experience, has a great deal of knowledge on the matter. He will know that some six Tornados were already in place and that they were patrolling the no-fly zone over south Iraq. There are also assets responsible for patrolling the no-fly zone over north Iraq pursuant to Operation Provide Comfort. On the more technical question that he raised, may I duck the issue by saying that my right hon.

31
and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will shortly address the House and that maybe he is the person to whom the more technical question should be put?
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Should not the UN Security Council be pressed to concede by way of resolution that there should be a softening of the compensation requirements on Kuwait if an Iraqi National Congress alternative Government were in place in Baghdad? Surely it is the responsibility of the UN Security Council to create an incentive for the Baghdad people to recognise the existence of the INC outside Iraq and its potential for government when sanity finally returns to that country?
Mr. Hogg: I think that I would take a different approach. It is very much in the interests of the Iraqi people that Saddam Hussein should be ousted from power. While he remains in control in Baghdad, he pursues policies that will make the relaxation of sanctions very difficult. It follows from that that his removal makes the relaxation of sanctions a great deal more likely.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Should the deployment have to be continued, repeated or expanded, and substantial cost borne by United Kingdom taxpayers for such necessary measures, what steps will we and the United States of America take to recover part of the cost from many wealthy countries, such as Japan and Germany, that are making no contribution to something that is so vital to their security?
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the question of burden sharing when he attended the Gulf Co-operation Council. There was an acceptance that it was right that the burden of the financial costs being shouldered by the United Kingdom and United States should be shared. Further work will be done on that. If the commitment becomes a long one, maybe burden sharing should be much wider than is presently being talked about.
Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Minister comment on reports over the weekend that preparation for the new manufacture of chemical weaponry in Iraq has been spotted by satellite? What action would the United Nations be prepared to take if those sightings were confirmed?
Mr. Hogg: I did indeed see the reports in the newspapers. I do not know whether they have any substance. As far as I am aware, ambassador Ekeus has not reported in terms that support those reports. I have no doubt that he, too, will have those reports drawn to his attention and that he will investigate them. Our action and response will depend very much on what ambassador Ekeus reports to the Security Council.
Mr. Matthew Carrington: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the only way of avoiding a repetition of this terrible situation is by the rigorous enforcement of the sanctions? Has he any evidence that the sanctions are being breached, either in the letter or the spirit, by other countries?
Mr. Hogg: I am sure that it is right to hold to the policy of sanctions. I have no doubt that there is some breach of the sanctions regime. I know of no sanctions regime in
32
any part of the world that has not been breached. I am certain that, measured by any standards that one cares to mention, the sanctions regime has had a grave impact on Iraq. I know that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is particularly concerned about the matter. We can take it as certain that sanctions are having a grave impact on Iraq and, I believe, weakening Saddam Hussein's control on that country.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I agree with the Minister's statement and that of my hon. right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). The Minister mentioned Iraq and the Iraqi people two or three times. May I press on him the fact that more needs to be done by the allies to ensure that the Iraqi people understand that it is Saddam Hussein's fault that humanitarian and medical aid is not going into Iraq—that is the only reason? As the Minister said, Saddam Hussein is able to sell the oil. More should be done to make that known to the Iraqi people and supporters outside Iraq, because lies are being peddled.
Would not there be far more support for Kuwait if, in the past three and a half years, that country had made far greater efforts to introduce something remotely akin to a modernised democratic state, which is what the war was supposed to be about in the first place?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to make that point about the impact of resolutions 706 and 712. Yes, Saddam Hussein is the author of his country's suffering because he has refused to accept the arrangement which would have made about $1 billion of oil revenue available for humanitarian purposes. We have, of course, said that many times. Our access to the people of Iraq is limited, for reasons that the hon. Gentleman will understand.
The hon. Gentleman has been critical of the political structures in Kuwait. They are not, of course, the same as those in this country, but earlier this summer I went to Kuwait and talked to many members of the Kuwaiti Assembly. I came away with the strong conviction that there is now in Kuwait an effective and much more representative and articulate parliamentary body than almost anywhere else in that region. Progress is being made in Kuwait.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if a troop exclusion zone as well as an air exclusion zone had been imposed in southern Iraq at the end of the Gulf war, this problem would probably not have occurred? Does he think that a troop exclusion zone, or a total exclusion zone, would benefit the marsh Arabs who have suffered dreadfully?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the situation of the marsh Arabs. He will know that, since August 1992, there has been an air exclusion zone in force in southern Iraq, which has gone some way to reducing air attacks on the Shia. However, that does not deal with my hon. Friend's principal point, which is whether there should have been or could have been a total land exclusion zone south of the 32nd parallel. I do not think that we would have secured support within the Security Council for that at the end of the Gulf war.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has not one of the distinguished Arabists in the Foreign Office argued with the Minister that, far from undermining Saddam Hussein,

33
sanctions help to solidify the regime? If, like me, one has seen babies expiring for want of medicine in the paediatric hospital in Baghdad or in the hospital of Umm Qasr, perhaps the questions about why this is happening are not asked too deeply by the Iraqi people. They know simply that it has happened and, like it or not, the west is blamed. Does the Minister take cognisance of the views of people as disparate as the Bishop of Leicester, Claude Cheysson, the former French Foreign Minister, and others who have been there, because the psychology is not as we see it from London or Washington?
Mr. Hogg: I do not in any way question the hon. Gentleman's good faith. He and I have debated this question before, and I have to say that I believe that he is wrong. One can of course argue that the imposition of sanctions solidifies support behind a ruler and I have no doubt that that has been so in various cases in the past. However, in answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific question, I do not believe that that is the case in Iraq now. We have a great number of intelligence and other reports which reveal that there is huge popular dissatisfaction with, and hatred of, Saddam Hussein. Were he not murdering every opponent who has the courage to express a slightly contrary opinion, he would have been out by now, so I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman.
I had the pleasure of writing to the Bishop of Leicester today and hope to see him shortly. I heard him on the "Today" programme a few days ago. One thing that surprised me was that he made no reference to resolutions 706 and 712. To refer again to the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), too many people do not bear in mind the fact that because Saddam Hussein has refused to accept resolutions 706 and 712, he is responsible for most of the misery in his country.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that events in recent months have confirmed that Saddam Hussein is indifferent to the sufferings of his own people and to human rights, and that this evil man is interested only in destabilising the region and in territorial expansion? Should not we, therefore, congratulate those who were responsible for deactivating the Basra reactor?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right when he characterises Saddam Hussein in those terms.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Minister has already referred to the issue of compensation to Kuwait. Would this be an appropriate time for him to mention whether compensation will be paid to the families of the young soldiers who were lost in the "Blue on Blue" incident immediately after the Gulf war? In a more general context, can the Minister tell us what and when the likelihood is of the Iraqi Government's accepting the UN resolutions on the protection of the Kurds and the Shia Muslims, which are critical guarantees for all of us?
Mr. Hogg: The "Blue on Blue" incident is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The hon. Lady asked me when I thought that Iraq was likely to accept the obligations reflected in the resolutions with regard to the Kurds in north Iraq and to
34
the Shia in the marshes in south Iraq. In honesty, I have to say it is unlikely that Iraq will accept them while Saddam Hussein is in control in Baghdad.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Although I whole-heartedly support UN resolution 949 and would be immensely pleased to see this tyrannical regime overthrown, I am concerned that President Clinton, a man who dodged the call-up himself, and some of his gung-ho generals appear to be wedded to the idea of pre-emptive military strikes. In the circumstances surrounding Iraq and Kuwait now and in relation to UN resolution 949, will the Minister give us the Government's definition of a pre-emptive military strike? We want no more turkey shoots of poor Iraqi infantry.
Mr. Hogg: I think that I have already made it clear, for example to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), that I believe that there is already sufficient authority and, most certainly, will on the part of the international community to defend the integrity, independence and sovereignty of Kuwait. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism about pre-emptive action. May I make this point? The problem is one of proximity, as the hon. Gentleman may well know. At this very moment there are elements of the Republican Guard 90 miles away from the Kuwaiti frontier, or thereabouts. One cannot, it seems to me, wait to take pre-emptive action until they are crossing the border, if one believes and has cause to believe that they are about to attack a sovereign state. There is a problem here which we must approach in a careful and considered way.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not one of the most sickening aspects of this affair the fact that the Iraqi arms were sold to Iraq principally by Britain and by France? As the question has not been asked already and as Mark Thatcher was hovering in the background during the supergun affair, may we ask at this moment how much money he has made out of it? That is the question that the Minister should answer.
Mr. Hogg: I know that the hon. Gentleman has almost reached retirement age, but I think that he should behave in a slightly less juvenile fashion.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Although I support the international community's action in defence of Kuwait's territorial integrity, I ask whether there is not also, in view of the fact that British lives were at stake during the Gulf war, that British soldiers are in the Gulf now and that British lives may be put at stake in the future, another obligation on the Government, despite the Minister's previous reply? It is an obligation to ensure that the democratisation of Kuwait is carried on in a way that does not merely give representation to more of the elite in that country, but enshrines civil liberty, ensures that political prisoners who have been taken by the Kuwaiti regime are released and ensures that we have the same sort of obligation in Kuwait as we have seen with British assistance in Haiti.
Mr. Hogg: There are many arguments in favour of encouraging our friends and allies to introduce more accountable systems of government, but we should be very cautious before we conclude that our own model is

35
the only model which one can properly urge on them. One must take account of the traditions and history and present policies of the countries to which we are referring.
In the case of Kuwait, there has, I think, been a substantial change and movement towards what the hon. Gentleman has been advocating.
Mr. Harry Barnes: What advice would the Minister give to the Iraqi people, including the Kurds and the marsh Arabs, on what action should be taken to remove Saddam Hussein, so that the sanctions can be removed? Is it feasible that that could be done?
Mr. Hogg: I will not respond to that question because I do not wish to urge on people actions that could have very grave consequences on them and on which they must themselves be the judge. What I can say is that while Saddam Hussein remains in control in Baghdad, it is difficult to believe that policies will change to such an extent that sanctions can properly be relaxed.
Mr. David Winnick: Since the murderous nature of the Iraqi regime has been known for so long, why was the Minister so dismissive of the point made by right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about the way in which that regime was built up with arms from the west, right up to the invasion of Kuwait? Surely, the Government and other western Governments should learn that lesson. Saddam Hussein has not suddenly become a tyrant and a mass murderer; he was that from the very beginning. Despite that, and the oppression of the Iraqi people, the west was perfectly content to arm Iraq right up to its teeth.
Mr. Hogg: Anybody who has considered the evidence in a dispassionate manner would accept that the arms control regime operated at the present time by the British Government and operated throughout the past decade by the British Government was and is the tightest in the world.

Defence Estimates

  FIRST DAY
  [Relevant documents: The Defence Committee has reported on the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994 in its Sixth Report of Session 1993–94, HC 68. The First Report from the Defence Committee on the Programme to Replace or Refurbish the Hercules Transport Aircraft, HC 118; the Third Special Report containing the Government's Reply thereto, HC 511; the Second Report on the Progress of the Trident Programme, HC 297; the Third Report on the Progress of the Eurofighter 2000 Programme, HC 222; the Fourth Report on RAF Commitments and Resources, HC 252; the Fifth Report on the Implementation of Lessons Learned from Operation Granby, HC 43; the Fourth Special Report containing the Government's replies to the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Reports, HC 660; and the Eighth Report on the Defence Costs Study, HC 655.]
  4.26 pm
  Madam Speaker: Before we commence the debate on defence, which is a two-day debate, I want to tell the House that there is a great deal of interest over these two days and that hon. Members will be very fortunate if all those wishing to speak are called. I do not intend to impose any discipline on lengths of speeches—today, at any rate. I am looking to the House to impose its own discipline on itself. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to limit voluntarily their speeches to 10 minutes so that I shall be able to call all hon. Members who want to speak. I ask the Secretary of State to move the motion.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand from your just calling the Secretary of State that you are not selecting any amendments at this time. I seek your guidance on a point of order because I understand that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition has tabled—it is not yet on the Order Paper—a reasoned amendment to the motion. Could you give us any guidance on whether you will be selecting that amendment tomorrow? There is a series of—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I have got the point. I am certainly not selecting an amendment today. Of course, I am quite at liberty to select an amendment tomorrow. When it is on the Order Paper for us all to see, I shall make my views known to the House.
  Mr. Bruce: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: No. I have made the matter clear.
  4.28 pm
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move,
  That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994 contained in Cm. 2550.
  It may be of some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) to know that the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) quite satisfactorily represents the views of the Labour party. I have no doubt that we shall, in due course, hear the official spokesman, as opposed to the unofficial spokesman for the Labour party, explain why he greets that amendment with total enthusiasm, representing as it does the views of his party conference.
  We are today officially debating the "Statement on the Defence Estimates", which was published some six months ago. The events of the past six months explain

  37
  and demonstrate clearly why it is crucial in the modern post cold war world to have armed forces that are flexible, mobile and able to respond to the very curious world in which we now live, with unexpected developments and quite historic changes.
  In just the past six months, we have had not only the Iraqi crisis, which the House has just examined, but major developments in Bosnia, with the closure of the border by President Milosevic, the historic developments in Northern Ireland and the necessity to send certain forces to Rwanda. Each and every case either had significant military implications or had the potential at some future date to have significant military implications.
  Three main themes emerged from the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" and I should like to comment briefly on each of them. The first major theme drew attention to perhaps the most important initiative that NATO has brought forward recently, the "Partnership for Peace" initiative. It is of historic significance and, since it was launched in January of this year, some 23 countries, including Russia, Ukraine and others, have joined the "Partnership for Peace".
  I should like to comment briefly on that initiative because I am aware from various articles that I have read in the past few months that certain people, not so much hon. Members, but certain journalists, have made snide comments about the "Partnership for Peace". They have suggested that it is an inadequate response to the post cold war world and that the fact that it includes Russia and Ukraine as well as central European countries shows that it is purely a cosmetic exercise. They have also said that it is an inadequate substitute for enlarging NATO itself. Those serious accusations are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the needs of European security now that communism has collapsed and the Soviet Union no longer exists.
  The first requirement that "Partnership for Peace" represents is a recognition that we must not either directly or indirectly allow a Europe that was divided by the iron curtain for 40 years to be replaced by a new Europe with some other division, however unintended, which could have profound consequences. The security of Europe is indivisible. We therefore need to develop a security framework that has relevance not just to the members of NATO or to the countries that might join NATO, but to Russia and other new democratic countries which have a significant contribution that they could make either for good or ill to the security of Europe.
  One of the great strengths of "Partnership for Peace" is that it provides a framework that incorporates Russia as well as central European countries. It has an essential dynamic within it whereby the precise relationship between NATO and any individual country will evolve over the years to come. In certain cases, that will lead to membership of NATO—I have no doubt that NATO will enlarge in the years to come—but, equally, for some other countries that participate in "Partnership for Peace" it is difficult, if not impossible, to envisage membership of NATO, even in the long-term future. Therefore, it is necessary to have a framework, which is what "Partnership for Peace" represents, which enables NATO to develop a significant relationship with each and every one of those countries.
  Some mocking has been made of the fact that we have joint exercises with Russia or joint training with Russia or Poland or other new countries. I believe that those who
  38
  mock those developments do not begin to understand their significance. One of the great tragedies of the cold war period was the almost total lack of contact between the military of the Soviet bloc and NATO. I remember that when, two years ago, I first met General Grachev, the Russian Defence Minister, I asked him how many NATO officers he had met before the end of the cold war. He said that he had met none. If that was true of someone of his level it remains even more true of the many tens of thousands of middle-ranking officers. One of the great strengths of the joint exercises, exchanges and other similar activities is that they enable contact to be made between many tens of thousands of middle ranking junior Russian officers. That enables them to understand how the military operate in a democratic society and how western values should be relevant to their own situation. I believe that such exercises are an important initiative.
  Last week, I visited the three Baltic states. The United Kingdom is making an important contribution towards the formation of a new Baltic battalion, which will be available to the United Nations. It has decided to conduct its operations in the English language. We are directly and indirectly playing a leading part in training the armed forces of those three new independent central European states. That is a matter of considerable pride.
  One of the messages of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994" was the development of "Partnership for Peace". The second message was the fact that we are approaching the end of the transition to the new force line structure which began under "Options for Change". That has been a very difficult change, but it is one that is now approaching a period of stability.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Before the Secretary of State departs entirely from "Partnership for Peace", does he agree that nothing would have been worse for the integrity and strength of NATO than to open membership to countries to which politically it would have been very difficult indeed to extend the collective right of self-defence contained in article 5 of the NATO treaty?
  Mr. Rifkind: Membership of NATO is not just membership of a political alliance; it is membership of an integrated military structure. We must ask not just what additional security new countries would receive, but what contribution they would be able to make to the collective security of the alliance as a whole. Only when an intended member could deal with both sides of that equation would potential membership be a reality.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: If this welcome European-wide development takes hold solidly and firmly, could it lead to a reduction in the British Army presence in Germany, especially the armoured units?
  Mr. Rifkind: I believe that we have already indicated our policy in that respect. The British Army of the Rhine is already being reduced from more than 60,000 to about 23,000. We have no intention of bringing that down further. The most important reason for that—and this explains also why the United States is maintaining 100,000 troops in Europe—is the point that I made a few moments ago: NATO is an integrated military structure. That means that the troops must train together and be in the habit of working together if, in the event of a crisis, they are expected to fight together. That requires a

  39
  physical co-location. We and the German Government believe that that is important to ensure that NATO remains a credible and coherent alliance based not just on good intent and good faith, but on collective military training.
  I said that the second main theme of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994" was the work, which is now drawing to a conclusion, on reforming our force structure. A year ago, we said that we did not intend to make any further reductions to the fighting strength of our armed forces. In the "Front Line First" initiative earlier this year, we demonstrated that that was a policy which we could deliver. Indeed, we have been able to enhance fighting strength in a number of important ways.
  I shall return to that point later, but I emphasise that one of the themes for the rest of this Parliament will be the fact that the Government now offer stability so far as the fighting strength of our armed forces is concerned. The Opposition, because of their commitment to a review which would be the first initiative of a Labour Government, are offering nothing other than at least three years of continuing uncertainty about the force structure that would arise under a Labour Government.
  Dr. David Clark: Is the Secretary of State assuring the House that, after the next election and if there were by accident to be a Conservative Government, there would be no defence cuts in the lifetime of the next Conservative Government—if there were to be one?
  Mr. Rifkind: We are now approaching the completion of a very important change in the armed forces consequent upon the end of the cold war. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week, we have now reached the end of the big upheavals. We are saying that we believe that we now have a force structure which deals with the situation that has arisen after the end of the cold war. I shall return to this point later, but I can tell the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that we are not contemplating any further cuts in battalions, regiments, ships and aircraft. That is not subject to a review, as it would be under the Opposition who make all those matters indeterminate for the foreseeable future.
  The third theme of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994" is the sheer quality of our armed forces and the contribution that they make around the world. I want to remind the House of what we said at the beginning of the document. These two sentences are perhaps the foundation of our approach to the armed forces:
  "The United Kingdom remains one of the world's most formidable military powers. Only the United States, Russia and France"—
  as well as the United Kingdom—
  "can deploy as broad a range of capabilities as the armed forces of the United Kingdom who, in terms of their experience, training, leadership and esprit, are the match for any in the world."
  That is a bold claim for a relatively small country to make, but if there is any doubt about the validity of the claim that I have just made, one has only to contemplate where else in Europe, Asia, Africa or Latin America one can find a country that has not only armed forces of the size of ours—many countries have larger armed forces—but our capabilities, our experience and our ability to
  40
  deploy in various parts of the world in pursuit of a wide range of interests. That is something which the Government intend to maintain.
  I refer now to certain specific parts of the world where our armed forces are operating. I shall comment only briefly on Iraq because the House has just heard a full presentation of the situation there. The House has been made aware of the quite significant assets that we have in Kuwait at present.
  One of the points that I should like to draw to the attention of the House is that the spearhead battalion has responded to the circumstances there, and as a consequence we have asked the First Royal Anglian to become the new spearhead battalion which will be in reserve for any new crises that may arise in any part of the world, in order that the presence of 45 Commando in Kuwait should not have removed our ability to deploy quickly and effectively if any new problem needs to be dealt with.
  I have noted also reference in certain newspapers to the fact that, as a result of the need to get our forces to Kuwait, the training of those who use Hercules aircraft or who use aircraft for other purposes might be affected. Of course, that is the case. The whole point about training is that it must not be allowed to take precedence over a real operational requirement. If we have a real operational requirement, as we have had in the recent past, inevitably it must have implications for training, but of course operational tasks are often the best training that the forces can receive, so that will be no loss to them.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Secretary of State will be aware that many of his colleagues on both sides of the House have been receiving representations on sickness allegedly contracted during the Gulf war. Indeed, there was a Channel 4 "Critical Eye" programme, "Quick War, Slow Death", which purported to show several cases that looked very genuine. Is the Ministry of Defence taking the issue seriously? If so, what developments can we expect?
  Mr. Rifkind: Of course, we take those matters seriously. On several occasions, those who believe that they have suffered medical consequences as a result of participation in the Gulf war have been invited to identify themselves and to give such evidence as they have of their medical condition. As far as I am aware, all the inquiries that have been made so far have not substantiated those claims. A relatively small number have contacted us. Each case has been investigated and there has been no evidence to support the claims that have been made, but we continue to be willing to examine any such allegations to see whether they are supported by reasonable and acceptable medical evidence. It is a medical question, which can therefore be properly assessed.
  I now refer to the situation in Bosnia and in former Yugoslavia. Since the publication of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates", there have been a number of important developments: the contact group map and the attempts to persuade the Bosnian Serbs to accept it, the decision by President Milosevic to break with the Bosnian Serbs, and the decision of the United States Congress to say that it would propose the lifting of the embargo if the contact group map was not accepted by 15 October.
  The United Kingdom has at no stage been in any doubt as to the proper approach to the arms embargo. The position that we have taken has also been taken by France and, as far as I am aware, by all the countries that

  41
  contribute to UNPROFOR—indeed, it is the view that has been taken by most countries around the world. It is not possible to lift an arms embargo and, at the same time, continue to believe that UNPROFOR could carry out its task in a non-partisan role, seeking to bring peace in that country. That remains our view.
  We were particularly pleased that the Bosnian Government, having given careful reflection and consideration to what might happen if the embargo was raised, came to the conclusion that, after all, they did not wish to recommend that the embargo should be raised at this time. I am sure that that was a wise judgment on their part. One must recognise that, if the embargo were raised, inevitably UNPROFOR would have to withdraw. That would expose Gorazde and the other enclaves to any attack that might then take place, and the effects of lifting the embargo, certainly in the short term and, in our view, also in the long term, would simply bring more warfare, suffering and hardship to the people of Bosnia and prolong the conflict rather than bring it to an end.
  I am aware that there are some who argue that although we should not raise the embargo now, we should be prepared to give a commitment that we shall raise it in six months. The same arguments that I have just mentioned would be likely to apply in the same way at a future date. Obviously, events move on and one would have to look at the circumstances as they existed next April, but I find it difficult to believe that the basic argument would have changed fundamentally.
  On British forces in Bosnia, the Royal Highland Fusiliers will complete their handover from the Second Royal Anglians in November. I pay great tribute not only to what they have achieved but to the excellent leadership that General Sir Michael Rose has given them and the United Nations as a whole during his period in Bosnia. He has demonstrated exceptional qualities in the best traditions of our armed forces, and that has enhanced the reputation of our armed forces, as one would expect, around the world.
  It is also worth remembering the broad role of UNPROFOR in Bosnia. Events move on, and as events move on so the role has significantly changed. In addition to escorting humanitarian aid convoys, British forces have played an important role in implementing the Muslim-Croat ceasefire in central Bosnia by patrolling confrontation lines, manning weapons collection points and liaising between the parties. British engineers have continued to play an essential role in keeping open key supply routes, and last month succeeded in constructing a badly needed Bailey bridge over the River Neretva in Mostar, which has been widely acclaimed. In addition to the ground forces, our sea and air forces in the Adriatic have served with equal distinction.
  That is a record of service of which we can be proud, but we can also properly pay tribute to the sacrifices that our armed forces have made. Sadly, we have had the tragic deaths of eight British troops through action by the warring parties. Last month, we also saw the sad loss of four more soldiers as a result of two separate road traffic accidents. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering our condolences to the families of those brave men and in the recognition of the sacrifice that they have made in pursuing a noble objective.
  It would be right and proper to comment on developments in Northern Ireland. That matter is clearly of profound importance at present because we are all
  42
  conscious that we are entering into an historic phase with regard to events in the Province. For more than 25 years, the armed forces' largest and most important peacetime commitment has been within the United Kingdom itself, in Northern Ireland. Their role has been to support the Royal Ulster Constabulary in countering violence by republican and loyalist terrorists and to assist the return of normality to Northern Ireland. They have carried out that role with considerable success.
  The terrorists have not succeeded in achieving their aims through violence. Despite terrorist activities, most people in Northern Ireland have been able to lead relatively normal lives in recent years. That that is so is due in large measure to the resolute and professional way in which the security forces have carried out their duties over the years. The RUC and the armed forces supporting them have together seized vast quantities of weapons and explosives and made thousands of arrests of suspected terrorists, both republicans and loyalists. Their actions have prevented countless terrorist attacks and saved many members of both communities from murder or maiming. It is no exaggeration that the actions of the security forces have preserved the very fabric of society in Northern Ireland.
  I regularly visit the armed forces in the Province, and every time I do so I am reminded afresh how easy it is to take for granted the extent of their daily contribution on behalf of the community there. For 25 years, young soldiers have had to face every day the possibility of terrorist attacks in a wide variety of forms. Young privates and junior NCOs have carried the greatest part of the burden. They have had to face daily the awesome responsibility of making split-second decisions on which their lives and the lives of others have depended. Those on roulement tours have been required to work a 16-hour day for six months on end, in spartan conditions, with only a nine-day break in that time. They have been expected to act with impartiality and politeness to all those whom they meet on the streets, regardless of the provocation that they may receive and the danger that they face. Some 300,000 service men have served in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years. It is an enormous credit to their training, discipline and character that the vast majority of them have carried out their duties—they are still carrying them out today—to the highest standards.
  We do not pretend that there is a military solution to the problems in Northern Ireland. The problems are, essentially, political ones that require a combination of political, social, economic and security measures to resolve them. The Government have made strenuous efforts on all those fronts, and there are grounds for believing that we are making progress.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: May I join the Secretary of State wholeheartedly in his tribute to Her Majesty's forces, both the regular Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Does he agree that it is necessary to make it possible for the utmost vigilance to be maintained by the security forces to guard against any resumption of violence or surprise attack, given that it is always possible to do those things as long as any terrorists retain arms?
  Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I pay a sincere tribute to him for the statesmanlike way in which he has contributed towards

  43
  the prospect of real peace in the Province—a contribution which I believe has been widely applauded by all sections of the community.
  Clearly, the Government have been greatly encouraged by the Provisional IRA's announcement of a ceasefire. There have now been no terrorist attacks by the IRA for more than six weeks. We are also encouraged by the announcement last week of a ceasefire by the loyalist paramilitaries. We very much hope that all those groups intend a permanent end to violence, and we are assessing whether we can yet make a working assumption that that is so.
  In any case, we cannot and we dare not assume that now or in the near future there will suddenly no longer be a need for military support for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. All the terrorist groupings still retain a substantial capability for carrying out further acts of violence without notice. It is a matter for the Chief Constable and for the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland, as the operational commanders, to judge how their forces should be deployed in the present circumstances. However, the Government must ensure that they have the necessary resources available to ensure the security of the people of Northern Ireland.
  We shall continue to keep force levels under review to ensure that they are appropriate. I very much hope that in time the security situation will permit us to reduce force levels, but it would be irresponsible to do so prematurely. As we have made clear in the past—and I quote from the "Statement on the Defence Estimates":
  "As soon as 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. They will then return to their peacetime role, so that normal policing can resume throughout Northern Ireland. But, in the meantime, the armed forces will continue steadfastly to support the RUC for as long as the terrorists make it necessary."
  That was said six months ago; I can confirm that we stand by those commitments today.
  However, that does not mean that there is no scope for flexibility. As the House will be aware, a number of measures have already been taken to reduce the profile of the armed forces in Northern Ireland but without reducing security or vigilance. The GOC Northern Ireland, with the full agreement of the Chief Constable, has taken steps to make the posture of the military patrols appear less aggressive to the public. For example, for some weeks now, soldiers have been patrolling in regimental headdress without camouflage cream, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has announced the reopening of a number of closed border crossing points. Those measures have been welcomed by many ordinary members of the public in Northern Ireland.
  In the coming months, provided that the terrorist threat permits, the GOC, in consultation with the Chief Constable, intends to implement further measures to reduce the impact of the armed forces operations on the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. We all look forward to the restoration of normality in the Province. I can
  44
  assure the House that the armed forces will continue to play a full part in the restoration of normality by whatever means are appropriate.
  Mr. Keith Mans: Bearing in mind the fact that there was a permanent garrison of British troops in Northern Ireland before the present trouble started in the 1960s, and there had been for many decades previously, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that provided and if a settlement is reached after the present negotiations, there is no possibility that British troops will not continue to be garrisoned in Northern Ireland after that settlement?
  Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend can be reassured because, of course, there is the Royal Irish Regiment, whose home is in the Province. It is important that that regiment will continue to have that intimate role as part of our armed forces.
  It can never be normal for soldiers to be deployed on streets of the United Kingdom. Our aim is to remove soldiers from the streets of Northern Ireland, but when it is safe to do so and not a moment sooner. I believe that that is what the public would expect of us.
  Finally, I refer to the "Front Line First" study and the consequences, which we announced in July shortly before the House rose. I thank the Select Committee and its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), for the work done and its report on the "Front Line First" study, which was published recently. I welcomed in particular the reference in paragraph 4 to
  "a package of measures … elegantly cobbled together".
  We do not always expect such recognition of the elegance of our policy from the Select Committee.
  Dr. David Clark: It was a compliment.
  Mr. Rifkind: Yes. Of course, nothing is perfect in this world. If it can be elegant only by being cobbled as well, that is something that I shall have to live with. I noticed that the Select Committee said:
  "As a one-off exercise, the Defence Costs Study has unquestionably been of some value in identifying savings: but the temptation to treat it as the beginning of an annual round of such exercises must be firmly resisted."
  I tell my hon. Friend and other members of the Select Committee that I have no intention of responding to that temptation. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be reassured by that.
  I acknowledge—and the Select Committee pointed out—that there are uncertainties, unpredictabilities and difficulties about a number of the recommendations in the "Front Line First" study. It is a massive study, which covers a vast range of issues. Of course, at this stage there must be a question mark over some of the conclusions and figures. We have deliberately gone out to consultation so that we can respond to some of those concerns.
  Mr. Winston Churchill: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House how much of the £750 million that has been identified in the "Front Line First" study as savings is being recycled into defence, rather than going back to the Treasury?
  Mr. Rifkind: As my hon. Friend rightly says, we have identified the means of considerable enhancements. For example, we have announced the development of a joint rapid deployment force; we have indicated our interest in

  45
  acquiring Tomahawk cruise missiles; we are responsible for a major expansion of training in both the Air Force and the Army; and we have also decided not to put into mothballs certain aircraft and ships that had been planned for that purpose. That is a whole series of enhancements in addition to the other changes that I have been able to announce.
  Mr. Churchill: How much?
  Mr. Rifkind: I cannot give my hon. Friend a figure. However, we can give figures for each item, and they add up to a considerable sum. Of course, they are not one-off sums; they are recurring costs. Most of the things to which I have referred have an on-going cost but are affordable partly because of the savings identified in the "Front Line First" study. That study was not only of benefit to the taxpayer but has resulted in a transfer of resources to the fighting edge as it affects our armed forces.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: I shall continue for a moment and then I might give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  There were three main characteristics in the way in which we approached "Front Line First", which made it a significant initiative. The first was our determination not to cut the fighting strength of the armed forces. Indeed, we were determined to enhance it wherever possible, and we were very successful with that. I note that the Select Committee said that while it acknowledged that there were to be no direct effects on fighting and strength, it was concerned that there might be some indirect consequences. I assure my hon. Friend and other members of the Committee that we intend to be scrupulous in ensuring that neither directly nor indirectly will the fighting strength of our armed forces be weakened by any of the recommendations.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to look again at the proposal which one understands is before him to reduce by more than half the strength of the Royal Marine Reserve and by almost half the strength of the SAS Reserve?
  Mr. Rifkind: I assure my hon. Friend that no proposal has come to Ministers on either of those matters. The Royal Marines expressed a desire to review their strength to see what they required. That was not part of the defence costs study. It did not arise out of the same initiative. It was something that the Commandant General of the Royal Marines said to Ministers that he wished to do. I await the recommendations of the Royal Marines. We shall respond when we hear what they believe to be desirable.
  The second main characteristic of the "Front Line First" study was the involvement not only of the chiefs of staff, who were intimately involved throughout the process, but of middle-ranking officers responsible for many of the support activities. We invited them to give us the benefit of their ideas and experience. We were delighted that more than 3,000 proposals which we were able to take into account came to Ministers. There were no sacred cows on this occasion, but the consequence of that has been that we have had to recommend the closure of several establishments and a significant number of redundancies, which although not in front line activities were nevertheless painful to many hon. Members in
  46
  respect of their constituencies. I have a constituency which is affected in that way because of the proximity of the Rosyth base, so I am conscious of the difficulties that the recommendations mean in terms of jobs and the future of certain support organisations.
  We are now into the period of consultation. The three-month formal period of consultation ended on Friday of last week, but we have stated that we have every intention of showing maximum flexibility. Certain consultative documents have only recently been published. Two have been published today. Of course, proper time will be available for consultation on those documents.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that I have a copy hot off the press of the consultation paper, for which I have been asking all summer, on the air station at Portland that is due to move to Yeovilton. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend has given 45 working days or nine weeks for consultation. I thank him for that. Will he give an absolute assurance that the skimpy figures, which I am afraid are too small even to read in the document, will be expanded completely? I know that my constituents want to take an active and constructive part in consultation. I think that we have a strong case to put to my right hon. and learned Friend to suggest that he can make his savings elsewhere.
  Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am delighted that he wishes to respond constructively. I look forward very much to hearing the particular points that he might wish to put to us so that we can consider them in due course.
  Mr. David Shaw: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for finally publishing today the consultation document on the Royal Marines school of music in Deal. However, not only are the financial figures just four skimpy pages at the back of the document, but the people of the communities of Deal and Kent have agreed through the local authorities that an independent firm of accountants should be retained to go through the figures. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Ministry of Defence is prepared to allow access to the figures that are not given on the four pages so that people in the community can see what the real figures are? It is not acceptable to keep the figures within the Ministry when the Ministry has made so many mistakes with the figures for Deal in the past.
  Mr. Rifkind: I hear what my hon. Friend says. Obviously, I shall seek to respond in the way that he requests. He has not specified which particular figures he would like access to. Therefore, he will not expect me to give a blanket answer. When we hear what figures he would like to have access to and if they appear to be relevant to the real issues, I will try to be as helpful as possible.
  Mr. Shaw: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: I must move on.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I knew that he was not discriminating against me. He dealt earlier with aspects of procurement. The replacement of the Hercules is important to the British Aerospace plant at Prestwick and other British

  47
  Aerospace plants. I hope that the Secretary of State will not be influenced by the knocking advertisements by Lockheed in the newspaper. There was one again today. I was worried when I received a reply from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, which suggested that a decision would be rushed by the end of the year. That would not allow the future large aircraft to be properly considered. I hope that the Secretary of State will give an assurance that no decision will be rushed and that the FLA will be properly assessed and considered.
  Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Gentleman that Government policy is not determined by the contents of advertisements. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will comment in greater detail on the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. I assure him that we shall not be rushed into any decisions. We will take decisions based on the operational requirements of the Royal Air Force and the armed forces.
  I shall briefly refer to the joint rapid deployment force, which is one of the important initiatives that we announced as a consequence of the "Front Line First" study, and which we are able to take forward because of some of the savings that have been identified.
  The reinforcement of Kuwait is just the latest in a series of examples of threats to security that have required the deployment at short notice of elements of our sea, land and air forces. Such operations play to the strength of our professional, experienced personnel and allow them to make a contribution greater than mere numbers might suggest. In July, I announced a number of measures that would further enhance all three services' capabilities for contingency operations. I should like to comment on the joint rapid deployment force.
  As "rapid deployment" implies, the land elements of a rapid deployment force must be light while still able to protect themselves, and at high readiness, with a capability for strategic deployment by air or in dedicated specialist shipping. Hence the focus on the airborne and commando brigades, although in principle any element of our contingency forces could be drawn on to contribute to a JRDF operation. The rapid deployment force will rely heavily on the support provided by air and maritime forces, particularly for firepower and mobility. Operations in which it is involved will place emphasis on the need, if necessary, to apply force or to demonstrate the ability to use force quickly and with maximum effect, perhaps in order to save lives, as in service evacuation, or to forestall the escalation of a crisis, as in the reinforcement of a dependent territory. It may also be deployed in advance of heavier forces, to demonstrate intent or to secure an airhead or port.
  Such tasks are demanding, and made all the more so by their diversity and the impossibility of predicting the exact combination of mission, environment, threat and allied involvement that will be encountered. The keys to success will lie in the co-ordination and confidence gained through extensive joint training and effective, interoperable communications and equipment.
  Implementing the concept will not require fundamental changes to be made in the order of battle. The British armed forces already have more experience of joint warfare and are better prepared to meet the demands imposed by it than most of their counterparts. The JRDF
  48
  will enable us to target resources for training and equipment to best joint effect. In that context, some £50 million to £60 million in total will be spent on the communications enhancements that I announced in July. The major element of that will start to arrive with units from 1996, and most will be in place by 1997.
  The 3 (UK) Division and 3 Commando Brigade headquarters staff are already working closely together on joint planning of training and exercises and in future they will co-ordinate their training wherever possible. Those efforts, combined with the communications enhancements to Headquarters 3 Division and the RAF Tactical Communications Wing, which I announced in July, will be built upon in the years to come as an essential complement to the development of the new, permanent joint headquarters.
  Before I conclude, it would be remiss of me not to mention briefly the Labour party policy on defence. I shall mention it only briefly because there is no policy, so it is unnecessary for me to detain the House terribly long. We have been conscious that in the past couple of years the Labour party, in a desperate attempt to appear respectable on the subject, has sought to avoid any commitments that would antagonise either its party supporters or the public. But those two objectives are irreconcilable, as we saw in Blackpool two weeks ago.
  Not only the Government or the Conservative party hold in contempt the Labour party's position on defence. I shall draw to the Labour party's attention the remarks of people who might normally be thought to be sympathetic to or objective on its point of view and would like to put the best interpretation on whatever it might say. For example, on 22 July there was an editorial in The New Statesman and Society commenting on the "Front Line First" study, which had a mixed reaction in the press. That editorial praised the Government and condemned the Opposition. It stated that the Labour party
  "in Parliament opted for the path of least controversy. In effect, it decided not to have a defence policy. In place of a policy, Labour has taken on a set of attitudes and tactics. David Clark repeats his call for a defence review with such regularity that things are now beginning to fall off the walls from sheer ennui. What would be reviewed in such a review; what Clark himself thinks; what Britain's defence relations should be with the United States and the European Union—all these questions are left unasked and unanswered … It will have some difficulty convincing voters that it is indeed fit to govern. The problem now is not the policy, much less disagreements over it. The problem is that there isn't one."
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: The Minister said that he was coming to the end of his speech, but I should not like him to do so or to launch into flights of party political oratory without at least mentioning the issue of training. He will be conscious of the important recommendations in the defence costs study about the future location of the tri-service college. He will also be conscious of the real anxieties of people in Greenwich about the future of the Royal Naval college. The Minister probably shares those anxieties because he is a trustee of the Greenwich hospital estates. When will the study produce recommendations and what assurances can the Minister give the House that he looks forward to preserving not just the important naval college and its fine achievements, but its buildings for which he has a personal responsibility?
  Mr. Rifkind: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said and in due course, when we reach a

  49
  conclusion, we shall respond to his points. However, he will not distract me from the issue with which I was dealing, although I know that he would like to do so.
  I have shared with the House the views of The New Statesman and Society on Labour's lack of policy, and I shall now move to The Guardian, that other well-known reactionary newspaper which would normally be thought sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman. On 14 July 1994 after the Government's publication of their proposals, Mr. Hugo Young wrote:
  "There is no field in politics in which Labour is less convincing than defence. Its conferences vote for massive defence cuts, its spokesmen can barely admit that a single job should disappear. Although this may not be quite the economics of the madhouse it defines the statesmanship of the nursery."
  The Independent on Sunday published a brief editorial that is relevant to the Opposition. It stated:
  "Labour has called … for a full scale review of Britain's defence commitments … But it is no use Labour pretending that it can be done without loss of jobs and much consequent pain. And it is no use pretending that it can avoid hard choices in this or any other area."
  The editorial, written in July, went on:
  "If he does become Labour leader on Thursday, Tony Blair should act at once to stop the kind of wet and vapid thinking that did his party so little credit last week."
  The Leader of the Opposition did become leader of his party in July, and since that time the total thinking vacuum has continued.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Rifkind: I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman because I think that he more clearly represents the views of the Labour party than his Front-Bench spokesmen.
  Mr. Dalyell: The Minister spoke about unanswered questions. On 27 November 1992 I asked seven questions. The fifth one was:
  "will the Government confirm or deny that Mark Thatcher and a Saudi Arabian middle man involved in the deal, whose name was Wafic Said, paid income tax on money which they earned from the Al-Yamamah deal?"—[Official Report, 27 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 1104.]
  If the Minister intends to indulge in such cross-party talk, perhaps he will explain the exact role of Mark Thatcher.
  Mr. Rifkind: Mark Thatcher is neither a member of the Labour party nor, as far as I am aware, a member of the Conservative party, so I do not intend to be distracted by the hon. Gentleman.
  It may just be that for the first time for two and a half years we are about to hear the makings of a Labour defence policy. I appeal to the Opposition spokesman not to give us nonsense about his calls for a defence review. Everyone knows perfectly well that Labour believes not in the defence review but in the necessity to avoid saying anything on this subject that will antagonise anyone either now or during the remainder of this Parliament.
  If the hon. Member for South Shields does not believe my claim about that, he should simply state Labour's policy on whether we should spend more on defence, spend what we are spending now, or spend less. The Labour party does not need a review to determine that. Do we have the right number of battalions or should we have more or fewer, or does it depend on a review? [Interruption.] Do we have the right number of ships? Should we have more or fewer or does that also depend on a review? Have we the right number of aircraft or do
  50
  we need more or fewer, or does it depend on a review? If the hon. Gentleman says that it depends on what commitments we should enter, perhaps he will give us Labour's view on those commitments. Perhaps we are not to be told about that for another three years until after a review.
  The Labour party is a disgrace to the armed forces and to the national interests of this country. Unless the hon. Gentleman can rescue the reputation of his party in the next half hour, his party will rightly continue to be held in contempt.
  5.16 pm
  Dr. David Clark: I shall begin by making a few observations which I hope will find consensus in the House. Over the years, I have come to respect the dedication and skills of all those who are involved in protecting the security of our country. The sheer professionalism of the men and women of our armed forces is second to none. I include in that our reserves and the oft forgotten men and women who serve in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Those who are involved in the necessary administration and planning are often ignored, but our defence effort would flounder without their contribution.
  The sheer brilliance of those involved in defence research is renowned throughout the world, and workers in the defence industries also deserve our gratitude. Time and again, they have shown that in an emergency they can more than rise to the occasion. Collectively, they have played their part admirably in ensuring our security. In view of the novel difficulties that have been created by Tory mismanagement of defence requirements over the past few years, my admiration for them is even stronger.
  My experiences in visiting Bosnia and Northern Ireland and bases in the United Kingdom and elsewhere over recent years have served to reinforce my impression. As the Secretary of State for Defence has said, the task of the forces in Northern Ireland is now, we hope, ending. One of my most unnerving experiences was to be on foot patrol with soldiers in west Belfast, and the contrast between that experience and the soldiers' good nature will remain with me for ever.
  Those who take part in the valuable humanitarian missions that we are undertaking at sea, in no-fly zones and on the ground throughout the world deserve the gratitude of the whole House. I am sure that we are all well served by those people. On behalf of the House, I should like to express condolences to the families and friends of loved ones who have lost their lives in Bosnia. Twelve British service men have lost their lives there in tasks which have saved thousands of innocent civilians.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the decision two weeks ago at the Labour conference to scrap Trident would throw 4,000 people in Plymouth out of work overnight? What are we to make of the fact that the only Labour amendment on the Order Paper "supports the call" to scrap Trident? We

  51
  know that Opposition Members are weak on defence, but what do they have against the city of Plymouth which I represent? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I hope that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) will withdraw his sedentary remark.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Perhaps you would tell me what the sedentary remark was, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to have to say that I thought I heard the hon. Gentleman use the word "rat". Will he confirm that he did not use that word?
  Mr. Home Robertson: If I used that word, I withdraw it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Did or did not the hon. Gentleman use that word?
  Mr. Home Robertson: Not that I recall, Sir.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am most grateful.
  Dr. Clark: The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) demeans himself and the House. I am trying to pay tribute to the men and women who have served us so well in the past—yet he interrupts in the middle of my speech to make a cheap party political point. It has been reported to us that he has also been telling his constituents that the amendment on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is the Opposition's official amendment. That is not the case. We are debating the order under normal practice.
  It is nice to see the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) joining us. Having failed to get healthy food when he was at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—
  Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) to deny that the only amendment on the Order Paper is the official Labour party amendment? There is no other amendment. How can it not be an official Labour party amendment when the Members who tabled it are all official Labour party candidates elected to the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that that is a matter for the Chair.
  Dr. Clark: Your knowledge of the procedure of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and our knowledge of history confirm that what has happened is the usual procedure. Indeed, this is what happened last year. When a debate is held on the first two days after our return from the summer recess, any amendment must have been tabled on the day that the House rose. Of course, various things happen during the course of a three-month break and we need to keep our options open to ensure that we can debate everything that is relevant and pertinent to the time. I wish that my admiration for those who serve in our forces and in the defence industry could be shared by
  52
  the Conservative party. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) has just shown why it cannot be.
  The truth is that the Government have mishandled our defence and cannot be trusted with our security. They are a Government without a coherent defence strategy and with a Secretary of State entirely in the hands of the Treasury. If there were need for proof of that, we had it just 12 months ago. It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech last November—not the Defence Secretary—who told the House about the proposed shape of our armed forces and the further cuts in defence spending.
  If the Secretary of State still claims that he runs his Department, can he explain why he did not tell the House last year that cuts were to be made very quickly? It might be assumed by the more cynical and by those who follow these matters that, perhaps, he was not aware of any unrest on his Back Benches. Perhaps he was not aware of a letter signed by his Back-Bench colleagues, which was delivered to the Prime Minister on 26 October, saying that enough was enough, that there could be no further cuts and that if there were, they would not be supported. That resulted in a headline in the Evening Standard.
  Mr. Roger Gale: Is not it a fact that the £750 million savings asked for were widely exceeded by the then Ministers of State for Defence Procurement and for the Armed Forces? Is not the balance of that money being invested in front-line materials for front-line troops? Is not that what the armed forces require? Did not the suggested savings come from the armed forces? Would the hon. Gentleman have done otherwise?
  Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman's question was also asked by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). Unfortunately, there was no answer—[Interruption.] At this moment—although this might change very soon—I am not the Secretary of State for Defence and unfortunately I am not running the budget for the defence of this country.
  Will the Secretary of State now tell us about his future spending plans? Can we be sure that there will be no further cuts? It was reported that at the Conservative party conference he said that there would be no more defence cuts. However, if we look at the small print of his speech we see that he did not actually say that—he said that there would be no cuts in our fighting capacity. The two are not necessarily the same. Nor do we accept his definition of fighting capacity. We are worried that the former Defence Minister, the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) is now Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Perhaps it is a case of gamekeeper turned poacher or protector turned persecutor. We shall have to wait and see.
  Last year, the Ministry of Defence was ordered to find further spending cuts, hence the defence costs study otherwise known as "Front Line First". Of course, that title was dropped when we asked the question, "When wasn't it front-line first?" Of course, the results of the study were announced under the protection of much delayed defence orders—most of which had been announced more times than the economic recovery.
  The results of the cuts were not painless, as the Secretary of State has tried to tell us. They included the sacking of 11,600 uniformed men and women from the Army, Navy and Air Force. It was not an increase of

  53
  3,000, as the Prime Minister told the Tory party conference; it was a decrease of 11,600 service personnel. It meant an 11 per cent. fall in RAF manpower and the closure of two out of three service hospitals. We now hear of the possibility of buying into a private hospital in Glasgow to make up the shortfall.
  Mr. Rifkind: I saw the press report about that, but the hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. We cannot prevent any hospital from showing an interest, but it has already been explained to the hospital in question that it is unlikely that it could meet the needs of the armed forces because of its geographical location. The idea came from the hospital, not the MOD.
  Dr. Clark: In view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks, I take it that he is guaranteeing that no MOD money will be used to buy places in private hospitals. I take that to be Government policy.
  Other results of the study include the merging of both headquarters and helicopter training centres and the closure of depots and supply stores, based on a decision that spares could be ordered just in time. The Defence Secretary gave the impression that he had universal approval from the military chiefs. That is not quite the case. The First Sea Lord, Sir Ben Bathurst, said on the BBC "PM" programme on 14 July:
  "none of us are under any illusion that there is a certain amount of risk in this programme".
  I feel that Sir Ben was flagging up his disclaimer if anything should go wrong.
  On the same programme, the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Michael Graydon, went even further, saying:
  "within my service, and indeed all the services, there are large numbers of civilians who are crucial to our front line who will also be made redundant."
  I emphasise the words,
  "crucial to our front line".
  They hardly accord with the Defence Secretary's bland and misleading assurances that the front line is not affected by the defence costs study.
  Of course, I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not volunteer to do the study. During our debates last year, he did not explain that, because of the cuts made in the armed services there were surplus stores wasting taxpayers' money. Nor did he tell the House that there were thousands of unnecessary officials in the MOD, all just sitting there being paid for no good reason. Yet this year we are told that great savings can be made in the budget by closing stores and sacking staff. This year—and from now on, we are assured—we are told that the MOD will look for waste on a continuous basis. Why now? What has it been doing for the past 15 years if it can now find £750 million of genuine savings? The right hon. and learned Gentleman assures us that they are genuine. What have the MOD and the Government been doing for the past 15 years? Of course they know that much of those savings are not real.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: Nineteen eighty nine was 15 years ago. The iron curtain was lifted in 1989 and new circumstances then arose. That is the base date for reform of our armed services.
  Dr. Clark: Yes, but even 1989 was five years ago, and five times £750 million would have been a big saving. The Government have been cutting since 1985.
  54
  The Secretary of State claimed that his proposals do not reduce the fighting strength of our armed forces, but his premise is fundamentally flawed. Does the Secretary of State not realise that in modern warfare, close integration of the front line and logistical support is fundamental to military success? Was he not advised at the start of the Gulf war that 77 per cent. of Challenger tanks in the British Army of the Rhine were unavailable due to lack of maintenance and of spare parts?
  We are now expected to believe that spare parts are not needed in any quantity and that depots can be closed. The reality is that logistics and front-line capability are inseparable. In Bosnia today, it is estimated that the ratio between combat and logistical support is one to one. I warn the Government that they may not have five months' notice, as they did in the Gulf conflict four years ago.
  We are told that millions of pounds can be saved by not storing parts and that we can rely instead on just-in-time production. Just in whose time? In Saddam Hussein's time? The crisis in Kuwait that started two weeks ago threatened a new Iraqi invasion within hours. If that had occurred, when would the Government have ordered the necessary spares? When the invasion took place? A week later? A month later?
  Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman wanted to comment on that aspect, he might at least have done the House the courtesy of reading the report, in which we made it explicit that we do not believe that just-in-time principles as they apply in industry can apply to the armed forces, precisely for the reasons just mentioned. Therefore, we make no such comparison.
  Dr. Clark: The Secretary of State knows that and says it, but still he goes ahead, which is why we condemn the Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that his policy does not make sense, yet he continues to pursue it.
  The manner of the Government's cuts is frightening and irresponsible. We can be sure that it will not be MOD or Treasury Ministers who will face the consequences but service men and women at the front line. Government policy on spares may be appropriate for Tesco, the Co-op or Sainsbury, but it is not appropriate for front-line services. The Government should not only say so but act against implementing that policy.
  Any progress in wiping out inefficiency must be welcomed, but it astonishes me that while 18,000 men and women will lose their jobs so that the Treasury can save £750 million, there is massive MOD waste. it is unbelievable. Would anyone have noticed that £250,000 was spent on refurbishing—not buying—one air chief marshal's house if that matter had not been raised in my parliamentary question in February? How can the MOD lose track of £6 billion worth of stores? Why is it that almost all the £2.8 billion saving on the Trident programme is a result of efficient American rather than United Kingdom work? As the Public Accounts Committee report showed, in the UK there is a real cost increase of £761 million just for facilities on the Clyde.
  After all the MOD checks, why did the National Audit Office find telephone lines that were not only never used but were proclaimed not to exist—yet have cost the taxpayer £10,000 a year every year since 1985? I know that the Secretary of State has friends in BT, but that is pushing too far.

  55
  I predict that in the months ahead we shall find more waste and more fraud. I will not say much about fraud, but the Secretary of State knows that there have been very unfortunate incidents of fraud involving millions of pounds of MOD money and the loss of jobs. The whole approach is unacceptable.
  Earlier, I said that defence workers deserve our gratitude and admiration for their skills and loyalty. Our defence workers have built aircraft for the RAF, tanks for our Army and ships for our Navy, and they have done us well. Their skills and expertise have also given the UK major export opportunities in countries as defensive as the United States of America. Much of the work on head-up displays for the F16 and on the stealth aircraft was a result of the skill of our research and defence workers.
  Instead of rewarding those workers, the Government seem to do all they can to ensure that skills go to waste in the dole queues. Government policies have made 200,000 defence workers redundant. At times, one gets the strong feeling that the Government regard this country's defence workers as the new enemy. Swan Hunter fought hard to stay open. That company's work impressed its customer—the Royal Navy—in terms both of its timeliness and quality. A strongly motivated work force provided our forces with equipment that will provide British security well into the next century. After all the months of struggle, it is shameful that the Government have done nothing to help Swan Hunter's work force to continue their work and, even by quibbling over £700,000, have allowed that highly efficient work force to slip away from a deal. What happened to Swan Hunter is happening to other factories and workplaces throughout the country.
  While most countries recognise the need for a defence industrial base, the British Government do not. The right hon. Member for Thanet, South admitted in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts):
  "Generally, we do not have a conception of a defence industrial base."
  What an admission. The Tories are content to let our defence industry disappear as if it had no relevance to Britain. The Government ought to act. There ought to be a proper regional policy, to ease any downsizing in defence orders. A defence diversification agency should be established, which could retain our defence workers' skills and techniques and materials, to help revitalise Britain's shattered manufacturing base. Partnership between industry and such an agency would encourage business change and would help to utilise a work force who have done great things in Britain.
  Does not the Secretary of State have any conscience about the effect of his ill thought-out cuts on communities as far apart as Exeter, Rosyth, Eaglescliffe, Pendine, Devonport and Kirkcudbright? A proper regional policy is needed.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Can Labour's defence spokesman explain to the House why his party should be considered the defender of defence-related jobs when it is still Labour policy to bring our defence expenditure down to the level
  56
  of our west European allies and to abolish the Trident nuclear programme? Labour's policies would have a far more devastating effect on defence jobs.
  Dr. Clark: Labour's annual conference unanimously passed a resolution that rejected the re-ordering of British defences according to any rigid financial formula. We said that whatever is required and whatever resources are needed for the effective defence of our country will be supplied. I hope that is clear. I have looked at the history, because I heard the Secretary of State for Defence, at the Conservative party conference, claim that the Labour party could never be trusted with defence. So I worked out the annual percentage of gross domestic product on average spent by Labour Governments since the war, as compared with Conservative Governments. I must advise the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that, under a Labour Government, on average some 6.45 per cent. of GDP was spent on defence whereas the Conservative Government are spending 5.8 per cent. It is no wonder, then, that military men throughout the country tell us that they always do better under a Labour Government rather than a Conservative Government.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Opposition spokesman tell the House how much as a percentage of GDP the Labour party will spend on defence if—unfortunately for the country—it wins the next election?
  Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman made his point as though the Conservatives have made no cuts. It is interesting that if one looks at the cuts in British defence made under this Government, one sees that they will bring us down to the average of our European allies without any problem. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows, but, in real terms, on the Government's projections, defence spending will be reduced by 40 per cent. towards the end of the century. What we have said, and I will say it again, is that the only way forward is to have a proper defence review where we can assess the risks facing our country and then reshape our policies accordingly.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am most interested in all these military men up and down the country who are telling the hon. Gentleman that the armed forces would be so much better off under a Labour Government, because I remember being in the armed forces under a Labour Government. I remember the pay rises that never quite seemed to happen, or which amounted to about half a packet of cigarettes. I remember, too, that, no sooner had all my friends, with whom I joined, got in, than they started to leave. Will the hon. Gentleman reassure us that—God forbid—should there be another Labour Government, we will not have the same situation that we had between 1974 and 1979?
  Dr. Clark: I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. If pay and morale are so good under the Tory Government, why are people leaving in such large numbers?
  Mr. Robathan: Excellent redundancy terms.
  Dr. Clark: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's logic bears out experience in the armed forces, but let us move on.

  57
  In the next 12 months, the Government have the opportunity to secure British high-technology aerospace well into the next century and at the same time give the RAF a greater transport capability than it has ever had before. British Aerospace, as the Secretary of State for Defence knows, hopes to be involved with our European partners in the production of a future large aircraft; it would be virtually guaranteed the core work if the Government promised to buy a set number of aircraft with the accompanying spin-offs into the civilian field. The FLA offers airlift options for Britain that will give our armed forces more scope to react than ever before. With the FLA, the RAF could transport service personnel to Rwanda efficiently and cheaply rather than having to rely on the United States. Despite the many other advantages, including Airbus Industrie's promise to manage the programme, the Tories, yet again, are prevaricating.
  The Tories claim that our Hercules transport planes are tired and cannot wait until 2002 to be replaced by the joint British and European alternative. Then they offer them for sale to the rest of the world. It makes no sense. Either the aircraft are exhausted or they are not. But if the Government are offering them for sale as going, flying planes, surely the time for their replacement is not now.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the RAF Hercules fleet is the hardest-worked fleet of that type of aircraft anywhere in the world, and that there is a limit to how long one can work any aircraft at that level over a long period. If the costs for the development of the FLA are in the projected area, as I understand that they are, of around £6,000 million, of which the British component would be around £1,000 million, where would the money be found by a Labour Government?
  Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Of course, if the planes are exhausted, they need to be replaced. But if that is the case, why do we offer 10 of them for sale? It simply does not make sense. If they are exhausted, why, in its evidence to the Select Committee in March 1993, did the RAF indicate that, in terms of fatigue, only three aircraft would be life-expired by 2000 and only 11 by the year 2005.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Fatigue.
  Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman says, "fatigue". I repeat, and I shall say it very slowly so that he may understand. The RAF indicated that, in terms of fatigue, only three aircraft would be life-expired by 2000, and 11 by 2005. If the reason for replacement is fatigue, as the RAF tells us, there is no urgency to replace them until after 2000, unless, of course, one puts them up for sale, which is precisely what the RAF has done.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Just so that the hon. Gentleman and I are not confusing each other and the House, an aircraft's fatigue life is not quite the same thing as its operational life, as required by the Royal Air Force. Ask any RAF engineer or pilot.
  Dr. Clark: But the point is that the argument was that those planes had to be replaced as a matter of urgency.
  58
  We all know why the RAF wants to replace them: it has the money in its budget. But that is not a good enough reason.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: No, because I promised to give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Barry Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that no decision should be taken on replacing the Hercules aircraft until the FLA feasibility study is completed? May I ask him also what conclusions he drew when he visited my constituency, where the wings for the airbus are made, and when he had discussions with management and leaders on the shop floor? I had the distinct impression that he thought that excellent work was done at Broughton, but he might like to share some of his thoughts with the House.
  Dr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for giving up his time to accompany me when we visited British Aerospace at Broughton, which is in his constituency. What was impressive about BAe at Broughton, and indeed at Filton, was the way in which it had met the challenges on the shop floor and involved the work force in a constructive way—in a way in which modern management should operate—and the way in which it played its part in the airbus programme, which has been so successful. It is one of the great success stories of Europe in this decade. We have now obtained 30 per cent. of the market for that type of product. Bearing in mind the fact that, when just over a decade ago, it had no contribution at all, that is a marvellous contribution.
  We do not want the Government to throw away that opportunity, because there is a carry over between the military and the civilian field. The skills, technique and processes which allow British Aerospace to build the wings of the airbus is the same technology that would be required for the FLA. We hope for the same success for the British workers and British companies. But I come back to the point that we believe that the Government should not rush into any decision. They should wait for the feasibility study to see whether the FLA is a viable concern and, if it is, we should back British industry and not just take the easy option and buy in American.
  But when I talk about commitment to this country, perhaps I can move from the air to the sea, because the merchant fleet is one area that is neglected by the Government. Without sufficient numbers of ships, Britain will be unable to ensure that our forces can be moved cheaply, securely or quickly. The Government have crassly ignored the importance of a viable merchant fleet and allowed our shipbuilders to wither away as though they were irrelevant to our trade or society. They are wrong. In 1980, the Government inherited 13,000 British merchant ships. They have now reduced the number of ships available to the Ministry of Defence to a mere 139. Whereas in 1982, at the time of the Falklands, there were 49,000 merchant seamen, there are now 19,000. That is why we have had to resort to hiring expensive Danish or German ships. That is why there was fraud in the MOD. The Government have ignored the merchant navy. It is not only in terms of procurement, however, that the Government have let the country down; they have done the same in the international field of disarmament.

  59
  As the Secretary of State reminded us, over the past few years there has been a welcome end to both the cold war and the threat of nuclear war. Historic treaties to reduce nuclear weapons seemed to be the order of the day as the United States and Russia sought to outbid each other in a downward spiral of cuts. It is likely that, within just nine years, both Russia and the United States will have sliced their nuclear arsenals to a quarter of what they once were. That is admirable, but there is one anomaly: when Russia and the United States feel secure enough to cut their warhead numbers, why do we seek to increase ours? Why are we seeking to double the number of warheads on our nuclear submarines to 384? Why is that necessary?
  The next Labour Government will deploy Trident, but we will not deploy it with more nuclear warheads than the Polaris boats have now. At a time when nuclear disarmament is the order of the day, it seems crazy to us for any Government to increase the number of nuclear warheads.
  That leads me to another philosophical difference between us and the Government. It concerns the comprehensive test ban treaty. The United States, Russia and France are all pursuing testing moratoria, but what of Britain's position? When the United States first introduced legislation initiating a testing moratorium and seeking a comprehensive test ban treaty by 1996—a worthy objective—the British Government described it as "unfortunate", "misguided" and "unwise." They tried desperately to persuade the United States to resume testing, in order to allow Britain to conduct more tests in Nevada.
  Fortunately, the policy failed: the United States has extended its moratorium, and the United Kingdom cannot test. We will watch the Government's negotiation position in Geneva closely, to ensure that they do not seek in any way to undermine or unnecessarily delay any progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty.
  Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: Time is moving on, and I want to make progress.
  Labour shares the Government's goal of achieving an indefinite and unconditional extension of the non-proliferation treaty at the special conference next spring. We believe that that will provide the soundest basis on which to secure further disarmament measures, and to prevent further proliferation. Of course we all accept that the non-proliferation treaty is not perfect, but—as such—we should encourage other states to join it.
  If we are to succeed in preventing proliferation, as well as securing all those controls we need to persuade countries that it is not in their best interests to seek to acquire nuclear weapons; we must also demonstrate to the non-nuclear weapon state signatories to the non-proliferation treaty how we, as nuclear weapon states, intend to negotiate nuclear disarmament. Unless the Government reverse their complacent attitude and end their double standards, we shall jeopardise international efforts to reach a consensus on this crucial issue.
  Let me now move from the strategic to the more operative end, and say a word about anti-personnel mines. They have been recognised as a major global problem by
  60
  all the development agencies in the world. There is a dire need for multilateral action in this respect, and again I must say that British leadership is sorely lacking. There are tens of thousands—millions—of such land mines in many very poor countries, causing an estimated 800 civilian deaths per month. But not only civilians suffer; occasionally, our own soldiers suffer as well. Two of our soldiers in Bosnia have tragically died because of land mines.
  Some countries, given that evidence, have sought to change their export policies. The United States has extended a one-year moratorium on the export of all such mines; France has confirmed a ban on the sale of anti-personnel mines, as have Germany and other European countries. This Government, however, have again conspicuously failed to live up to international expectations.
  The Government's excuse is the fact that some mines are equipped with self-destruct mechanisms. That is good, but I am afraid that those mines are not foolproof. Only the manufacturers believe their own claims that they are 99 per cent. effective. Military personnel estimate that the failure rate is 10 times that, while some charities that work in the third world disarming the mines believe that the true failure rate is between 15 and 20 per cent.
  That means, for instance, that of the 9 million mines in Afghanistan, if all were self-neutralising and the failure rate was just 10 per cent., 900,000 would exist in that country alone for an indefinite period. That is completely unacceptable. The weapons are used in such countries in a deliberate attempt to terrorise the population, and consequently they should not be exported. A Labour Government will ban the export of all anti-personnel mines: that needs to be done in the name of humanity.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Clark: I know that the hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable, but I am anxious to make progress.
  I was pleased that the Government signed the chemical weapons convention, but I was rather sad to note that they were hesitant about ratifying it. Why have they not done so? When I raised the matter with the Secretary of State for Defence, his response was far from satisfactory: he claimed that
  "we hope to be among the first 65 states to ratify the Convention."
  The Government should not merely "hope"; they must be among the first 65 states, because only after 65 countries have ratified the convention will it come into force. We plead with the Government to introduce legislation allowing them to ratify it. The Opposition will give such legislation a fair wind.
  The Secretary of State mentioned the NATO summit and "Partnership for Peace". We went along with much of his thinking. We have a clear understanding of the fears and aspirations of the countries involved—both Russia and the former Warsaw pact satellite countries; we are aware of Russia's worry that NATO could isolate it, and perhaps surround parts of it. It is clear, however, that "Partnership for Peace" has been a success so far. As the Secretary of State said, 23 countries have signed it; it has given something to all parties, and that must be built on.
  "Partnership for Peace" can be seen either as a measure to buy time, or as a first step. We believe that the latter is correct, and we look forward to the day when some of our former Warsaw pact enemies are full members of

  61
  NATO. It is right that they should be: after all, they are part of Europe—it is hard to imagine Poland, the Czech republic or Hungary not being part of Europe—and they are democratic. There is no reason why they should not be NATO members.
  The space given to us by "Partnership for Peace" must be filled with proposals to make Russia feel more and not less secure. Ultimately, however, we cannot allow Russia to dictate our security. I urge the Government to take a lead, and not sit passively on the sidelines; this is a complicated issue, but it needs to be pursued.
  The Opposition fully believe in the importance of NATO, and the need to ensure its continuity and survival in a changing world. It has new tasks and responsibilities, but the role that it set out in 1949—to ensure that the security of Britain and the free world was protected—is just as necessary now, even in these different conditions. What worries us is that the Government are not giving the necessary lead. We are ideally placed to act as a defence bridge between north America and Europe, but that necessitates effort and energy, both of which the Government sorely lack.
  Defence is one area in which Britain is still respected in the world and so it should be. We should be taking the lead in Europe to ensure that the new architecture of defence in Europe is effective, thought out and well planned. Obviously, we must increase Europe's contribution to the alliance, but at the same time we must ensure that we do not lose the strength of the United States.
  Another role of our troops has been in United Nations peacekeeping missions, which the Labour party heartily endorses. Our commitment to the UN is enshrined in the rather topical clause IV of the Labour party constitution, which I hope will not be re-written in this respect. We believe that more should be done to give the UN the leadership and the support that it deserves. There is a need for reform and, in the 50th year of the UN, I urge the Government, as a permanent member of the Security Council, to take the lead in pursuing some active reforms.
  In the RAF debate at the start of last year, I called for the establishment of a situation room operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week so that defence work could be co-ordinated. I am glad to see that such an operation room has now been established, but that is only a start. The UN also needs to develop an early warning capability to analyse and interpret intelligence.
  We need to increase our training for UN operations and, of course, we should be arguing for the working effectiveness of the military committee at the UN and for the establishment of the post of chief military adviser to the UN Secretary-General. If we are going to fill the vacuum left by the super-powers, and if that vacuum is to be filled not by terror, but by the UN, as we all hope it will, there must be major reforms of the UN. I hope that the Government will be in the van in arguing for that.
  At the end of the day, however, this defence debate is about our security. When one asks, "What about the future of Britain's security?" it is clear that the Conservatives are not sure. Until they conduct a defence review—and they will come round to the view that that should happen—there is no answer. The only answer is the Treasury.
  62
  In a recent speech, the Defence Secretary made it clear that the Government do not want to face up to a defence review. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear last year that he, and not the Ministry of Defence, decides Britain's defence commitments. That is no way to conduct defence policy. I advise the Secretary of State that, as long as he lacks a proper defence strategy, he will be in the hands of the Treasury. As long as he is in that position, he will find that the Treasury, like any blackmailer, will come back for more and more and more.
  The position is more worrying if one considers the Government's own figures. After 1997, which just happens to be the last year for a general election, the Government will run into a shortfall of money available. According to the most recent estimates, there will be a shortfall of just under £2 billion in 1997, rising to an estimated £4 billion in 1999. A shortfall equal to more than one penny of income tax will still exist. How do the Government intend to square the circle?
  We have argued—and we have never pretended that this is an easy option—that the only true way to protect our security is to have a full defence review. Only by that means can we assess the threats to our security and reshape our defences accordingly. That is not an easy option, but it is the only proper way to provide for our defences in the years ahead.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Tom King: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said at the start of his speech that there has been a period of change since the publication of the defence estimates. The first change that I should like to welcome is the new team that sits beside him on the Front Bench—new members of my right hon. and learned Friend's Cabinet grooming squad, who are faced with major challenges.
  The first challenge is the awfulness of the Labour party's defence policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) and I were just discussing the position of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who my right hon. Friend rightly said has an impossible job. I sympathise with that and with the fact that the Labour party wisely decided—although it was a pretty sublime discourtesy to the House—not to table an amendment to the motion. I understand that it is likely to be tabled tomorrow. The hon. Member for South Shields cited precedent—the Labour party did not table an amendment last year either. That was equally appalling. For two years running, hon. Members will have had to speak in these debates without the privilege of a Labour amendment before them.
  Dr. John Reid: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I wish to try to keep to Madam Speaker's strictures.
  The argument of the hon. Member for South Shields is no more convincing now than it was last year. Hugo Young got it right in the quotation that my right hon. and learned Friend read out. The hon. Member for South Shields wisely declined to challenge or respond to the

  63
  invitation, from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, to set out more clearly what Labour defence policy might be.
  Dr. Reid: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to make progress.
  The Defence White Paper and the subsequent "Front Line First" statement carry forward the work on which we have been engaged since the total change of circumstance brought about by the end of the cold war. We have had the "Options for Change" programme, the "Britain's Defence for the 90s" White Paper and successive White Papers.
  I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the progress that has been made. He will know of my feelings on the matter over the years. The proposals that we put forward at the start of the process were continually criticised and carped at from the wings. I pay tribute to the senior officers and senior officials who worked on the original programmes, which have stood the test of time remarkably well. No informed comment seriously suggests any major change to the schemes that we laid out or to the outline for our defence in "Options for Change", which was confirmed in the "Britain's Defence for the 90s" White Paper. The logical consequence of that policy is carried through into "Front Line First". Having determined what our capability is, we should ensure that our overheads are not excessive in relation to front line commitments and that we have the capabilities and resources that we need.
  In his speech to the Conservative party conference, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that "Front Line First" would bring an end to the upheaval. That was a little premature. It may bring an end to the argument about financing levels, but we are in a period of continuing change. Many of the changes still have to take place and, sadly—as the hon. Member for South Shields fairly said—some jobs will be lost and some bases and installations will close. That, however, is the inevitable consequence of restructuring, which is essential if we are to ensure that we have effective, cost-effective defences.
  At the time of the "Front Line First" announcements, I asked my right hon. and learned Friend to give an assurance that, having made further changes, we would have a period of stability in which those who work in our armed forces, in our civilian establishments and in the MoD could clearly see the basis on which we embarked on our policy and the destination. I am pleased with the statement that he made in that respect. However, I say to those people that stability will not mean fossilisation. It will not mean that there will be an opportunity to sit back complacently and say, "Now we can settle back with the present and agreed establishments." It will mean a continuing search for efficiency.
  The hon. Member for South Shields asked how situations that could lead to waste could arise. Someone has compared the problem with painting the Forth bridge. When dealing with an organisation that consisted of 500,000 people and had a budget of £24,000 million, we face the problem of continually ensuring that there is no waste, inefficiency and, as there sometimes sadly can be, fraud—the hon. Gentleman mentioned that—in certain
  64
  aspects of the defence establishment. A continuing search for efficiency is the duty of everyone in responsible positions in the MoD.
  Although I applaud the decision to introduce stability into the defence budget, some very difficult decisions have to be made. The lumpiness in the pattern of calls that will be made on the procurement budget will pose major challenges. We know that the largest call will be that made by the European fighter aircraft. My right hon. and learned Friend and I have had to fight very hard—not least with our German allies—to keep the project going. I am very worried by some of the stories that I have heard about cost overruns and the lack of progress being made with that scheme. I hope that everyone involved in it realises that many people fought very hard for the jobs created by the project and for the capability that it will bring. Management has a heavy responsibility to ensure that the project can proceed and be sustainable within the defence budget.
  My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the added components of "Front Line First", such as investing in the future equipment programme. The hon. Member for South Shields referred to the number of stores that we need. He was quite right about the old Challenger 1 tanks and the problem of finding enough that could even roll out of the maintenance depots and reach the Gulf. I ordered the new Challenger 2 tanks and the Government have now placed a further, larger order for Challenger 2 tanks so as to ensure that our tanks work the first time and are not wholly dependent on maintenance depots.
  I have already referred to the fact that our forces must be properly manned and properly trained, something that has caused a problem in periods of strain and stretch on the defence budget. We must maintain our capabilities. It is no good boasting of the number of our front-line troops if they are not of sufficient quality or do not have the training that they need.
  I welcome what was said about the joint rapid deployment force. It, too, will be an important ingredient in dealing with the challenges facing us at the moment. I also welcome the comments on the approach to the Territorial Army in terms of our capability to reconstitute our forces.
  The White Paper states:
  "After 40 years of stability … uncertainty and unpredictability are … the norm."
  My right hon. and learned Friend wrote that before what was perhaps the welcome but most unpredictable event since the House last sat— the ceasefire in Northern Ireland. I am pleased that he gave the probable gross figure—300,000—for the number of personnel who have served in Northern Ireland—I had been wondering what it was. The ceasefire is greatly welcomed by everyone in Northern Ireland, including the civilian population, which has had to endure so much. It is, in itself, a tremendous tribute to those in the police and the armed forces who have served in Northern Ireland.
  I shall not try to emulate my right hon. and learned Friend's admirable and eloquent tribute to the achievements of the service men and policemen involved. He gave details of what they endure—a 16-hour day on a six-month roulement tour, sleeping with their boots on, often in appalling conditions. The rules under which they had to operate mean that their achievement and commitment were remarkable indeed.

  65
  I endorse fully my right hon. and learned Friend's comment that, although there is a ceasefire, terrorist groups nevertheless retain all their military hardware and military capability. That means that there is a risk of a resurgence of violence, so there can be no question of our lowering our guard. However, in the short term, the ceasefire will help to reduce the pressure facing our service men and policemen.
  The scale of our commitment and the burden placed on our armed forces and the Ministry of Defence mean that the possible changes could be substantial. It will be necessary to consider the consequences. We are now entering a period with an opportunity for less overstretch, but the risk is that our armed forces will face understretch. We have largely withdrawn from Germany and we are withdrawing from Hong Kong, and the question of opportunities for training arises.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: Operational experience.
  Mr. King: My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) correctly says that the best training in the world is operational experience. I saw our Royal Marines who came out of west Belfast and went to northern Iraq to clear the Iraqi snipers at the beginning of Operation Provide Comfort. On the basis of their experience in Northern Ireland, they had capabilities that the American soldiers and marines who went to Iraq at the same time simply did not have. Our commitment to Northern Ireland has been a strain and a stretch, but there is no question but that it has enhanced the capabilities and operational experience of private soldiers and young non-commissioned officers. It has been of considerable military benefit. We accept the importance of maintaining standards, and the challenge offered by the ceasefire is significant in terms of defence planning.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Given his experience of Northern Ireland, what is the right hon. Gentleman's solution to the problem of understretch?
  Mr. King: My point was that operational experience is the best training. There is no doubt that the frequency of the roulement tour, the experience of carrying weapons and live ammunition and the pressure and challenges faced by service personnel are difficult to simulate in peacetime training.
  I referred earlier to properly manned and properly trained forces. The challenge facing us now is how best to replicate the training experience gained in situations such as that in Northern Ireland. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we are likely to become involved in more peacekeeping. The situations arising from that will be much more akin to the street scenes of Northern Ireland than to the circumstances of the Gulf war, which I experienced. Many people would now regard those circumstances as less likely to occur than smaller "brush fires" of one type or another, or civilian insurgencies and disaffection with which we may have to help, or the problem of areas such as Bosnia, which involve us in the provision of humanitarian relief in semi-military situations.
  We must maintain standards for another reason. Some people may have thought that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was boasting when he described our armed forces as arguably the best in the world. Let us consider our defence capability not just in
  66
  terms of its quality of equipment or training but of our position as a country in terms of our international posture and relations. The nations that can help in international situations are the United States, Russia, France and ourselves. One of those countries has to be the lead player. Other countries will join the team. In the Gulf war, in the end, 30 countries sent forces to play their part. However, other countries cannot operate in the United Nations unless they have leadership from one of the countries that I have named in any significant and challenging situation.
  It is not just a matter of our national pride. There are those who are concerned about the situation in the world and who see that Britain needs to play a role. In that international role and in the ability to play our part internationally, it is important that we maintain our capability and our standards.
  We have highly capable and well-led forces. Tribute was paid to General Sir Michael Rose. I saw General Sir Peter de la Billière in the Gulf war and General Rupert Smith, and now we have General Sir Michael Rose. The world is starting to see, in these rather more publicised situations, something of the calibre of leadership that we can offer and which exists in our armed forces. When the spotlight shines on such people, we see how well so many of them are able to perform and what a credit they are to our training and to the quality that we can bring to such situations.
  I say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that, faced with the challenges and the pressures, the plans that we have laid and that he is carrying forward, that he has reinforced with his statement on "Front Line First" and that he has carried through in the defence estimates show that we are providing for our country and that we are providing in a wider sense, for the international community and for the United Nations, a defence capability of which we can be extremely proud and which does our country great service.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: I shall speak for a short time in view of the number of people who wish to contribute and I shall concentrate on a single subject—the future large aircraft. My plea is the same as that made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) in an excellent speech from the Front Bench.
  The future of the British aerospace industry, especially into the next century, depends to a large degree on whether the FLA is ordered. When I talk about aerospace, I am talking about the last great manufacturing industry in this country. It provides 2 per cent. of British gross domestic product, 5 per cent. of manufactured goods and almost 10 per cent. of our exports.
  The replacement for the Hercules must be an aircraft that can meet the needs of our armed forces. They are new needs following the end of the cold war. They must be able to provide a rapid response and to get our troops and equipment to where they are most needed as quickly as possible. The future large aircraft falls into that category. It is in itself a leap into the technology of the next century. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields said, it is important to remember that it is a new aircraft that incorporates the expertise and knowledge of the Airbus team, who have been exceedingly successful.

  67
  The FLA is unlike the C130J, which, whatever one says about it, is an old aircraft. It was designed and its air frame was built in the 1950s. Whatever is added to it, the air frame remains the same.
  I referred to the new needs of the armed forces. The FLA will give tremendous advantages in relation to the payload. It offers 100 per cent. greater cargo in volume, a 70 per cent. higher than average payload per sortie and a 25 per cent. higher maximum payload and it has a 20 per cent. higher cruising speed. All those points are important. I am pleased that my good friend the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who has moved to a new Ministry, is taking note of what we are saying in relation to this. I am sure that later we shall hear either from him or from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in relation to the FLA.
  Let us concentrate a little on the load that the FLA could carry. It could carry missile systems, artillery, logistic vehicles and, most importantly, armoured fighting vehicles, especially the Warrior and the Saxon. We all remember that in Bosnia, the Warrior could not be taken in by Hercules and it had to come by boat. The FLA would give that almost immediate response for which we are looking.
  As I said earlier, jobs in aerospace are absolutely essential. When considering the alternative aircraft, we should look at the jobs that each would provide in this country. If we opted for the C130J—to take what has been said by Lockheed in the expensive advertisements in the press—the company claims that the project would engender 3,000 to 3,500 jobs. However, I suggest that, of those, only about 1,750 are direct jobs in aerospace. They are all very useful, but most are with the suppliers.
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: As the 1,750 to which the hon. Gentleman refers is probably exactly the number of jobs that would be created by that project in my constituency and within Lucas Industries, I should be grateful if he would take what Lockheed has said in its publicity quite seriously. There are, obviously, positive arguments on both sides of the debate. It would not be fair for the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that he will not do this—to rubbish the claims of the rival to support his own theory.
  Mr. Hoyle: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Of course, I am not here to rubbish anyone. I am here to put forward the claims for the FLA. I am analysing the two options. I accept the claim of 3,000 to 3,500 jobs. but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will object when I say that about 1,750 of those are directly aerospace jobs. The rest—I have made the point—are extremely important because they involve suppliers to the industry.
  Although Lucas Industries is in the C130J programme, it may get a double bonus if the FLA goes ahead—[Interruption.] I shall wait until the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) has finished talking to his colleagues. I am replying to the point that he raised with me. Lucas Industries may, of course, get a double bonus. I have no doubt that if the FLA goes ahead, Lucas will participate in it as well. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's constituency would suffer.
  68
  Again, I am being fair to Lockheed. Lockheed has said that the orders that it would place for about 120 sets would not be dependent on whether the British ordered the C130J or went for another aircraft. I think that the jobs of the constituents of the hon. Member for Hall Green are pretty well assured. I am not here to knock others. I am trying to conduct an analysis.
  Up to 6,000 or 7,000 jobs directly in the aerospace industry may be created as a result of the FLA. They would be at the leading edge of technology. The jobs relate to the aircraft wings, which are very important. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) has had to depart. The jobs are very important to the Broughton plant in his constituency. The development and production of the engine will be important to Rolls-Royce and it is estimated that it could provide 1,000 jobs in Bristol. It is a core engine which will be shared between Rolls-Royce and Germany.
  The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) talked about the position of our troops in Ireland. The FLA is important to Shorts in Northern Ireland. The company is very much in the forefront of aerospace technology and it would benefit greatly from a decision in favour of the FLA, as would 60 other companies.
  Again, I hope that I am being fair to the Lockheed bid. The bid is firm for about 120 sets, as I understand it. Whether that would be extended to 400 sets or, indeed, to the 700 that Lockheed hope to sell, I am not too sure. If it sold 120 sets, it would provide about £360 million. But if the MOD then decided to order 30 C130J aircraft, once we had got in that £360 million, it would cost us £1 billion to pay for those aircraft. So, there would be a deficit of something like £640 million. If, as I say, the MOD ordered 50 aircraft, the deficit would be even greater. It would then cost us £1.7 billion and there would be a deficit of £1.34 billion. Therefore, those jobs would be provided at a cost.
  If we had the 20 per cent. share promised to us in relation to the wings or the aero engine in the future large aircraft and if 300 aircraft were built, neglecting any exports, the deal would be worth about £5.5 billion to this country, which would be a positive contribution. If we were successful in exports as well and sold up to 700 FLAs overall, it would be worth £10 billion to the United Kingdom. So we are talking about very large sums.
  There is another aspect to consider, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields referred—our participation in the Airbus. I should not like to see us jeopardise that participation by not going ahead with the FLA. If we go ahead with the FLA, we will be partners in Europe with countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The alternative would mean that we would be absolutely dependent on the American sources, which would give the Americans a monopoly in the world market. The only alternative to American domination in that area is to go ahead with the European consortium.
  I hope that, in reply, the Minister does not say that while we want to go ahead with the first tranche, the FLA will not be an available option to us. If we followed that line, it could mean that we would not be the major source in the consortium as would be expected. That would mean

  69
  double sourcing of everything, whether it be spares, pilots, or training, which would put Lockheed in the driving seat for the second tranche.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hoyle: I do not want to give way, but I shall if the hon. Gentleman is very brief. I am conscious of time.
  Mr. Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman address the point which the hon. Member for South Shields did not address? Would he expect the Ministry of Defence to pay the development costs of the FLA and, if so, what does he think is the likely figure?
  Mr. Hoyle: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the cost to this country would be shared by the whole consortium. There would be no greater cost than the cost related to the Airbus, which has been an outstanding success. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I was talking about the total deficit which would occur with the American bid. Whatever we paid in the first instance for the FLA, in the long term, if exports took off, we would be the beneficiaries to the tune of £10 billion. That is very important.
  Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hoyle: No, I shall not give way to any other hon. Member because I know that many of my hon. Friends want to speak.
  Mr. Mans: I shall be brief.
  Mr. Hoyle: All right, if it is very quick.
  Mr. Mans: In answer to the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) about development costs, does the hon. Gentleman agree that one proposal that has been put forward by the FLA consortium is that, provided that the Royal Air Force comes up with a specific order at a specific time to a specific design criteria, it may be that, in a similar way to the way in which the Airbus 340 was developed, the costs of developing the FLA could be paid for outside the Ministry of Defence?
  Mr. Hoyle: I could not agree more with what the hon. Gentleman has said. That would be extremely helpful. Of course, if it could be arranged in that way, it would be another plus factor for the FLA. What we are drawing on all the time—the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) was right to say it—is the expertise that has been developed while working on the Airbus. Costs would be cut because of the experience of the Airbus and we would draw on the knowledge that we gained from that civilian project. Not to go ahead, as I said to the hon. Member for Tayside, North, would not, I am sure, be amusing to all those in aerospace whose jobs may be lost. I am sure that that is not the intention of the hon. Member for Tayside, North and that that was not what was amusing him. Also, if we do not go ahead in the FLA project, our future role in Airbus will be put in jeopardy because the Germans are very keen to secure the wing design and they would be quite happy, having got the wing design of the FLA if we did not go ahead, to step into our shoes in future Airbus projects.
  70
  I say to the Minister that I hope that we will at least delay any decision until early 1995 when the feasibility study will have been completed. That is extremely important because a failure to delay the decision would be a body blow to the aerospace industry.
  6.35 pm
  Sir John Cope: This is the first time that I have had the opportunity to address the House from the Back Benches in just over 15 years, and I am delighted to do so. One gets a better view from up here—perhaps a more all-round view. I am delighted to address the House because I am a strong supporter of our team at the Ministry of Defence. "Front Line First" was not only elegant, as the Select Committee on Defence said, but reflected the clear thinking of the Secretary of State.
  I follow the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) in supporting the future large aircraft and in reflecting on that project. The Labour party spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who replied for the Opposition with a typically weak speech, if I may say so, said that the Government should not rush into a decision. Indeed, as far as I could see, he spent his whole speech telling the Government not to make any decision for ages and ages. He certainly advises the Labour party in that way.
  But it is important to my constituency, as to others, what decision is made about the future transport aircraft for the Royal Air Force. We have a very large aerospace complex at Bristol, which is partly in my constituency and, centred on British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce, is the most complete aerospace complex in the country.
  There are, of course, three sets of factors that affect the decision of which my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence have to take account—the military, financial, and industrial factors. There are also three Departments of State involved which reflect those three factors: the MOD, the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry. All three should be involved in the decision. The factors have been canvassed at some length, but I shall comment on each of them briefly.
  The RAF has started to argue relatively recently that its present C130s are worn out and that they must be replaced before the future large aircraft becomes available. Of course, the C130s were originally intended to last into the next century. It is now clear that they will not, at least not without refurbishment. However, it is also clear that they would last with refurbishment. If that is not clear, it has been made clear from the attitude of Lockheed. Lockheed has said, in its keenness to sell us some new C-130s, that it will take the old ones back, it will refurbish them—that is apparently its intention—and sell them on to other forces. That means that Lockheed does not believe that those aircraft have come to the end of their useful lives.
  The RAF also apparently sees no reason to change the basic specification of the C130, in particular the size of the load carried. That is determined by the air frame, which was designed many years ago in the 1950s. Everyone who went to Farnborough knows that there is a vast difference between the load capability of the C130 and that of the FLA—that was obvious from the full-scale model of the FLA on show there. The Warrior and other similar vehicles, as well as guns and so on, would not fit into the C130, but would fit into the FLA.

  71
  Emergencies, such as that which arose in the Gulf last week, as well as events in Bosnia and Somalia, reveal that, in future, it will be important to have the ability to put forces on the ground with their proper equipment quickly. It is a grave disadvantage to have to send equipment by sea.
  I happened to do my national service during the Suez emergency. I was in the artillery and my regiment was posted to Suez by air and our guns were sent by sea. Some of the vehicles got there, but we never did. In fact, for lack of air transport we had to leave some of our vehicles in Egypt when those personnel who did get that far came back. That is a wonderful example of why not to separate forces from their equipment. I am therefore extremely conscious of the difficulties caused by trying to put forces on the ground without their proper equipment.
  It is difficult to assess the financial considerations behind any decision to go ahead with either the C130 or the FLA, partly because many negotiations and studies are yet to be undertaken, notably the feasibility study mentioned by the hon. Member for Warrington, North. Lockheed emphasises that the initial capital cost of the C130 is lower than that of the FLA, whereas British Aerospace argues that the lifetime costs of the FLA would be lower than those of the C130. Those lifetime costs are the ones that matter, because the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury should make their decision according to them. After all, the House will judge any decision on that basis. The experience of the lifetime costs of the existing C130s should be taken into account.
  I will not believe that the RAF's revenue expenditure is under tremendous pressure as long as the university air squadrons exist in their present form. The overwhelming majority of people to whom those squadrons give flying training have no intention, let alone obligation, of entering the RAF. It would not want them if, later, they did decide to join. That flying training is very expensive as well as—to give away my interest in the matter—very noisy to some of my constituents. I am encouraged by paragraph 325 of "Front Line First" which speaks of civilian flying instruction at basic levels. I hope that that means that, in future, all the university air squadrons will confine their activities to organising civilian flying training for undergraduates who are expected to join the RAF. That could be done for a small fraction of the costs now incurred.
  Another financial argument about the C130, which surfaced briefly during the proceedings of the Select Committee and earlier this afternoon, is that the timing of a decision on it would mean that its costs would take up some perceived slack in defence procurement expenditure before the coming of the Eurofighter and so help to smooth out the cash flow from the MOD. That argument should be dismissed at once. It is a giant version of the one advanced by departments that stock up with paper clips before the year end, based on the logic that that will preserve their expenditure base line. That argument should not appeal to the Treasury.
  As a Treasury Minister, I was recently involved in the long-overdue overhaul of Government accounting. For too long, crude annual cash accounting, long since superseded in commerce, distorted Government financial
  72
  decisions. This summer's Green Paper on resource accounting, which is now out for consultation, marks the beginning of the end of that process.
  The hon. Member for Warrington, North dwelt on the industrial factors involved in any decision. I agree that major advantages could be gained for British industry from ordering the FLA rather than more C130s. One can argue about the detailed figures, as the hon. Gentleman did, but there can be no doubt that far more high-quality work in particular is likely to come to Britain from a project that we help to manage than from permitting an effective world monopoly in the manufacture of this type of aircraft, based in the United States.
  It is worth pointing out to the hon. Member for Warrington, North why the United States has had a monopoly for 30 years. We have travelled this route before, because in 1965 the Labour Government cancelled the HS681. That decision has left us at the mercy of the United States for the manufacture of such large military transport aircraft for the past 30 years. The excellent success achieved by Airbus Industrie has given us the chance to break out of that monopoly on military transport manufacture, just as Airbus has recently challenged the Boeing domination of civilian airliner manufacture, which seemed so complete.
  Allies are extremely important militarily. That has been said so many times in defence debates that it hardly needs to be repeated. We are all obviously in the debt, in so many ways, of the United States, through NATO and right back through history. We have industrial allies, too, and these days we need them just as much as we compete in the world. If we chose an American aircraft, our companies would be taken out of the front line of European aerospace co-operation which has been so successful recently, particularly through Airbus Industrie. Those who are concerned about the effective management of co-operative projects should be reassured by the fact that Airbus Industrie is involved with the FLA, because it has already been so effective in the Airbus project.
  An apparently seductive option exists to postpone the difficult decision on this matter by ordering a few C130s now and leaving the decision about the FLA for a few years. Such a course would be in danger of leaving us with the worst of all worlds. In industrial terms, it would show a half-hearted commitment to the FLA and would mean that we ended up with a poor deal for our industry and had little involvement in the project. Militarily it would also mean that in about 10 years' time we would end up with some fairly newly built C130s, sized for the 1950s, with at the same time too few FLAs designed for the next century. Such a course would be an error militarily and industrially and I do not believe that it would save us any money. Therefore, Ministers should—and I am sure that they will—look very hard at that decision.
  Lockheed naturally wants to push us into a quick decision if possible because it wants us as a launch customer with regard to its new C130. It does not have the American Government, so it would like us as a launch customer. That would be good for Lockheed, but it would have the important disadvantage, which has already been stressed, of meaning that a decision would have to be taken before the Euroflag study becomes available. It would be premature to take the decision at that point.

  73
  When all the factors are considered, it would be wrong to replace an aircraft that still has life in it with a more souped-up version of the same thing, and which is now so old, instead of waiting for the better plane to become available. It would also be a costly mistake in this case for us to buy American and to damage one of our own world-class industries.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Like others, I was much taken by the Secretary of State's reference to Hugo Young's article of 14 July 1994. Showing characteristic modesty, the Secretary of State forbore to tell us about the parts of the article which referred to himself— [Interruption.] I see from the Secretary of State's response to that observation that he is aware that he featured to some extent in the article.
  During a fairly iconoclastic look at these matters, Mr. Young said:
  "When this year's public spending was being hacked over last autumn, the Ministry of Defence thought it might have to lose £500 million from its next three-year programme. In fact it was told to find more than double that. Mr. Rifkind emerged shattered from EDX, the relevant Cabinet committee. The horse-trading between ministers showed he had no friends. Chancellor Clarke, a notorious envelope man, was quite content to pin him to a figure that was little more refined than the residual of every other spender's."
  Mr. Young has the advantage of not having to make such decisions and not having to shadow those who have to make those decisions. It is therefore perhaps easier for him than for others to strike out in all directions.
  What has emerged so far from this debate is a general recognition that there has been a substantial period of change for the armed services and for the defence industry and, in both sectors, there is now a considerable desire for a period of calm and stability. Accepting that, I do not believe that that precludes us from continuing to conduct the necessary exercise to match commitments with resources. I rather favour the view of those who argue that simply to call for a defence review in all circumstances is not an answer to some of the difficult questions that we are bound to face.
  Indeed, if a defence review is to have any value, it will provide not the answers but the questions. The answers will have to be provided afterwards. Such questions will have a point only if we ask them against the background of clearly stated foreign policy objectives. A review would have a point only if we were willing to increase resources if, on a proper review, we determined that our commitments required that.
  To call for a review is simply only part of the necessary analysis if commitments and resources are to be properly matched. Ministers frequently say, "Well, we do this on an on-going basis." Many people—not least Mr. Young, as those who read his article might discover—are anxious about the fact that many recent decisions have not been predicated upon substantial long-term strategic thinking.
  To embark on a study of the costs of defence is entirely sensible. However, it is not sensible to say that the commitments for which that defence is provided should be excluded. What comparable organisation with a budget of £23 billion, anxious to ensure that it was obtaining value for money, would not consider the relevance of what it was spending money on as much as how that money was being spent?
  74
  In his announcement on 14 July, the Secretary of State proposed the joint rapid deployment force and the procurement of Tomahawk cruise missiles. They represent an enhancement of capability. They are clearly designed to meet a commitment other than that of home defence. We do not acquire additional capability without an analysis of the need for that capability. By parity of reasoning, it seems that one should not reduce expenditure or capability without analysis of need.
  If, as the Defence Select Committee concluded—reference has already been made to this—the defence costs study proposals will result in reduced stocks and a reduction in manpower margins and will extend the service life of some vehicles, what guarantee can we have that capability will not be affected? I accept that the Secretary of State told the House a little while ago that the MoD would bring the upmost rigour to such matters. However, if he had been standing here in the summer of 1989 and not 1990 and the same point had been put to him about the state of our armoured divisions in Germany, I have no doubt that he would have responded in precisely the same way.
  The truth is that one knows the extent to which capability may have been affected only when one creates the very operational circumstances, to which the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) referred, in the context of enhancing the ability of individual soldiers. As has already been said, we are all aware that the Gulf war showed up the very sorry state of the equipment in some of our armoured divisions. It showed that we had insufficient ammunition for the 155 mm howitzer, which gave rise to the rather undignified exchanges that we had to have with the Belgian Government on that matter.
  As the Secretary of State properly recognised, the Defence Select Committee has expressed anxiety about the fact that the defence costs studies might become an annual exercise. The Secretary of State gave a round "no" to that. We accept his word. However, if another Secretary of State for Defence is subjected to something like an annual exercise, some hon. Members—I put it no more strongly than this—would be particularly disappointed.
  There is an important test. Will all the identified savings be available to the Secretary of State for Defence to spend as he thinks fit? The Secretary of State was asked about that and I believe that I am correct to say that he was unable to give an unequivocal affirmative. He referred to the Tomahawk programme and the rapid deployment force as additional capability that could be found. However, he did not seem to be able to say that everything saved as a result of the defence costs studies would be ploughed back in some other form into the defence budget.
  Like many hon. Members, I have received extensive representations about installations that are the subject of proposals in the defence costs studies. I do not want to deal with them from a constituency point of view because I am well aware that other hon. Members have a very keen interest in these matters with regard to their constituents. However, I want to refer to one or two installations because they raise larger questions.
  Also like many hon. Members, I have received extensive representations about the Eaglescliffe royal naval stores depot. My question—this is a question which all hon. Members might want answered because it may be our constituencies next—is why did it apparently take approximately six weeks to issue the consultation

  75
  document after the Secretary of State's announcement? Do not those whose jobs are affected deserve something better and more efficient?
  Is not there a principle that, when decisions have such material consequences, it is essential that consultations should be seen to be more than simply ritualistic? As we know, the United States has an independent mechanism for determining such issues. It might be difficult to import such a mechanism into the United Kingdom, but any one of us may have to face a proposal with the same effect in his or her constituency. It is surely in the interests of all hon. Members and of our constituents that those matters are fairly and reasonably dealt with.
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): The hon. and learned Gentleman raises an important point as to the period of consultation and how long it takes to produce the papers. First, it is plain that if the papers are to stand up to the rigour of close examination, they must be properly put together. Some of the information is difficult to come by and it takes time to put it together. Therefore, because of the weight of work, some have taken longer than others.
  Secondly, we have been extremely flexible about consultation and we shall continue to be so. The whole point of that is that consultation should be an entirely genuine process. All views should be garnered so that Ministers may consider in full detail what they have seen.
  Mr. Campbell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think me churlish when I say that I am much more heartened by the second part than by the first part of his answer. If, on one view of what he said, those decisions were taken when the necessary information had not all been assembled, it would give substance to the apprehension that many people have expressed about the way in which those decisions were arrived at.
  An overwhelming case has been made against the closure of Rosyth naval base, from an economic standpoint—a case marshalled by Fife regional council, supported by the Fraser of Allander Institute. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), in whose constituency that installation is to be found, will want to say rather more about those matters, but I approach them from the point of view of what I conceive to be the important strategic issues. I begin by ignoring the rather arid discussion in Scottish newspapers about whether a base without ships can properly be a base at all. What is important is the nature of the activities carried on in the installation.
  It is clear that once the minor war vessels go from Rosyth, the remaining defence functions will not then depend on any particular locational characteristics that Rosyth possesses. That is to say that they could as easily be done elsewhere. If, as we know, the two dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth are to be privatised, those defence functions that remain at the base when the minor war vessels go could as easily be carried out in the neighbouring dockyard. If that were so, the case for the retention of the base, if it is entitled to that description, becomes severely weakened. There is no doubt that if the Rosyth naval base were to be closed, it would almost certainly never reopen.
  76
  That has operational implications for the Royal Navy because it would severely restrict its ability to fulfil its obligation to ensure the integrity of the United Kingdom's territorial waters, an obligation which is recognised in the defence estimates. I have in mind particularly the oil and gas installations of the North sea and, of course, the important fishing industry, of which part at least is located in my constituency.
  Strategically, closure of the base would assume that never again would there be a need for substantial naval operations in northern waters. I do not feel qualified or, perhaps more important, sufficiently optimistic about the obligations that the Royal Navy might face to answer that question unequivocally in the affirmative. These are not matters dreamt up by those who are anxious to preserve, the base at all costs; they are considerations which have been supported by Mr. David Greenwood, the director of the centre for defence studies at Aberdeen university, and they are also, of course, to some extent supported by the conclusions of the Defence Select Committee itself. The proposals for the base should be reassessed from both operational and strategic considerations.
  There is another important point in this period of rapid and sometimes difficult change. In some cases, the long-term consequences for defence-based communities will clearly be extremely damaging. It is only natural that those consequences are causing considerable apprehension. There is a feeling that the Government have no strategy, no policy for managing that change and are content simply to leave it to the market. I choose another example—no doubt the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) will give a detailed account of it—a community such as Portland. How will the market cope with the economic and social consequences if the proposals for Portland are carried through? I find it difficult to conceive how that can be achieved.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned my constituency. Does he accept that it is much more sensible for the Government to use existing enterprise Departments such as the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Employment and so on? Although I shall always plead for more money and more help, since January our unemployment has been going down faster than that of almost any other area.
  Mr. Campbell: If unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has been going down, that is something to be thankful for. I wish that it was true in Fife, of which my constituency forms part. I do not think that what he is saying is antagonistic to the view that, when there is a substantial closure with substantial economic and social effects, there should be a strategy for managing that change. In the United States, where capitalism reigns supreme, one of the first acts of the Clinton Administration was to establish an office for that very purpose. A further issue is dockyard privatisation, to which I have already referred. What assessment has been made of the economic and social consequences of that?
  Reference has been made to Bosnia. I do not wish to detain the House long on that theatre of operations for our forces. Like the Secretary of State for Defence and, indeed, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I think that any removal or relaxation of the arms embargo would be dangerous and would risk not only the achievements of UNPROFOR

  77
  and, in particular, the British forces who have serve in it, but the whole achievement of the United Nations in that difficult area.
  Of course, the Government have a weapon that they can use if the matter is raised in the Security Council—the exercise of the veto. So far, the public statement on behalf of the Government is that, although they disapprove of any relaxation of the embargo, if the matter goes to the Security Council their intention is to abstain and not to exercise the veto. I cannot help thinking that, if the strength of their opposition to the embargo is as great as it appears, it would be more logical to use the veto than simply to abstain.
  The performance of troops in Bosnia is conditioned to some extent at least by the fact that for 25 years our forces have kept a difficult and often dangerous peace in Northern Ireland. If there is a political settlement, which no doubt all hon. Members hope and pray for, it would obviously have the consequence of reducing the military obligation there, but I hope—I was encouraged to some extent by the Secretary of State's response to such matters—that it will not be regarded as an excuse for a raid on the defence budget. It would be an opportunity for us to make available to the United Nations the skills and techniques that we have learnt in Northern Ireland and about which the right hon. Member for Bridgwater was rightly eloquent.
  Our troops have become, perforce, probably the best counter-insurgency troops in the world. Those skills and techniques are clearly much more likely to be sought by the United Nations than the full-scale armour-based confrontation that we saw in the Gulf. Therefore, as our effort in Bosnia has been so outstanding, it is legitimate to say that a relaxation of the commitment in Northern Ireland would permit us to contribute even more if necessary.
  The United Nations cannot be allowed to go on as it is without reform—here I echo to some extent the remarks of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). The United Nations requires better intelligence gathering, better organisation to provide military advice for the Secretary-General, a United Nations staff college to train in the techniques of peacekeeping, mechanisms to guarantee the quality of peacekeeping forces, assigned peacekeeping contingents from member nations which are able to move at short notice and, most important of all, security of funding. There have been occasions since 1990 when it has sadly lacked all of those.
  Like other hon. Members, I continue to believe that, for the foreseeable future, the United Kingdom will be required to maintain an independent nuclear deterrent but that it should truly be a minimum deterrent. In accordance with NATO's nuclear doctrine, such weapons should be weapons of last resort. Their justification lies in self-defence against the use, or the threat of use, of nuclear weapons by others. We should bind ourselves to use them only in response to a clear nuclear threat and against military targets. We should say transparently that there will be no more warheads on Trident than the Polaris system which it is to replace—and, indeed, there may be fewer.
  Perhaps the more significant nuclear issue that we must face in the short term is that of proliferation. There is a clear connection between the non-proliferation treaty and a comprehensive test ban treaty. Lord Carrington recognised that in 1982, when he pointed out that a test
  78
  ban would curb the development of new warheads and demonstrate the good faith of those powers possessing nuclear weapons to those who had, under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, surrendered the right to develop nuclear weapons. In that context, I do not think that one can pray in aid any more persuasive an authority than Lord Carrington, who was the Foreign Secretary at the time.
  It will be for us to ensure that we fulfil our obligations under article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty, which binds us to negotiate to end the nuclear arms race. The comprehensive test ban treaty is an essential piece of the security architecture to help us towards that.
  Different views on Europe were expressed in Bournemouth last week. It is worth reminding ourselves that, whatever those expressions of view may have been, the Maastricht treaty established a structure for a common foreign and security policy. Leaving aside political considerations, I am firmly of the view that economic considerations, as much as political ones, will drive this. The issues of interoperability, common procurement and force specialisation will be forced on to the agenda for financial reasons as much as political ones. They will not come about overnight; it will be a matter of evolution. If the Secretary of State for Defence was accurately reported in The Daily Telegraph on 10 May, the
  "evolution of an EC defence policy was an 'inevitable consequence' of the Maastricht Treaty".
  We already see illustrations of it in the Anglo-Dutch amphibious force and in the Euro corps, to which units from France, Germany, Belgium and Spain are now assigned. Indeed, one might argue that the combined joint task forces agreed at the NATO summit in January are a further illustration of the development of that European defence identity.
  I shall conclude by saying a word or two about procurement. The support helicopter and the Hercules replacement are important not only in themselves but because of the contribution that they make to mobility and flexibility. Indeed, one could argue that the fact that our troops are deployed in Kuwait at present is eloquent testimony to the fact that mobility and flexibility will continue to be important criteria against which we determine our defence expenditure and, indeed, our procurement decisions.
  I do not want to get into the extended debate about the future large aircraft as compared to the C130J except to say that the Select Committee on Defence carefully considered those matters. Indeed, the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), may feel obliged to refer to some of them. I do not accept the view that we should simply cast aside the suggestion that we should procure some C130J aircraft now and wait until the future large aircraft comes on stream.
  I hope that all hon. Members who have an interest in those matters will apply to the Royal Air Force for permission to fly in one of the existing Hercules fleet. I think that they will find that an extremely illuminating experience. The argument that the aircraft may have to be continued until the year 2002 or 2004, whether or not they are refurbished, will perhaps not be as strong at 5,000 ft as it is here in the Chamber.
  The attack helicopter and the European fighter aircraft are important because they will maintain the quality of our capability. We have an obligation never to ask our

  79
  forces to go to war without the best available equipment. The European fighter aircraft was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, I was one of those who was dispatched to Bonn shortly after the last election—in high style, I might say—to lobby our political opposite numbers.
  The European fighter aircraft is fundamentally important to the aerospace industry, but its importance for the Royal Air Force cannot be underestimated. Therefore, I hope that the Government will have taken to heart the robust observations of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater. Too many hon. Members have invested too much time and effort, and I suppose emotion, in the European fighter aircraft for us to allow it simply to slide off the scale because of some difficulties with cost overruns.
  Since "Options for Change" in July 1990, the debate in defence has largely been a financial one. There has been little effort to look beyond the next public expenditure round. Perhaps that was inevitable in the light of the state of the economy. It could be argued that defence cannot be exempt from what is happening in the wider economy. However, we now need to look further ahead in the debate. United Kingdom expenditure in real terms should not be cut further, and we should recognise that Europe might have to increase its defence expenditure if its security is at risk. Much of the optimism of the immediate post-cold war euphoria has gone. That now needs to be replaced with realism and some long-term strategic thinking.
  7.17 pm
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am delighted to speak in this debate. I am particularly delighted that, for the first time in the two years or so that I have been Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, I will not have to lambast my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench for their current policy.
  I was pleased to hear that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence had read the Committee's report on the defence costs study, and I welcome what he said about it. I was less enthusiastic to learn that most hon. Members who have spoken so far, apart from the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who is a member of the Defence Committee, appear not to have read the report on the Hercules replacement because the conclusions that they seem to have drawn are wholly incompatible with the argument put forward in the paper we have published and the conclusions we have drawn. I shall return to that matter briefly in a few moments.
  The Select Committee has published seven papers that are relevant to the debate. I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity to glance at them because they contribute in a way that I do not have time to do today. We have published the defence costs study report, the Hercules replacement report, a report on the defence estimates, and reports on Trident, the Eurofighter, the RAF and Operation Granby. All those things are relevant to what we are now discussing.
  Before I examine the highlights of three of those reports, I shall take up one or two of the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend. First, I shall refer to the NATO initiatives and in particular the partnership for
  80
  peace. The Defence Committee has spent most of this year researching a NATO report which we hope to make available to the House by the end of the year. Our research has taken us to Moscow and Kiev, and we have met representatives from virtually all the states in the old CIS and their neighbouring countries. We have seen people from the Baltic states, Georgia, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. I almost said Slovenia, but that is one country that we have not yet got round to meeting. I had the pleasure of skiing there last year, but that is not strictly relevant to the debate.
  When we publish our report, we will certainly emphasise the importance of the partnership for peace on two fronts. First, it is a route into NATO for those countries that will eventually qualify for membership but have not yet reached that stage and, secondly, and at least as importantly, it will act in its own right as a link between NATO and Western European Union countries and those further to our east which are unlikely, for a variety of reasons, to be able to or wish to join NATO.
  It is important that we do not extend the NATO cover in such a way as it threatens the feeling of security within Russia. We should not rush but move gently in the direction of extending NATO, while establishing a close rapport with Russia at least so long as it maintains the benevolent leadership that it currently enjoys. On that front, I welcome the joint military exercises that we are now carrying out with Russia and some other countries from that part of the world. I hope that we shall be able to extend that programme and increase it in the years to come.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made some comments about "Options for Change". Of course I welcome, as does the Defence Select Committee, the stability that has been announced and the fact that there will be no more major upheavals in the next—
  Mr. Martlew: Wait and see.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I believe what my right hon. and learned Friend says. I have no doubt that we will now enter a period of stability in our armed forces for which we have called for a long time but which has not been available since "Options for Change" was first implemented. The forces have gone through traumatic change. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in congratulating them on the way in which they have handled those traumas and responded to the enormous demands that have been put upon them.
  I do not believe—this is a personal view, not one that is necessarily unanimous within the Defence Committee—that the Opposition's proposal of a review would be remotely helpful at this time, for all the reasons that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave. It would be extremely disruptive to launch on yet another review just when a period of stability can be offered.
  There is a good paper on defence reviews in the Library which I warmly recommend. All the history of reviews of that nature shows that they have been disastrous. On every occasion, the basic facts on which the review was based changed, if not by the time the review was published, shortly afterwards. In the present situation, a review carried out a year ago would not have taken into account a likely renewal of violence in Iraq. A review carried out three or four years ago certainly would not have anticipated the events in Bosnia. I should not like to say

  81
  today what the position will be, where new conflicts might arise or what new demands might be made in three years' time when we have a similar debate in the House. I do not believe that a review of the type recommended by Opposition Members would be to the advantage of the country as a whole or the armed services in particular.
  I now turn to the reports that the Defence Select Committee has published. First, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, in our report on the defence costs study we expressed reservations about the possible consequences of some of the proposals on front-line capability, even though the proposals were aimed at the logistic follow-up. For example, we are worried about the potential risk of running down our stores too far and of lengthening the in-service life of vehicles. The life of vehicles might be taken to a point at which the vehicles ceased to be reliable. Although most of the vehicles in question are not front-line vehicles, some are and others are needed to supply the front line. It would not be safe to extend the life of those vehicles beyond a certain point. That will have to be watched closely. Likewise, the reduction in manpower margins could give cause for concern if it is not sensitively handled.
  I bring to the attention of the House three other anxieties about SDE 94. The first is the emergency tour interval. It is clear to me—the conclusion drawn by the Committee as a whole concurred with my view—that originally the 24-month average, as it is now described, was intended by all those involved in drawing it up to be a 24-month minimum gap between emergency tours of service. Indeed, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Defence Committee, he initially said that himself. Only when I received a letter a few days later was that corrected as an inaccurate reflection of the facts. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend was right in the first place and that when his bureaucrats corrected him they were putting a slant on the proposal which the chiefs of staff had not intended when they agreed the policy. I should like to see 24 months introduced as a minimum as soon as possible. I hope that that will become possible in the next couple of years. Whether it becomes possible in that time depends entirely on whether we can run down our numbers of troops in Northern Ireland. That is impossible to predict at this time.
  Secondly, the Committee was worried about the failure to reduce civilian numbers in parallel with military numbers. Although in senior ranks that is occurring, the vast bulk of the civil servants are either executive officer or higher executive officer grade and in those grades no cuts whatever have been managed. Indeed, the numbers have increased. The explanation given to the Committee was that the extra personnel were needed to manage the cuts elsewhere, but I was not entirely convinced by that argument. There is a real worry that the move forward into agencies and devolution and delegation of responsibility across the nation could lead to a plethora of new jobs in local staff and administration. We could end up, as happened years ago when we reorganised local government, with precisely the opposite effect to that intended and find ourselves with far more civilian personnel in management roles and executive back-up than we intended or need. We shall have to watch closely
  82
  the tendency in any bureaucracy to spawn new jobs within itself. We shall have to make sure that they are reduced as currently planned.
  My third complaint about SDE 94 is minor, provided that it does not reflect what is happening in other areas. For many years the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" included 2.5 per cent. of the defence costs for the security and intelligence services. However, there was absolutely no way of discerning that fact by reading the SDE reports. I hope that one of my ministerial colleagues will assure the House that no similar generic figures are tucked away in the current defence estimates which might be treated in the same way as those for the intelligence services. Apart from those matters, we welcome what is stated in SDE 94 and the defence costs study.
  I wish to say a few words about Hercules, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) suggested that I probably would. Those who have called for a delayed decision on the Hercules replacement so that the FLA can be fully evaluated are wrong. They are wrong particularly because that would not allow us to replace Hercules until 2002 or 2005 in reality. There is no doubt that the current Hercules fleet cannot be merely run on and continue to provide the fleet that the RAF requires without a massive mid-line update.
  It is an unfortunate fact that in 1993 at least half the Hercules in service were not in service at all because they were not airworthy or in active service. That position will deteriorate by 1998 and would deteriorate further if we were to take no action then. By 2002, the position would be intolerable. Until the aircraft have been stripped down, it is impossible to say what will be the maintenance costs of merely keeping the aircraft going in their present state. All our experience shows that it is much more expensive to do so than originally anticipated. It would almost certainly be more expensive to do so than to replace half the fleet in 1998 with Hercules, leaving the option of buying FLA when they are available six or seven years later. I endorse that recommendation by the Select Committee because it is the only way in which we can satisfy the need for flexibility and mobility in our armed forces over the next decade.
  I am conscious of the time so I shall resist the temptation to cover the other reports or to add to the debate by speaking to the other issues that have been covered. I shall end by summarising what I believe to be the needs for the defence of the realm over the coming 10 years. As I have said, I welcome the fact that we are no longer on the downslip of cuts and that we can look forward to a period of stability. The armed services need that, and it is the most that we can ask of the Government at this time in view of the limitations on the amount of money that can reasonably be made available for our armed services.
  However, the Committee has concluded—and I believe the conclusion to be correct—that the nation does not have the long-term defences that we are likely to require. At Bournemouth, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made two statements with which, sadly, I disagree. First, he said categorically that there will not be a third world war. That was a bold statement. I recall reading that the last time somebody made such a statement was in 1919 after the "war to end all wars". There is no real reason for us to feel confident that within our lifetimes this country will not be embroiled once again

  83
  in a major war, and our defence policy should reflect that assumption. The Foreign Secretary was mistaken in his base for our foreign policy.
  To secure our long-term future we need about 10,000 more soldiers. As General Sir Martin Farndale rightly said, if we had that increased number we should be able to flesh out units without having to denude other units to reinforce active ones. We had to do that recently and will probably have to do it for the foreseeable future. Secondly, such an increase would enable us to give our troops the brigade, divisional and specific role training in which they have been sadly lacking over the past two or three years.
  As the House knows, we had to use Royal Artillery personnel in Northern Ireland, and they and other specialist arms were taken from their specialist role and trained for an infantry and peacekeeping role in Northern Ireland, after which they had to be debriefed and retrained for Royal Artillery roles. As a result, there have been virtually no divisional infantry, artillery and cavalry exercises over that period. I understand that none is planned for the immediate future, certainly not involving all three services. We need more soldiers so that that can be done and so that we do not need to cadreise, as we have had to do, some of our units. A regiment that should consist of two battalions should have two battalions and the current habit of cadreising down is not adequate for our long-term defence needs.
  The Royal Navy has 35 frigates and I congratulate the Ministry of Defence on fixing on that figure—even if it is far too low. As the House will recall, until now the complement has been "about 50" or "about" 45, 40 or 38. But the trouble with 35 is that only 24 ships are seaworthy at any given time. That is not enough, even for our peacetime needs, and it certainly does not allow the Royal Navy to carry out the role that it should fulfil of waving the flag around the globe. The value of the White Ensign to our trade and to the way in which our people are greeted in countries to which they go to sell our products cannot be overestimated.
  We tend badly to underestimate the importance that people, and especially those in the far east where our trade will now grow rapidly, place on face, and a military unit from this country gives Britain face. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary once described it as punching well above our weight. On that occasion he was right: that is what we can demonstrably do, and we must make sure that we broadcast it where we wish to be seen.
  Last, but by no means least, I shall deal with the Royal Air Force. There is much high-tech kit that the RAF should have, for example in avionics, to enable it to defend itself against ground-to-air missiles. We cannot afford to fit our squadrons with such equipment at the moment, and they need to be given the extra resources to enable that to be done.
  Most important, within the next 10 to 15 years we will face a serious ballistic missile threat. I am not necessarily suggesting that a missile will be fired at us, but I certainly suggest that people who are perfectly capable of firing one at us and who might be stupid enough to do so will be equipped with such missiles. At the moment, they are not so equipped. I am obviously thinking of Libya and some other unstable middle east countries as well as other possibilities. We must embark upon the installation of a
  84
  ballistic missile defence system, and it must be done in conjunction with the Americans and with our European allies. We must ensure that, within the next decade, we are armed with such a system. We would grossly betray our duty to defend this kingdom if we felt, for whatever reason, that we had to make savings in that area.
  There is still a great deal to be done before I can tell the House that I am confident that we have the defences that we need. However, I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on the way in which he has set about defence costs studies and on the way in which he has limited the damage that Treasury demands have caused to our defences. I assure him of my personal support and, I am sure, of the support of almost every hon. Member in his endeavours to ensure that we have a stable future during which we can rebuild to the levels that are necessary to secure our freedoms.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Llew Smith: At the recent Labour party conference it was agreed that a future Labour Government should scrap Trident and link our defence expenditure to the average of other western European countries. That resolution is especially relevant to a debate on defence estimates of approximately £23,000 million. I shall give some estimates of my own. If we linked our defence expenditure to the average of other western European countries, we would make savings of about £8,200 million. As the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament shows, with those savings we could build 11,375 council houses; run 910 secondary schools for a year; maintain 8,736 home dialysis machines; provide water supplies for 1,820 villages in Africa; pay 54,000 nurses for a year; pay 36,000 teachers for a year; pay 1,822 hospital consultants for a year; support 305,760 hip or similar operations; and support a health and literacy programme for more than 17 million people in India. That could be done with just one year's defence savings.
  Putting aside those savings, which would result from linking our defence expenditure in the way that I described, what of the savings from the so-called peace dividend since the mid-1980s? For example, military expenditure in 1984-85 was 5.5 per cent. of our GDP. Some 10 years later, in 1994-95, that has been reduced to 3.5 per cent. If we had maintained spending at the 1984-85 level, we should now be debating defence estimates of about £28,000 million. Therefore, the peace dividend is worth £5,400 million in the current year and £27,700 million over the past decade. What has happened to the peace dividend? It has gone the way of North sea oil—funding the unemployment programme.
  Whether we are discussing our failure to link our defence expenditure to the average of that of other western European countries or our failure to benefit from the peace dividend, we have lost not only the opportunity to benefit from investment in the great services and projects that I have already mentioned, but all the skills, talents and creativity that have been used in preparing for war when they could have been used for peaceful purposes.

  85
  For me, that was best summed up by General Eisenhower 40 years ago, when he said:
  "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who are old and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone, it is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists and the hopes of its children."
  The new Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), seems to find that funny, but I hope that he will respond to my point. Will he tell us: what is the use of Trident and who are the missiles aimed at? Who is the enemy? At one time, we were told that the enemy was the Soviet Union, but the Government have now admitted that our missiles are not directed at Russia and Russia has admitted that its missiles are not targeted at Britain or the United States.
  In chapter 2 of the 1994 defence estimates, the Government recognise that
  "our defence policy must accommodate the continuing change in the strategic setting."
  The Government are right and it should, but unfortunately they have not responded to that continuing change. For many years, they told us that the Soviet Union was the enemy and that it was planning a nuclear confrontation with the west. I never believed that—indeed, I never even regarded it as a possibility. It was simply an excuse to justify our nuclear build-up. But at least we knew then who the Government believed the enemy to be. Will they tell us who the enemy is today and who the nuclear missiles are aimed at?
  While the world has changed, the Government continue with the madness of nuclear weapons. Their defence policy has not accommodated the change in the global position. Does any hon. Member honestly believe that any country at this present time is planning a nuclear confrontation with the west? I have to say that even if that were to be the case, I could never accept the use of nuclear weapons because they are no defence, for they would destroy not only the so-called enemy, but the people and the environment that we were purportedly defending. Even if they were never used in anger, they have destroyed people's lives where uranium has been mined, by the fall-out from nuclear testing and from the cancers caused by the production and processing of nuclear explosives, such as at Sellafield and Aldermaston.
  As far back as 1955, Robert Oppenheimer recognised the danger. When he was asked on American television whether it was true that humans had already discovered a method of destroying humanity, he replied:
  "Not quite. You can certainly destroy enough of humanity so that only the greatest act of faith can persuade you that what is left will be human."
  What was true in 1955 is even more true today, with the tens of thousands, rather than hundreds, of nuclear warheads in existence.
  If anyone doubts the dangers of nuclear weapons or the devastation that would result from, for example, nuclear fall-out, he need only consider the problems of the Welsh farms that are still affected by the disaster that hit Chernobyl eight years ago and from some 2,000 miles away. However, tragic as that disaster was, it would be nothing compared with a nuclear war. For example, Chernobyl's effects were like the Doomsday neutron bomb. Now abandoned, it was designed to kill people, plants and animals, but to leave buildings standing. The detonation of even the smallest nuclear weapon in the
  86
  world's vast arsenals would destroy all life around it, pulverise buildings and leave a haunted devastation. Let us not forget the psychological traumas still suffered by the survivors of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Even the grandchildren of the survivors are suffering trauma today.
  The development of Trident also threatens the non-proliferation treaty. The all-party Defence Committee said in its latest report on what it called progress with Trident:
  "Trident's accuracy and sophistication does—and was always intended to—represent a significant enhancement of the UK's nuclear capability. We have invested a great deal of money to make it possible to attack more targets with greater effectiveness using nominally equivalent explosive power."
  That makes a nonsense of the Government's claim that Trident is a minimum nuclear deterrent.
  How can the increase in nuclear firepower that will be available with Trident be reconciled with the commitment in article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty
  "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament."?
  In reality, Trident is a clear example of the proliferation of nuclear weapons and a violation of the non-proliferation treaty.
  Why should the 160 non-nuclear power states that have signed the NPT give the nuclear weapons states unlimited carte blanche to keep their nuclear weapons for ever, without being able to use any leverage to ensure that article 6 is implemented? Why do the British Government recognise in their defence estimates some of the emergent security challenges as a result of—and I quote from paragraph 204—the
  "spread of conventional arms and weapons of mass destruction and large-scale environmental threats"
  yet still involve themselves in the obscenity of the arms trade, promoting those very same weapons of mass destruction and threatening that very same environment?
  The Government are violating not only article 6 of the NPT, but article 1. I want to quote that short article, which states:
  "Each nuclear weapons state, party to the treaty, undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever"
  and I repeat, "any recipient whatsoever"—
  "nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly or indirectly."
  Yet Greenpeace rightly points out that about 30 per cent. of the Trident initial procurement costs are being spent in the USA and it lists five key areas where the USA has given direct assistance in the production of the Trident nuclear weapons system.
  That is not the only violation of article 1 of the NPT. The Sandia nuclear weapons research laboratory in the United States has designed aiming-fusing-firing mechanisms for all UK nuclear weapons—according to an admission by the vice-president of the laboratory, who was quoted in the American publication "Inside Energy" on 9 May. The Government policy on non-proliferation and the NPT is riddled with hypocrisy. It is a policy which demands of others, "Do as we say, not as we do."

  87
  The Government still see their role as wanting to rule the waves; they still see leadership in terms of military power. That is highlighted in their defence estimates when they proclaim:
  "The United Kingdom remains one of the world's most formidable military powers. Only the United States, Russia and France can deploy as broad a range of capabilities as the armed forces of the United Kingdom."
  Surely there are other ways of being world leaders, as Norway's leadership showed in acting as honest brokers between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That is my estimate of the leadership that we should seek to emulate. That is the world role that we should play, not one based on nuclear weapons and a defence expenditure of £23,000 million. It is role and a defence expenditure which I shall vote against.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: It is good to hear the unreconstructed voice of the Labour party all over again. I look forward to hearing the Opposition Front Bench responding to that. I am only sorry that the new Leader of the Opposition could not be here to give his response. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), I am delighted, unusually, to welcome the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I am delighted also that, in his words, no further defence cuts will be contemplated. I cannot speak for my friends in the armed forces, but I believe that they will be reassured by the comments of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State today.
  Stability is desperately needed. The successful defence costs study made by the former Minister of State for Defence Procurement, my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), largely identified sensible savings. My right hon. Friend deserves credit for his sympathetic handling and for the support and confidence of the armed forces that he gained during that study. It created great apprehension, but was generally accepted as worth while, and it produced a sensible and pragmatic result.
  I welcome the new Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). I should be grateful if he clarified one outstanding point from the defence costs study. What exactly will be the size of the Army after implementation and the current restructuring? I have read media reports of a British Army of 116,000, but I thought that it was to number 120,000. If the figure is 116,000, a further major reduction in manpower has slipped through and the troops reduced have not been reallocated to the front line as promised.
  Although I welcome the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend, restructuring of the armed forces is continuing, although nearly complete. New conditions, new units, new regiments and new commanders must be got used to, and we must allow the new structure to settle down to allow new members to believe in the value of a career in the armed forces, and to allow morale and new regimental identities to be established.
  For that reason, I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister two questions about stability. In the current public expenditure round, will any further reduction in
  88
  allocated defence spending be entailed? As my hon. Friend knows, defence spending has reduced from 5 per cent. of gross domestic product about six years ago to some 3 per cent. in the next financial year. That unique reduction is occurring in a declining security situation—as we have seen in the Gulf, Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia, northern Iraq and so on.
  My second question concerns the Bett review, which is causing great concern. According to an excellent document published by the Library last Friday, information about that review is hard to come by. Lord Carver, a former Chief of the Defence Staff, recently said of the review:
  "The effect on the morale of the services in every rank is potentially even greater and certainly more widespread than that of either 'Options for Change' or 'Front Line First'."
  The Bett review's terms of reference certainly give me no cause for comfort.
  There are rumours of buying in yet further services from the private sector, which is a dangerous route to follow. There is to be further examination of private sector practice, but the armed forces are not a smarter uniformed and more disciplined version of Tesco or of BT, of which Mr. Bett is a former deputy chairman.
  If the armed forces were driven solely by considerations of remuneration, nobody would join. It is one of the few professions from which one increases one's pay on becoming a Member of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that from personal experience.
  There is talk also of scrapping the boarding school allowance. Last month, I spoke to a friend whose son has attended nine different schools in 11 years because of my friend's moves and his wish not to send his son to boarding school. To say that life in the armed forces is the same as civilian life is ludicrous. The strains of service life will continue, as will the strains that it places on marriages and families. I know of excellent officers and soldiers who left the Army because of the strain on their marriages. The House must recognise the difference and the unique conditions under which members of our armed forces serve the country and the House.
  Above all, I draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister a point that I have made before. Of all our institutions—the monarchy, Parliament and the police—only the armed forces have retained the respect and affection of the British public. They deserve that respect. Recently, the police themselves issued a report noting that they enjoyed a 69 per cent. approval rating from the public but that the armed forces enjoyed 85 per cent.
  Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman expand on his comment about the monarchy?
  Mr. Robathan: That is not really worthy of the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, we are discussing the defence estimates. I am sure that he is capable, as I am, of reading the newspapers.
  Mr. Bett's review may be full of radical, clever and commercial ideas, but it has the potential to destroy the standards, traditions and structures of the armed forces that are the reason for the regard in which the armed forces are held at home and abroad. It is precisely old-fashioned ideas of loyalty and service in disloyal and selfish times, and of discipline in our ill-disciplined society, which are behind the high reputation enjoyed by the armed forces. We tinker with that at our peril. We

  89
  should put at risk the very institution that the whole House—possibly with the exception of those seated on the back row of the Opposition Benches—wishes to preserve.
  There is even talk of a one-rank structure. We are told that there is only one management structure in industry. If we do not offer decent careers to intelligent officers such as Sir Michael Rose—about whom my right hon. and learned Friend has spoken—we shall not attract intelligent officers such as him. Sir Michael is illustrative, but not unique. There are many highly intelligent, capable, well-educated and well-qualified people in the armed forces who serve willingly in present conditions for not great remuneration. I doubt whether they will be attracted by performance-related pay, single management structures or any other slick phrase better suited to a commercial organisation. I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister will comment.
  Earlier, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State spoke about the level of troops in Northern Ireland. If—as we all wish, and God willing—the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister succeeds and the present ceasefire leads to permanent peace, troop levels inevitably will be reduced. I urge the Government to reduce the extra troops taken out of the 11th and 12th Infantry battalions early in 1992. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to return those two battalions as soon as possible, so that current overstretch may be reduced this year, not next year. While the ceasefire lasts, I do not believe that we need to keep those troops in Northern Ireland, and we can always reinforce if necessary.
  Can my hon. Friend the Minister reassure the House that if Operation Banner ends altogether, the Government will not take the opportunity to reduce the Army still further? We have a tiny Army. I can imagine some bright civil servant—perhaps one sitting in the Box on my left—suggesting that those troops are no longer needed. That would be to miss the point. The situation has been overstretched 25 years. Northern Ireland was talked of in terms of emergency tours, extra to normal duties. I trust that peace will not be used as an opportunity to reduce the infantry or the Army yet further.
  I refer briefly to the future of RAF medium-support helicopters. My sole concern is to see the best helicopter available flying for British armed forces. A medium-support helicopter is exactly that—one that provides support, usually to the Army. I am keen to support British industry, but when I attended the Farnborough air show last month, the EH101 appeared small and limited by comparison with the Chinook. I have flown many miles in Chinooks, and I know it to be an exceptional aircraft. I understand that the EH101 is designed for naval use and may be converted for use by the RAF. Recently, I saw the updated Chinook in Philadelphia as a guest of Boeing, and it remains an exceptional aircraft. I understand that Boeing has offered a minimum of a 100 per cent. offset for British industry on an order of six helicopters. My pilot friends tell me that they favour the Chinook. All I ask is that I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the users of those aircraft before they make their decision.
  Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend raised a point about Mr. Bett. I did not wish to interrupt him when he was in full flow, but I can give him an absolute assurance that the work that Mr. Michael Bett is doing at the moment is
  90
  nothing like the work that my hon. Friend seems to believe that it would be. My hon. Friend must—I am sure that he will—give us the credit for not allowing any of the awful things that he surmises might happen to happen.
  It is a serious and fundamental review, which needs to take place to ensure the continuation of the very circumstances that my hon. Friend and I want and know that we must have, to ensure that we can get the quality of people to continue to enter the services. I assure my hon. Friend that I am fully confident that Mr. Bett will come forward with sensible and clear proposals, which are not a cost-cutting exercise, but a clear framework for the future.
  Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reassurance. I should say that most of the detail that I know about Mr. Bett comes from the Library document, which was issued last Friday, so I am afraid that my ignorance is based purely on research done here.
  I cannot resist turning to the Opposition parties' views. It is hardly worth considering the cuckoo ideas of the Liberal Democrats, particularly since none of them is here at the moment, but I can well remember my Liberal opponent in the previous election—the only election in which I fought—saying that she thought that there were far too few soldiers in the Army at the moment and that there needed to be more soldiers, to the bemusement and amusement of her audience.
  I refer now to Her Majesty's Opposition. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not currently in his place, but I have told him that I would mention this. He earlier spoke on the subject of Kuwait. He made some pretty dramatic comments about the fact that Britain had armed Iraq and that it was all Britain's fault that there was a problem in Iraq in the first place. I do not consider that the UK is guilty of causing all wars, as he appeared to. He certainly blamed the UK, and perhaps Mark Thatcher, for Saddam Hussein's military might. His chippy hatred of the UK's industrial success and military determination is matched only by his gross ignorance. I served in the Gulf and saw the weapons that were used against us. Iraq certainly had some French aircraft. It probably had German chemical weapons. I did not see them, but I suspect that it did have some UK weapons. But the vast bulk of Iraq's weapons were, and remain, of Soviet origin. The tanks were T54s, T62s and T72s. The small arms were AK47s and every other variant. The missiles, as even the most ignorant member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament would know, were Scuds—not manufactured in the UK.
  I should like to hear the hon. Member for Bolsover—and I hope that he will later speak on the matter—condemn Russia and the former Soviet Union for selling all those arms to Iraq, because that is what fuelled the war, not any actions by the UK. Indeed, by his comments earlier, I suggest that he damned not only his own country but the industrial work force, whom I so often hear Opposition Members say that they wish to keep in work.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Robathan: I am always willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman's erudite comments.
  Mr. Dalyell: Before the hon. Gentleman makes such statements, should he not read Timmerman's "How the West Armed Iraq" and, particularly, about how the French

  91
  Prime Minister Chirac took Saddam Hussein 70 miles out of his way to show him, boastfully, the latest nuclear development of weapons in Provence? So I do not think that countries other than Russia can escape responsibility.
  Mr. Robathan: I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments, but I hope that he noted and did not completely miss the point that the hon. Member for Bolsover condemned the United Kingdom for arming Iraq. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will find us particularly blameworthy or culpable in the matter.
  I welcome the position of the Government and look forward to reassurance on the points that I have made. I believe that the Government's statement today underlines the fact that the Conservative party is in deed and, as we always hoped, in reputation, the party of defence. I personally am very grateful for that.
  8.4 pm
  Ms Rachel Squire: When I spoke about Rosyth naval base in the debate on the Royal Navy in February this year, I told hon. Members that the base felt that it was in the front line, that it was targeted for closure and that the Treasury guns were poised in its direction. Unfortunately, that prediction has proved true. But before hon. Members switch off and feel that they have heard it all before, I urge them to consider the lessons that I think can be learnt from Rosyth's experience, to consider the deficiencies of the Government's defence policy and their implications for the security of the country as a whole. I wish to highlight the way in which Rosyth naval base has been dealt with and the fact that that has created not strength, but weakness; not stability, but instability; and not security, but insecurity.
  The first example of weakness is that concerning strategy, because there is a growing feeling among service personnel and the civilian work force that strategic and operational issues are secondary to Treasury demands. Where cuts fall can all too often be decided by personal bias and political interest.
  I see that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) is in his place. Certainly, when I visited Portland naval base, I got the clear impression that it felt that it was a victim of that approach. Having had the opportunity to go out on a Thursday war exercise at Portland, I seriously question why the Government decided to move operational sea training from what appeared to be such an excellent location. I know of other places that feel similarly aggrieved—for example, the stores at Exeter, the gunnery range at Kirkcudbright and, of course, Rosyth naval base.
  I quote now from the minutes of the Defence Select Committee of 19 May 1994, in which the Secretary of State for Defence commented on "Front Line First" and told the Committee:
  "I am very conscious of the fact that of course the whole purpose of support is to provide the necessary support for the front line and you cannot simply ignore one and pursue the other."
  Yet it seems that strategic and operational advantages of operating minehunters, mine-sweepers and operational offshore patrol vessels from an eastern naval base are being ignored and that they have both direct and indirect
  92
  implications, as has already been mentioned, for oil, gas, fishery protection and the unpredictability of the world climate that we now live in.
  I also highlight the fact that the base has been considered an ideal location for mine-sweeping training and that it is used for the joint maritime courses that have already been mentioned. Indeed, there was one in June, when the then commodore of minor war vessels at Rosyth said, in a local newspaper:
  "Today's Royal Navy has to be ready to respond anytime, anywhere, more often than not at the drop of a hat.
  "We still live in a world where turmoils can erupt quickly …
  "We should never necessarily regard ourselves as being any safer this year than we were last year, emphasising the need for courses such as this to be taking place on a regular basis."
  He is now serving as the command officer of HMS Cornwall, off the coast of Kuwait. His words were indeed prophetic.
  It is believed that the cuts that are proposed for Rosyth and elsewhere could weaken this country's extended readiness. It seems that there is a lack of substantial analysis of the strategic reasons for those cuts. Again, I quote from the sixth report of the Defence Select Committee, which says:
  "The sort of blind cut imposed by the Treasury axe on expenditure in 1996/97 and beyond does not inspire confidence in the Forces and elsewhere in the process of public expenditure control."
  My second example of weakness in the Government's defence policy relates to the whole costings and consultation exercise. There has been a lack of sound financial information, investigation and analysis in the defence costs study. I echo some of the points made by other hon. Members, and welcome the news from the Secretary of State that the consultation period will be flexible and that more information will be available; but—here again, I am picking up points made previously—the fact that information was not available, and proper consultation could not take place, during the summer recess is unacceptable.
  Let me again use Rosyth as an example. The consultation document concluded, apparently out of the blue,
  "major savings are only achievable through complete closure of centres of operation".
  But there was no reasoning or evidence to support such a statement; there was no acknowledgment of the substantial savings–40 per cent.—made by the naval base over the past two years, and no mention of the strong possibility that extra funds would be needed to implement the Government's recommendations and to deal with the fear already expressed by the naval base commanders for both Clyde and Portsmouth that they would not be ready for the transfer of resources and facilities to them by 1996.
  I feel that I should also mention the proposals for Pitreavie—which, as hon. Members will know, is currently the maritime headquarters for Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England and, indeed, the rescue co-ordination centre for the same areas. Only last year, Pitreavie was told that it would become a centre of rescue co-ordination for the whole United Kingdom; only in the last couple of years, £4 million has been spent on improving facilities there. We are now told, however, that it will effectively be closed, and that we in west Fife will be left with yet another unsightly hole in the ground—this time a reinforced concrete bunker, dealing with which could cost up to £2 million.

  93
  Nowhere does the defence costs study go into the real costs of transferring resources and dealing with redundancy, unemployment and the loss to the economy. That leads me to my third point about the weakness of policy, which concerns the treatment of people. A naval base, a gunnery range or a stores depot is not just some bit of land or stretch of water; it is an integral part of the local community. Yet it seems that the Government are ignoring a vital part of our country's defence—the people. They ignore the people's expertise, experience, commitment and loyalty. Increasingly, both service and civilian personnel are feeling undervalued, and their morale is low. That is certainly true of Rosyth, where people feel that five years of assurances and promises were simply broken by the Government.
  The Government maintain that they have no responsibility to assist communities or individuals harmed by their decisions to close bases and reduce expenditure. I contest that. Hon. Members have already pointed out that other Governments see the matter differently: indeed, the prime example of a market-led economy—the United States—takes a very different view in its treatment of communities affected by defence reductions and closures.
  As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) has said, we in Fife have seen an independent report by the Fraser of Allander institute suggesting that the closure of the naval base would lead to a loss of £71.8 million to the local economy and a total job loss of 7,010 over a five-year period ending in 1996. Yet the Government's response—particularly that of the Secretary of State for Scotland—has been to play down the economic impact that closure of the base would have on the local economy. The right hon. Gentleman has been equally unwilling to acknowledge the impact that the closure of the Kirkcudbright gunnery range, in his own constituency, would have: it is the largest employer in the area. Let me tell the Minister that the burden of the peace dividend should not be borne so heavily by those who have given most to the country's defence over the years.
  A fourth weak point is the Government's treatment of the defence industry. In paragraph 96 of its fifth report, the Select Committee states:
  "The United Kingdom industrial base is a strategic asset and must be safeguarded accordingly. We believe that it would be unwise to rely entirely on even our closest allies to provide surge capacity as they have their own priorities and their industry may wish to supply their own national forces first."
  Against that, however, we have the tragic loss of a valuable national asset like Swan Hunter; we face the full privatisation of the dockyards, and we hear detailed debate about the replacement of the Hercules.
  I assure the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) that I have read the Select Committee report on the replacement of the Hercules, and have taken a considerable interest in the arguments—admittedly, because I was given a particular personal interest by my valuable placement with British Aerospace as part of the Industry and Parliament Trust scheme. I have endeavoured to consider all the arguments for and against the replacement of the Hercules.
  It has been said that it is not possible to wait even for the results of the feasibility study on the future large aircraft. If the position is that desperate, it demonstrates
  94
  the Government's failure to place orders for replacement military aircraft in sufficient time, and the weakness of their support for a key part of our defence base.
  Mr. Mans: Given her remarks about her party's support for defence industries in the past, perhaps the hon. Lady would like to explain why we are in our present position in regard to the replacement of the Hercules. A former Labour Government virtually destroyed the aviation industry overnight when they came to power in 1964 by cancelling all three of the major aviation projects that were in progress at the time.
  Ms Squire: I was not a Member of Parliament then, but I have certainly taken an interest in the lessons that can be learnt throughout the House about the timing and nature of key decisions on the defence industry and the need for equipment.
  I hope that I have illustrated what I consider to be some of the weaknesses in the Government's current defence policy, and my concern about their continued refusal to carry out a strategic defence review rather than a succession of defence cuts. There has been widespread comment on that. Like the hon. Member for Upminster, I have read the House of Commons Library's review of previous defence reviews and their shortcomings. There is a widespread view, not just across the House, but in military and academic circles, that a full review of our defence objectives for the 21st century is needed.
  I recommend to hon. Members a very good book that I read over the summer recess containing a series of articles by Lord Carver, among others. It considered what the options for Britain's defence policy in the 21st century should be. It is not only Opposition Members who are saying that now is the right time for a full review. I would not pretend that that would be an easy task or that it would not raise difficult and complex issues such as Britain's future role in world affairs and the future development of NATO, a common security and foreign policy and "Partnership for Peace". The Government must accept, however, that there is a real need for such a strategic review and that it is all too easy to try to eliminate the unnecessary and instead start eliminating the essential. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members who are serious about a strong defence will argue for a delay in the implementation of the decisions or recommendations of the defence costs study until such a review has been conducted and until the Government have accepted a greater responsibility for managing change, as that affects both communities and industries.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Robert Hicks: I understand the reasons for many of the views of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on her region and on Rosyth in particular. Hon. Members will find that many of them will be reflected in my remarks.
  With the end of the cold war and the collapse of the Berlin wall, 40 years of relative stability, particularly in Europe, have been replaced, ironically, by uncertainty and unpredictability. Undoubtedly, the removal of east-west tensions has been beneficial for the international community. There are, however, adverse consequences. Many of those have been referred to this afternoon. For a variety of reasons, they have manifested themselves in the

  95
  break-up of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia and the resultant upsets and decisions, all of which have led to uncertainty and destabilisation.
  I believe, therefore, that it was right that the Government, as a global power, should address themselves to the new circumstances. No one ever thought that that would be an easy task. Balancing our potential national and international commitments with our capabilities and the financial resources available has never been straightforward, as any hon. Member who has had any experience of Government will know. However, given the combination of greater uncertainty about our potential responsibilities and the financial restraints, it is probably more difficult to secure those objectives today than before.
  It has meant in practice that both our armed forces and the essential back-up facilities and requirements have been subjected to considerable change. Here, I, too, pay tribute to all those men, women and their families who have been involved or affected in some way by the major changes in recent years. It has not been an easy period for any of them.
  I wish to concentrate my remarks on the impact of the changes—both already implemented and proposed—on the Royal Navy and the Plymouth travel-to-work area. As hon. Members will know, Plymouth is a major garrison city. It has an Army presence, the Royal Marines, a royal naval base and the associated Devonport dockyard. The south-west is the most dependent of all United Kingdom regions on defence and defence-related economic activities. Since the mid-1980s, the region has lost thousands of jobs as a result of defence and defence-related cuts. The level of job loss is equivalent to about one third of the number of people currently unemployed in Devon and Cornwall.
  Equally frightening is the fact that those stark job losses have meant a loss of spending power in our regional economy. The accumulated loss of income to our economy in the far south-west since the 1980s through defence changes is estimated to be in excess of £500 million. If that in itself is not enough for our fragile south-west economy to take, we now have the unwelcome prospect of a further loss of 800 jobs in royal naval stores and supplies—mainly at Devonport, but also in Exeter and Wrangaton—the proposed relocation of the Royal Marines from Plymouth, and continuing anxieties created by uncertainty over the work load level at Devonport dockyard in the next five years before the Trident refit programme takes effect.
  It worries me that uncertainty still exists, despite the review and the various papers that have already been produced. Only this morning, I was informed that the Royal Navy's south-west communications nerve centre in Plymouth was likely to close within the next three or four years. That would have an adverse affect on the naval base and would mean a further loss of 100 service and civilian jobs.
  I do not claim to be a defence expert. All I can do is evaluate the adverse effects that all those changes have had and will have on the Plymouth travel-to-work area, of which my constituency forms part. Hon. Members will agree that all this change has been both extensive and detrimental to our sub-regional economy. The local population can be forgiven for taking the view that the
  96
  changes that have been implemented by the Ministry of Defence, and which are probably Treasury driven, will inevitably be introduced in an isolated fashion, without regard to the net economic cost to the sub-region or their overall economic and social impact.
  We all know that one of the problems facing this country is that our structure of government is very much vertically orientated. Every year, Departments apply to the Treasury for their budget for the following year. It is all done in a vertical manner and in isolation. It is only when various effects are manifest at the local level—or horizontally—that we recognise the full impact of any changes.
  The Ministry of Defence's changes worry me. Plymouth is a major garrison town and will be affected significantly, but the full social and economic implications of the changes will not be recognised or taken into consideration until their adverse impact is felt, when it is, in effect, too late for any of us on the ground to rectify it.
  It is even more galling to Devon and Cornwall to know that our cost-of-living index is some 8 per cent. above the United Kingdom average and that our gross domestic product is just 83 per cent. of that for the United Kingdom as a whole but that the Government's response to our structural economic difficulties, as manifested by the changes in our defence expenditure and requirements, is such that the budgeted expenditure of key Government agencies for Devon and Cornwall is just £51 million in the current financial year, whereas Scotland and Wales, which have similar structural economic difficulties, are allocated £530 million and £187 million respectively.
  I conclude by emphasising to the Ministry of Defence team that the economy of the south-west is undoubtedly becoming increasingly fragile because of the rundown of defence and defence-related activities. It will be difficult for my region to absorb the proposed reductions that I have highlighted unless the Government make available appropriate financial support to offset the adverse effects. Unless I receive assurances from Ministers either that the further reductions in defence expenditure and facilities in the region are to be halted or that appropriate financial measures are to be introduced to offset the proposed reductions, my support for the Government tomorrow evening cannot be taken for granted. I do not say that lightly, but, having represented my constituency for the past 24 years, I am not prepared to tolerate this further blow to our regional economy as a direct consequence of decisions taken by my Government.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) made a powerful and brave speech on behalf of his constituents. He has drawn the House's attention to the difficulties caused for communities that rely on defence-related employment when that employment is taken away. I shall take up that theme on behalf of my constituents, the people of Tyneside who rely—or relied—on Swan Hunter as the main pillar of our community's employment base.
  When Swan Hunter was privatised by the Government in the mid-1980s, it was as a warship building yard. It was asked not to undertake merchant work and although it did do so—three small merchant orders, I believe—it was effectively wholly reliant on warship building. As

  97
  only Governments purchase warships, it was overwhelmingly reliant on the Ministry of Defence as its main customer.
  Swan Hunter went into receivership in May 1993. It has staggered by for more than a year in the receivership of Price Waterhouse, completing three type 23 frigates for the Royal Navy. That work was completed to price and on time and was of excellent quality, despite the appalling circumstances.
  I remind the House of the significance of Swan Hunter to the community that I represent. Prior to the yard going into receivership, its direct wages bill was more than £1 million a week and that money went into the local economy. More than 3,000 people could look to Swan Hunter for direct employment and a similar number could expect to be employed regularly working for sub-contractors—I dare say that a further two thirds of a million pounds a week poured into Tyneside's shipbuilding and ship repairing community through the weekly wage bills of those sub-contractors. In other words, Swan Hunter was an enormously important pillar of various local economies, especially those of east Newcastle, Wallsend, Jarrow and South Shields. All that has gone.
  Theoretically, it would be possible to save the yard even at this very late hour, but that is unlikely to happen. At the end of the month, the very last type 23 frigate will leave for its sea trials and will not return to Tyneside. The remaining work force who are ensuring that the last ship is a credit to our community and to more than 100 years of shipbuilding tradition on Tyneside know that their contracts of employment will come to an end. Only security men will be left on the site, although a large part of it has already been sold to much smaller ship repair companies.
  What has happened to Swan Hunter is a disaster for the community that I represent. It is a disaster not only for the people who work there but for those who relied on Swan Hunter's wages coming into the local economy. Swan Hunter's very existence maintained the economy of the community that I represent. To take it all away—and to do so this quickly—is not just a misfortune but a disaster.
  There are things that the Government could do. The first and most obvious thing that they could have done was to enable us to carry out the helicopter carrier order rather than to place it elsewhere in Barrow and Govan. The argument has moved on and there is no going back, but there were other things that the Government could have done. They could have allowed the yard to reduce the number of employees but to survive; they could have placed the Sir Bedivere contract—a much smaller order—with Swan Hunter. The placing of that order with Swan Hunter would have triggered a bid for the yard by CMN, a foreign company. It believed that it could obtain work from overseas. In other words, it would not have taken work from other domestic shipyards, but would have still brought work to the Tyne. That would have provided a private-sector solution to Swan Hunter's problem, but the Government chose not to facilitate such a solution. When the Sir Bedivere was not placed at Swan Hunter, I thought in my heart that the battle for Swans was over.
  CMN, however, came back with a further prospect of saving the yard. I was surprised that it did so, but all credit to it for trying and also all credit to the receivers, Price
  98
  Waterhouse, for doing everything that could be done to try to sell the yard as a going concern. I am not critical of CMN and I am not critical of the receivers.
  I am, however, critical of the British Government. I think that the Government could have saved Swan Hunter if they had wanted to do so. They could have saved it by placing the Sir Bedivere in the yard. Even after that, they could have saved it by meeting CMN's request to undertake the frigate contract. The negotiations broke down because of a disagreement over price. The sum involved is about one third of a million pounds—that is the size of the money that was being haggled over on a contract of about £54 million. In the circumstances, I thought that the Government could have done something for the people of Tyneside. It would be the cheapest possible way in which to underpin the remaining employment at the yard, which involved about 1,000 people earlier this summer. Of course, the figure will go down to nothing by Christmas.
  The Government were unwilling to do something and one is left to conclude that the Government wanted the yard to be closed. Certainly, the rest of the British warship building industry wanted to see Swan Hunter closed, partly because it regarded it as competition and partly because it believed that there was overcapacity in the industry and that this was an opportunity to get rid of some of that capacity permanently. This is a very hard way to do it.
  The misery that will be inflicted on the community that I represent and on the communities of neighbouring constituencies will take an enormous effort to pull round. We are talking about male unemployment levels in communities such as Walker and Wallsend of more than 40 per cent. once the redundancy rounds are finally driven home. There is no alternative work. What about the rest of the employment base to which skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled manual labour might have looked on Tyneside? NEI Parsons, a large engineering works just down the road, is the second largest private sector employer. It has just made a third of its manual work force redundant. The announcement came only three or four weeks ago. A further 600 people were made redundant in a community who had looked to the shipbuilding industry for employment.
  The offshore oil industry is, as we all understand, cyclical and it is in a trough rather than at a peak at the moment, so employment levels at AMEC are very low. People who might have hoped to be taken on in neighbouring shipyards and who were even prepared to travel to Sunderland to work in the Sunderland shipyards cannot do so because the Government and their urban development corporation have already ensured that every single shipyard on the River Wear is closed. Perhaps one could look to the other great traditional employer in the north-east of England, the mining industry. Employment in the mines of Durham and Northumberland is there no more. This is an enormous, cumulative amount of unemployment for our community to have to absorb all at once, or at least in a very short time. We cannot do it.
  We are now in a desperate strait. Things are so bad that there is no private sector solution that would help us through the problem. The only short-term solutions are public sector solutions or at least public sector-led solutions, so we have to ask the Government for help. We know that we shall not get it. The enterprise zone that was promised in May 1993 is still under discussion. It has not

  99
  appeared and its failure to appear is not only preventing new inward investment, but balking inward investment that might come to Tyneside anyway, because anyone who is thinking of locating on Tyneside will wait to see where the economically privileged area is before coming.
  I was pleased to hear the announcement today about the new jobs for Cleveland and I was pleased for the people of Teesside. But that will not alleviate poverty and unemployment on Tyneside. The people of Teesside have their own difficulties and good luck to them with today's announcement. However, it will not help us and no one should pretend that it will. We need Government assistance. We need public sector investment, perhaps a local public project, as a matter of urgency and we need a competent economic development body for our area which can actually spend what little money there is wisely.
  We do not need the uselessness of the urban development corporation on Tyneside. Throughout the whole Swan Hunter saga, it has at every episode made the wrong decision at the wrong time. It backed the wrong bids and refused to support the right ones. It failed to make the representations to Government that it should have made and it has made separate representations to Government that, frankly, no one else supports.
  I say to the Minister on behalf of the community whom I represent that the people of Tyneside think that his Department has treated us scabrously. We feel that we have been let down and betrayed. People were willing to work their hearts out at the time of the Falklands war. Shipyard workers even went to sea as civilians with the task force as it sailed south to do their bit for what they took to be their country's cause. They were not made redundant, of course, until they came back. We have had more than 100 years' tradition of supplying the Royal Navy with first-class vessels. The people of Tyneside have not let their country down, but now their country is letting them down.
  At the Conservative party conference, Conservative speakers said that the Conservative party was the party of the Union and the party of the whole country. I tell Ministers that that is not how it is seen on Tyneside. On Tyneside, people believe that the Conservative party is the party of special interests and special privileges and, increasingly, the party of the south of England, and of the suburban home counties of the south of England at that. If the Minister wants to disprove some of that, he can make an effective statement tomorrow night doing something useful for the people of Tyneside.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I have a great deal of sympathy for the heart-felt speech, with its plea, by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). It is heartrending, of course, to think of all the communities who are affected by the big changes. Just the other day, my own newspaper had the headline:
  "South Dorset to lose 4,500 jobs."
  That is the number of jobs that the University of Portsmouth estimates will be lost through defence closures in my community over the next nine years. That seems like a reasonable number of people until one considers the total labour force in the area, which is only
  100
  about 20,000. The figure of 4,500 people out of 20,000 puts into context the real concern that communities clearly have.
  If we get too despondent and avoid realising that positive things are happening, we may start to take the wrong decisions. I may give a few points to the Government before, probably, kicking them somewhere painful a little later in my speech. In South Dorset, there has certainly been a strategy for change. Since January, our unemployment has come down month by month. That is a result of the Government's decision to give Konver money, to give intermediate assisted-area status and to give rural development status. Indeed, the Government bid in Europe for money for roads and other things. Unfortunately, the Commissioner in Brussels, whose name escapes me at the moment—I think that he used to be a Labour Member of Parliament—decided to turn us down and to turn the Government down. We have the strategy there.
  We hear so much from the Labour party about a defence conversion agency. I notice a colleague who was on the Employment Select Committee with me when we looked, on an all-party basis, at how communities should deal with the conversion from high-technology industries, such as defence, and how they should re-create the jobs. What was clear, and was common ground, was that the Government had a role in that, but that the role was in providing finance, as I have just described, to a local defence conversion agency. We have that in South Dorset. It is called the South Dorset economic partnership. As soon as I knew those problems were coming up, I had a meeting with the chairman of the local training and enterprise council. He immediately went into action and talked to all the local authorities and got the full backing of all the political parties to set up that partnership. So we have a group of people out there, demonstrating that South Dorset is the place to come to establish new jobs and to build. Certainly in the south-west, I know that every area that has such problems has set up some sort of defence conversion agency.
  If the Labour party does not think that those agencies are doing the job right, please tell us. However, Labour councillors are, in the main, very much pushing the agencies forward, supporting them 100 per cent. and certainly not criticising them and the way in which they work. It would be helpful if the Front-Bench spokesmen of the Labour party told people what they mean by a defence conversion agency, because I believe that it is exactly the sort of body that we have set up.
  I thought that I would have to berate the Minister for my not having received the consultation paper and, indeed, for not being given any time for consultation of the proposed closure of the air station. In fact, as I rushed into the House today, I found precisely that paper in my pigeonhole. Unfortunately, one of the pages was missing. I felt a little like the Front-Bench spokesman for the Labour party, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) must have felt when he was making his speech. We all know that he left the page behind on which there were any policies on what the Labour party would do for the defence of this nation. In fact, I now have the full copy and I have done something with the figures which I was given on a single sheet of A4 paper. The Minister will see that I have blown them up to four times the size so one can just about read the figures. But I have to tell the Minister that, unfortunately, the detail in the report is

  101
  not sufficient for us in South Dorset to make any positive contribution to that particular consultation exercise. I shall be talking to him in the very near future about greater detail so that we can see what is happening.
  I know that the Minister will be told by all his staff that any time he makes a cut in anybody's back yard, the hon. Member concerned will come down on him and say that he cannot cut here, he cannot cut there; it is all Treasury driven. I am a rather strange guy. I believe, being an old works study guy, that one makes savings only when one goes to the guy at the top of the organisation and says "Look, here is a financial target. I will cut your figure, because the country cannot afford it. You now have to come back with the best deal possible for the taxpayer and get the best bang for our buck".
  We are really disappointed in South Dorset, despite our trying to save the MOD money, about the way in which the MOD constantly comes forwards with schemes that are in the next four or five years to cost a vast amount of money, to be paid for by the very same taxpayer whom we are trying to assist. The latest proposals for the air station mean a capital expenditure of something ike £38 million. Of course, that is nothing to the £600 million that is currently being spent on building a new sea systems control and procurement executive headquarters north of Bristol; nor is it when compared to the £100 or £200 million that the Defence Research Agency is getting for remodelling itself. Indeed, it is nothing to the £40 million currently being spent in Plymouth to re-create facilities.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) who mentioned how excellent the flag officer sea training facilities were at Portland. I congratulate her doubly, because my constituents have constantly tried to bat on behalf of her constituents and it is the first time that I have heard somebody in the Labour party come forward and make such a positive statement. I have invited the Front-Bench spokesmen on many occasions to do that, only to hear that they would reinstate the facilities or stop the closure. I am afraid that they are very good at rhetoric, but not good at putting their hands in their pockets for the defence budget.
  I shall briefly touch on the case that has been put forward for the air station. The 4,500 jobs that are likely to be lost from our economy have just been mentioned. That figure is really a loss of roughly 3,000 direct jobs and a 1,500 knock-on effect. My hon. Friend the Minister could, in a stroke, halve the problems of South Dorset by looking carefully at what is being suggested. I find difficulty in following the logic of the argument because I have known for a very long time that the air station would probably close in 2007, unless we could find another aircraft to base there. The document outlining the case is strange because it talks of keeping the Lynx helicopter going for another 25 years. I am not quite sure when the Lynx helicopter was first built, but from design stage, we are talking of a design and use life of around 50 years on the basis of the document. My understanding is that with its useful life and with the replacement of the Merlin helicopter coming forward and being designed on to our ships that the Lynx would be knocked out by 2007. Therefore, it is strange to see costings of 10 years and 25 years for that helicopter.
  When I blew up the figures, another interesting factor was to find that the annual cost of maintenance of the air station would be £4·5 million. I do not know where that figure has come from. Ii has been spirited out of the air
  102
  as far as I can see. Certainly it was never mentioned when we previously considered the detailed figures involved in moving all the facilities on the air station when we closed the naval base.
  In the staff costs, figures have appeared like magic. It costs £33 million to staff and run all the helicopters. The idea is not to reduce the number of helicopters, but, by magic, to move them from Portland, which is a purpose-built, single-type air station and shove them into Yeovilton. The staffing costs would then go down, it is said, from £33 million to £20 million. That is magic, it is wonderful. If we can do it, why not do it at Portland? It does not seem to be sensible. I certainly know that if we put everybody inside one fence, we may well save on a lot of guarding costs. But let us hope that in the not-too-distant future, guarding of bases can be reduced a great deal because of the peace which seems to be breaking out in Northern Ireland. Certainly, in the next five years, we should take that into account.
  Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the past, when attempts have been made to shoe-box units into larger units, whereas the actual costs of the move can be worked out in comparison to what would happen if they remained where they were, the estimated costs of what would happen when they were moved to the new base are normally under-estimated and, indeed, in the long run, there is not a saving at all?
  Mr. Bruce: That is partially true, but my hon. Friend is being rather too kind to the Government, or perhaps I am being unfair to the Government. Perhaps I should say that we are too kind to the MOD about the estimates that it gives to Ministers, because invariably rebuilding costs are roughly double those in any estimates. The financial overrun on the rebuilding of the MOD's main building is equivalent to all the money that will be saved within the next 20 years by moving facilities out of my constituency. We must look carefully at what is happening.
  All too often, we have been told that a stand-alone air station at Portland would be too small. It was not always a stand-alone station because it used to have a naval base next to it, but such is the logic that the MOD applies. We may be told that the tiny air station at Portland cannot stand alone, but that "tiny" air station employs 1,600 people. If those 1,600 people cannot cope as a stand-alone unit, there is no hope for any air station or air base.
  If one uses the MOD's logic, one would end up putting all the MOD office blocks and all the facilities for air stations somewhere in the middle of the country—no doubt we would have to dig a canal as well to fit in all the ships—behind the same perimeter fence in order to save money. If one can save money by reducing staffing costs from £33 million to £20 million, the same savings should be made on everything.
  A lot of time should be spent studying the proposal to close the air station. After all, we have five years before the plan is supposed to be put into operation, so I hope that the Minister can assure me that the proposal will be considered in great detail. We have lots of Portland stone down on Portland and very nice places for statues. I can think of nothing better than erecting a statue of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to commemorate him as the man who saved the naval air station in Portland by looking to save money for the Navy rather than spending it.
  9 pm
  Mr. Ken Eastham: I appreciate the importance of this debate on the defence estimates and their importance to the nation. We spend £23.5 billion on defence and the nation would not be happy if we did not spend that money wisely. I was a little depressed by one or two hon. Members who seemed to boast about how much more we spend on defence in comparison with other countries, because we should spend just the adequate amount to do the job. We should remind ourselves that whatever we spend on defence means that less is spent on education, housing, pensions and other services that enhance the general quality of life. We must therefore spend money on defence wisely and efficiently.
  It is my firm belief that when we spend money on defence we should, wherever possible, spend it on our own industries. I get depressed when I hear about defence contracts going abroad, particularly when they could easily be awarded in Britain. That would naturally improve our balance of payments.
  We all recognise that, in a changing world, it is inevitable and only right that spending on defence should be reduced. My only criticism, as I have said before, is that I do not believe that we have been earnest enough about diversification. If we used our talents wisely, there would be numerous spin-offs. Let us remind ourselves that we have skilled people who are already trained and who have already cost the nation a fantastic amount of money. I fervently believe that the Government should give those people a higher priority.
  I share the sadness of my colleagues who have described the downturn in the shipyards. What has happened to our northern shipyards is an utter disgrace. They do not deserve such treatment, not least because the Government's actions do not match the philosophy that is supposed to guide their proposed changes in defence spending. Ministers boast about the motivation and quality of our work force, but I find it baffling that we do not win orders against competitors. As a result of some of the shipyard closures, some of our highly skilled ship designers have transferred to foreign yards to complete work.
  I am a member of the Select Committee on Employment and a few months ago I visited Finland. It is not a large country and it has a population of between 7 million and 8 million. When we visited the Helsinki shipyard it was bustling along with plenty of orders for naval work, foreign work and cruise ships. Even that very week those at the shipyard informed us that it had completed a 70,000-tonne vessel, worth $300 million, which was to sail out to America seven days later. I cannot understand how a small country like Finland can win such orders when our country, with its highly skilled and motivated work force, about whom the Government like to boast, cannot. I shall let that matter ride as the evidence is there for all to see.
  There is talk about the possible replacement of the Hercules transport plane. That would be the last major contract for the aerospace industry in Britain. The Minister will be aware that I have tabled an early-day motion about the matter. In the three weeks before the summer break, 160 hon. Members from all parties
  104
  supported the thrust of my early-day motion which calls for support for the future large aircraft to be placed with British industry.
  I am grateful for the two very good letters that I received from Ministers over the recess. However, just before the recess, I tabled a parliamentary question asking how many civil servants had travelled to Lockheed in America this year, and I am still waiting for a reply. I thought that I would receive a reply to that question within a few days, but I have not been told how many civil servants have travelled to America to talk to Lockheed about the contract in which I am very interested on behalf of British industry. After my comments today, and three months after I tabled that question, I might receive an answer in the next two or three days. However, this smells a little and I feel uncomfortable. Anyone would feel uncomfortable if they had received such treatment.
  I am not criticising Lockheed and the Americans for their endeavours and the enthusiasm that they will exert to secure the contract. I recognise the validity and the importance that they place on securing a contract which is worth £12.5 billion. A Conservative Member said earlier that he went to Boeing to look at helicopters. I understand why he was invited to see helicopters at Boeing. It costs American firms who are in competition with us petty cash to invite Members of Parliament or civil servants to their companies.
  We should ask why those American firms are doing that. Why are the Americans so enthusiastic? I recognise their enthusiasm, but we must be aware of what is happening to our industries in respect of which we hear stories of closures and massive job losses.
  The FLA will be the prize. Some 7,500 jobs are involved. If people lose their jobs, and it costs £9,000 per person a year in unemployment pay, that is a big payroll which must be met by the Department of Social Security. In its big sell, Lockheed is claiming that 3,000 jobs will be created in Britain if it gets the contract. That is questionable. However, it is clear that if Lockheed wins the contract, there will be no Rolls-Royce engines.
  Mr. Hargreaves: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the engine management systems will be made in this country by Lucas Aerospace in my constituency and that that will secure employment for probably 1,700 people?
  Mr. Eastham: I am thrilled for the hon. Gentleman. There may be some 1,700 jobs in his area, but many thousands of people in other areas will not get jobs because of it. We must remember that.
  It is obvious that the engines and the major part of the fuselages will not be built in Britain. I must remind the House that when we decided to discontinue Nimrod some years ago, we opted for AWACS—the airborne warning and communication system. When the Americans obtained that contract, we heard many assurances. We were told that there would be spin-off jobs if the Americans obtained the contract. My inquiries revealed that very few jobs were secured as a result of the AWACS contract going to America. I prophesy that the same will happen again. I understand the enthusiasm, as I have said. I just wish that there was such enthusiasm among our industrialists and the Government to make sure that we can compete on a level playing field.

  105
  Only six weeks ago, we saw great dishonesty with regard to Lockheed. There was talk about money and bribes being offered to other nationals to secure work. That is not on when it comes to honest competition. We have to be extremely cautious about how we conduct business.
  The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) said that the Government were doing this, that and the other with regard to training, as though that were enough to solve the diversification problem. We have got it wrong; we should spend far more money—real money. Only two months ago, the Germans put aside 1.2 billion deutschmarks for aerospace research and development. That is the amount that we should spend. If we want to diversify, it is no good simply saying that we want to train some aero fitters and turners. The Government have to put up money for research so that we can secure contracts and develop modern technology to enable us to be highly competitive.
  We must face the fact that the future large aircraft is the big one for our aerospace industry. Obviously, if we do not join the European countries that were involved in, say, the Airbus, the Germans and French will not buy a Lockheed; they will go it alone. We could combine with the Germans and the French, as we did with the Airbus, and provide a successful future for us all. We cannot stand in isolation in Europe. We must recognise the importance of a European partnership. This is an ideal one for us.
  I have said before that one of our major problems is that we do not have a planning strategy. I remind the House that we no longer have a major British-owned car industry, major shipbuilders or a major computer industry. It is possible that by 2010 we will no longer have a major aerospace industry.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Parliament's job, as we are constantly reminded, is not to run the country but to scrutinise those who do and to call them to account for what they do. Control of the budget, through votes such as the one on the defence estimates, is the mechanism by which we, as the elected representatives of our constituencies, can exercise that power. Tonight, the House must weigh up the balance of a package of good things and bad in assessing the impact of the "Front Line First" study, upon which the defence estimates are constructed.
  On the one hand, of course, the study provides for some very good things, such as the replacement amphibious ships for Intrepid and Fearless and for the new helicopter assault ship, and the Trafalgar class submarines and the four new type 23s. People in Newcastle and Leeds will be much pleased by the order for 259 Challenger 2 tanks. On the other hand, however, as the Ministry of Defence admits, by the year 2000, 18,700 people will lose their jobs as a result of "Front Line First". That is more like 22,000 when one takes into account the number of temporary and part-time contracts. In my constituency, the Ministry of Defence forecasts 348 job losses at a depot where 570 people work at present. The forecast is based on complete closure, so the figure should be inflated.
  It is less than one year since the defence costs studies were put in hand by the Secretary of State. The question therefore is whether the "Front Line First" study came first. After all, before that study, there was "Options For Change" in 1990, which reduced the number in the front
  106
  line. It reduced the number of frigates from 44 to 35, the number of conventional submarines from 10 to nil and the number of mine counter-measures ships from 38 to 24. The number of infantry battalions was slashed painfully from 55 to 40, and manpower in the armed forces was reduced overall by 18 per cent.
  If, as I have been told privately by Ministers, some 70 per cent. of naval spares are never used, why was not that area exposed first for cost savings, rather than coming to light only when the most stringent reductions are forced on the Royal Navy? I will happily give way to one of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench if they will answer that question.
  I must say immediately that I am a great supporter of the Royal Navy. Its great strength is that it can be poised on the verge of conflict, as well as committed, and can cover its withdrawal. It is an efficient, flexible and effective arm of diplomacy. I want the Navy to have the best equipment and a fleet size that makes it a serious player in international relationships. I welcome therefore the new ships and missiles that have been announced as part of the package.
  To go with that, my constituents and I want the Navy to have the best back-up, and that is where we part company with what the Government are seeking to do by asking us to endorse "Front Line First". In Stockton, South we have the most advanced Royal Navy spares depot in the country. It was purpose-built in 1949 to hold the national stockpile of marine engineering equipment. It is in Eaglescliffe because it is halfway between Rosyth and the south coast ports, and it is close to the main engineering parts suppliers in the north of England. To quote from the consultation document, which was finally sent to us five weeks into the 12-week consultation period,
  "it has been concluded that this role could in future be provided at lower cost by means of limited localised stock holdings adjacent to the waterfront."
  The four-page document does not set out how that conclusion was reached; nor does it consider any of Eaglescliffe's particular merits as a leading contender for the central stockholding facility envisaged by the study. As the Select Committee on Defence recently found,
  "there is continuing concern about the proposed changes in naval stores, and we intend to take oral evidence on the subject in the near future."
  Likewise, the four-page document makes no mention whatever of the operational requirements of the Royal Navy; it simply notes a possible saving of £50 million over the next 10 years. To put it in context, that is one-sixteenth of the £800 million overspend on the Trident base at Faslane—a 72 per cent. cost overrun. That shows the efficiency of some people with regard to organising budgets.
  Let us examine the position a little more carefully. The loyalty of the civilian staff at Eaglescliffe to the Navy is unquestionable. They have the lowest recruitment and retention problems in the MOD. They were praised for their unstinting efforts during the Falklands and Gulf campaigns. The depot is not a collection of old sheds, as at some other spares depots. The stores have recently been completely refurbished at a cost of nearly £5 million. The depot has a purpose-built, air-conditioned computer suite, from which the computers have now been taken away and put in a 1960s prefabricated hut at Endsleigh. It has a new office block. It has a new gatehouse and new gatehouse

  107
  entrance. It has a new surgery. Recently, improvements have been made to the boilerhouse. It has a new RIDELS and REDAC computer network in all the offices. It has new information technology furniture. It also has recently set up a highly successful and dedicated market testing preparation team.
  So when the trade unions asked management what the costs of all these things were in April, the Ministry of Defence sent a one-line letter declining to answer them. When the management were pressed during the consultation period, they finally came out with several figures which added up to £6.7 million. Similarly, when Stockton borough council wrote to all Navy captains asking them for their opinion on the quality of the service offered by Eaglescliffe in my constituency, an order was sent from the Navy command to those captains saying that their answers should be "polite but non-committal".
  Similarly, the four-side consultation document does not explain how the Navy's spares are collected and delivered, their usage rate, the percentage that are used at the base port or the average length of time spent in the base ports by our ships. Devonport, which has already received a mention from my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), home of half the surface fleet and the refit centre for Trident submarines, is having its Navy spares depot reduced in size. That seems rather at odds with the general thrust of the study as a whole. Portsmouth becomes the new central depot, although it will not be a refit centre.
  As we know, Rosyth has been promised half the refit work. All the submarine refits will take place at Devonport and the rest will go to private yards. How long do these ships spend in the base port these days? When I did my secondment to the Royal Navy with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I found that ships' commitments had increased so substantially that crews were being trickle-posted to them on deployment along with spares. Under the harmony objectives, at least 40 per cent. of time should be spent at the base port. Yet between May 1992 and March 1995, the Defence Select Committee has found that several ships have breached the harmony principles in more than one category. HMS Invincible, for instance, has breached all three categories. Five other ships—Active, Chatham, Newcastle, Campbeltown and Cardiff—are also known to have breached the principles. The Defence Select Committee commented:
  "It is a shocking comment on the extent to which the Navy's resources are stretched that even the Navy's relatively unambitious welfare targets are being constantly breached."
  So what is the position? Crews and spares are being sent out all over the world on deployment, as I discovered when I visited HMS Cumberland and found it picking up spares at Tampa Bay in Florida. Therefore, the spares are being freighted, presumably from Brize Norton but also commercially from Teesside airport, to pick-up points around the globe. Ships are spending so little time in base ports that even the First Sea Lord is complaining about the number of commitments for Navy ships.
  Why, then, should Portsmouth be any better than Eaglescliffe as the national stockpile of marine spares? Eaglescliffe has better air, road and rail links and a proven track record as a centre of excellence. It has achieved BS5750—the only depot to do so—in its packaging
  108
  facility. It has been praised by the National Audit Office—the only depot to be so—for saving the Navy money. My constituents contend that it would be crazy and far from cost-effective to break up this centre of excellence, the best depot in the Navy, and move it to Portsmouth.
  In his introduction to "Front Line First", the Secretary of State says that one of his two objectives is to
  "spend every pound as efficiently as possible to minimise the overall burden to the public."
  So my second big question to the Minister is why not carry out the rationalisation of the depots by way of a straight competition between them and keep the best one? I will happily give way to him right now if he will tell me the answer to that question.
  Lastly, I want to make a point about the way in which the whole exercise has been carried out. The Government are making the right decisions—sorry. Government is about making the right decisions for the country. [Laughter.] That is what it is about. Politics is about the difference between the perception and the reality of Government decisions. As we live in a parliamentary democracy, our Ministers must not only make the right decisions but be able to demonstrate to the public that that is what they are doing. Their credibility in the northern region is at a low ebb after recent events at Swan Hunter and the Government's failure to relocate the quality assurance unit from Woolwich to Stockton. Both decisions may be easily comprehensible, but they are not well understood in the north of England.
  In a statement to the House on 14 July the Secretary of State promised three months' consultation. However, the consultation papers were not sent out until 19 August. For Eaglescliffe, Devonport, Exeter and Wrangaton the documents were all the same and ran to four sides of A4 paper. The figures making the case for the move to Portsmouth go no further than a simple table of potential cash flows. No information is given about the geographical location of northern contractors and there is no information about the number of ships whose base port is Portsmouth. There are 24, with eight moving from Rosyth.
  Nothing is said about how £5 million is potentially to be realised from the sale of a 117-acre site. The figure seems to have been conjured from the air.
  The documents were not sent to Teesside development corporation, English Partnership, City Challenge, the task force or the TECs in Stockton-on-Tees, all of which will have to pick up the pieces after the closure. There is nothing to show whether Portsmouth has the room to take the extra stores or whether it will be possible to adapt listed buildings.
  If my right hon. Friend the Minister persists with the folly of closing the Navy's best depot—and I strongly urge him not to do so—how can he justify the far from open and generous way in which this consultation exercise has been conducted? I cannot wilfully agree to a measure that will needlessly put so many families in my constituency out of work, and I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider the closure. If he does not, I cannot support him in the Division Lobby.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I welcome the new Ministers to the Treasury Bench. They are looking rather

  109
  happier than when I last saw them—on television at the Tory party conference. Four of them were on and they looked as if they were about to face a firing squad. However, I understand that there were 35 hostile motions at the conference, so perhaps that explains why they are looking happier in the House. In the light of the speech by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), they should not, become too happy, because three Conservative Members will vote with Labour Members tomorrow. I have been here long enough to know that what is said on the day does not often happen on the night, but we shall be watching, as I am sure will be the constituents of those three hon. Members.
  The right bon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) made an excellent and thoughtful speech. He coined the word "understretch", which we shall hear often in the Chamber if the peace in Northern Ireland holds. The right hon. Gentleman said that understretch was as bad for the armed forces as overstretch and created its own problems.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) and for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) made a powerful case for purchasing the future large aircraft or for delaying the decision to replace the Hercules. They spoke not only in a military context but in the context of the dramatic effect that failure to order the FLA will have on the north-west.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) made his customary knowledgeable speech and there was little in it with which we could disagree. The Liberals have no policy whatever. The hon. and learned Gentleman disagreed with us about a defence review, but he seemed to be speaking as a member of the Select Committee on Defence. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) would agree with many of the points made by the hon. and learned Member.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: That is why my hon. Friend is our spokesman on the environment.
  Mr. Martlew: He probably has at least one other job. No matter how small the party, there are usually obvious divisions.
  The hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, disappointed me at first because he did not attack the Government—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has done so on many occasions. Perhaps one reason why he did not do so on this occasion was that at the Tory party conference the Secretary of State promised, or we think that he promised, that there would be no more defence cuts. If that is correct, much of the credit should go to the hon. Member for Upminster. However, I do not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the same view as the hon. Gentleman. It is obvious that there has been a major argument within the Conservative party. I think that the Treasury will have the last say, but we shall have to wait and see.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) made an excellent speech about Rosyth and about the broader context of Britain's defence policy. She made two points of particular importance, which were reflected in views expressed by other hon. Members tonight. One point was that there appears to be as much politics as reason in the decision to close bases. The other was that the consultation procedure is deeply flawed.
  110
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) made an excellent, if emotive, speech explaining the problems that 40 per cent. male unemployment brings to a constituency. The north-east is badly served by the, Government, but well served by its Labour Members of Parliament.
  I make no apologies for reiterating 'a point that the Labour party continues to make—that we need a complete defence review. "Options for Change" and "Front Line First"—if that be its name—were not objective assessments of our defence requirements, but excuses for cuts. In reality, the United Kingdom's defence policy should be seen against our position in the world. It should be seen in the context of wider foreign policy issues.
  There is always a danger—we have seen it in today's debate—of becoming enmeshed in the details of defence weaponry and force capability. The fact is that in many ways defence policy is the servant of foreign policy. Therefore, we need to look not only at our defence policy but at Britain's role in the world. Ever since the second world war, the main defence concern has been our support for NATO. While that is still important, the collapse of the Soviet empire has removed the threat to national security.
  However, while the threat to national security is considerably diminished, we live im a far more dangerous and explosive world. Ironically, the cold war helped to reduce the number of local conflicts because there was always the fear that they would spread to global ones. Now, with the scourge of nationalism in eastern Europe, the rise of tribalism in Africa and the continuing unrest in the middle east, the problems facing the world are not only increasing but changing in character.
  At this point, the United Nations is being thrust into a pivotal role in maintaining global peace. The question is, what is Britain's place in the new world order? Do we want to continue to have a permanent seat on the Security Council? The Labour party does and, I am sure, so does the Conservative party. Are we prepared to relinquish that to the Germans or the Japanese? It would be ironic if we did. Perhaps the fact that they lost the war is the reason why they are now in such a powerful position. If we are to play an important part in the United Nations, and I assume that Conservative Members are interested in Britain doing that, that implies certain responsibilities. If we are to be a member of the Security Council, we must use our forces in a peacekeeping role—and we do that better than anyone else. We have seen that in the past, and there are the current examples of Rwanda, Bosnia, Cyprus and Kuwait.
  Many of the skills employed by our troops in a peacekeeping role were learnt on the streets of Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to the valiant service that our forces have given in difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years. We must remember that 648 members of our regular armed forces and of the Ulster Defence Regiment were killed during that time. Their sacrifice allowed us to reach the position where we can at last have peace in Ulster.
  What effect will a permanent ceasefire in Ulster have on the United Kingdom's defence strategy? I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not outline his proposals for that scenario. Could we sit by and watch a situation unfold in which British troops were withdrawn from Northern Ireland without any thought of their future

  111
  role? The danger is that, without a defence review, their reward for 25 years of peacekeeping could be redundancy and P45s.
  If the alternatives are more British troops being made available for use by the United Nations or British troops being made redundant, there is no choice. If they served the UN in a peacekeeping role, the question might be asked, "Who will pay?" We could argue about the UN military command structure, which many of us think is defective. We could argue about the lack of a robust reaction from UN troops when they come under fire. However, we cannot argue about the need for more peacekeeping troops under the control of the UN—and our troops are among the best in the world.
  Earlier, I referred to the need to take foreign policy considerations into account in the defence review. It has become apparent to me that much of our defence procurement policy is influenced by the need to maintain our industrial manufacturing base. That has come about by previous Governments concentrating too many of our highly skilled, technical resources on weapons manufacture, in direct contrast to the Germans and Japanese, although there are historical reasons for that. The fact remains that those countries are not being hit by defence spending reductions in the way that our country is being hit.
  The situation is exacerbated by the Government's failure to invest, or to encourage the defence industry to diversify. The Government have turned their face against diversification and have told the defence industry that they do not favour it.
  The cancellation of major military projects such as Eurofighter 2000 would have a devastating effect on British industry, especially in the north-west. What was the Secretary of State doing, giving an interview, published in The Times today, in which he said that there could well be a possibility of cancelling the Eurofighter 2000? He can say that to The Times, but he did not come to the Dispatch Box to say it in this debate. It is disgraceful that the Secretary of State should even contemplate such a thing. The Labour party has always been in favour of the Eurofighter 2000 project. When I complained to previous Ministers about escalating costs and the delayed maiden flight, I was told that I was carping and that everything was under control. Now the Secretary of State says that we might not buy the Eurofighter 2000 and that the same goes for the EH101. In 1987, the Secretary of State's predecessor, George Younger, said that the Government would order it. Now the present Secretary of State is saying that, if the cost goes up too much, he will not order it at all. Perhaps if we had ordered it in 1987, the cost would have been a lot less. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) argued for Chinook. He said that he had been to Philadelphia and seen it. I hope that he takes the opportunity—perhaps he has—to go to Yeovil and talk to Westland and have a word about the EH101. It may not be as exotic as Philadelphia, but I am sure that he would be made very welcome.
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Roger Freeman): I have sat silently throughout the debate. I will not be winding up this evening, but will do so tomorrow night.
  112
  I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would bear in mind the fact that there is nothing inconsistent in saying, as my right hon. and learned Friend has done, that we remain committed to Eurofighter 2000 and that we take very seriously Westland's proposals for a support helicopter, while saying at the same time that we want good value for money. The hon. Gentleman would be irresponsible if he said, "Purchase at any price."
  Mr. Martlew: The fact is that it is seven and a half years since the Government said that they would buy the helicopter. Some £12 billion has been spent on Eurofighter 2000 already, and a large proportion of that money has come from the British taxpayer. The Minister now talks about cancelling the project. It is nonsense. I know that Ministers have written to the American state department to find out the American alternative. It is a disgrace that he should come out with threats like that.
  In recent times, there has been intense lobbying about the replacement of the RAF's Hercules. One of the main and compelling points to be made by trade unions and British Aerospace—it is the one that I accept—is that 7,500 British jobs will be saved if the order for the FLA is placed. Failure to do so will threaten the long-term future of our civil aviation industry. We cannot take that risk. Because our manufacturing base is so weak, and because of the Government's failure to support diversification, I can see that, at some time in the future, we shall be in danger of supplying our forces with inferior weaponry, and putting their lives at risk just because we must maintain jobs at home. That terrible indictment of the state of the British industrial base is due to the policies of the Government.
  Over the past two years, I have paid special attention to the personnel policies of the armed forces; I am sad to say that I find that many of the policies are still unacceptable and detrimental to their efficiency. It is intolerable that, to some extent, our armed forces are class-ridden, sexist and racist.
  Mr. Soames: Will the hon. Gentleman do the House the courtesy of explaining in detail why he believes that the armed forces are sexist?
  Mr. Martlew: The hon. Gentleman seems to accept that they are both class-ridden and racist, but he is worried about sexist—[Interruption.] I will happily explain. If the hon. Gentleman will give me an opportunity, I will come to it in my speech.
  If one looks at the officer corps of the top regiments, one will realise that family background and the old school tie still seem to carry much more influence than does ability. I think that the Minister is living proof of that. The armed forces are conservative by their tradition. There still seems to be a general reluctance to accept women on equal terms. Several NATO countries moved towards expanding the role of women in their forces long before steps were taken in the UK to redress the imbalance of treatment. As far back as the 1970s, countries in north America and northern Europe were pioneering equal opportunity policies. In 1978, women were fully integrated in the US army. Belgium, Denmark and Holland followed in 1987. All those countries made the changes largely in response to equal rights legislation,

  113
  but the MOD is still technically exempt from section 85(4) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Thank goodness for the equal treatment directive from Europe.
  Mr. Brazier: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that our two principal European allies, France and Germany, provide grossly inferior opportunities for women in the armed forces? The equal treatment directive to which the hon. Gentleman referred relates to those already in post; it has nothing to do with opportunities to gain uniformed posts.
  Mr. Martlew: To be honest, the Italians are even worse: they do not have women in their armed forces at all.
  Until 1990, all pregnant women were discharged at four months. The rules were not amended until 1991, following the victory of two former service women who sued and gained compensation from the Ministry of Defence. Much attention has been focused, especially by the Government, on the high levels of compensation in such cases; that only detracts from the real crime—the fact that women were dismissed in the first place.
  Another point is the rank structure. I believe that the highest-placed woman in our forces has the rank of major-general. There are higher ranks, but no women hold them. Moreover, it is obvious that no women are present on the Conservative Benches tonight.
  Having carried out research into the employment of ethnic minorities in the MOD, I have concluded that, from the highest level of command, there appears to be an attitude of indifference to racism and—at worst—possible racist tendencies. The Commission for Racial Equality recently investigated the MOD for possible racial discrimination following the recent findings of the Army board of inquiry regarding the case of a corporal. He had been given a new posting to the Life Guards, but, when it was discovered that he was black, he was sent to the Royal Tank Regiment. Following the findings, he was awarded £6,500 in compensation. When I asked the previous Minister of State for the Armed Forces what disciplinary action had been taken against the individuals responsible, I was told:
  "Disciplinary action was not considered appropriate on this occasion."—[Official Report, 11 July 1994; Vol. 246, c.440.]
  We still have major problems in regard to equality in the armed forces.
  In his speech on 14 July 1994 announcing "Front Line First", the Secretary of State announced that a considerable number of MOD bases would be closed–17 in all. He gave an assurance that full consultation would take place. We have heard what the Secretary of State means by "full consultation": a four-page document issued to hon. Members. I have personal experience of this. Before the announcement was made, I went through a six-month consultation period relating to the closure of RAF Carlisle—and, believe me, it was a farce from start to finish. The Government announced the closure on the same day that they announced that they would allow THORP—the thermal oxide reprocessing plant—to start reprocessing in Cumbria, just before Christmas.
  The Minister had met the trade unions, and told them, "If you make the savings, we will save the base." The unions considered, and made some hard decisions; they decided that they could save the base and give the Government the millions that they wanted if they sacked
  114
  half the work force. They accepted that arrangement, but the Minister then changed the regulations, although he kept the consultation going. That idea of making the consultation last a little longer is fine, but this consultation continued for not three months but six months. It just so happened that, the week after the European elections ended, the Minister decided that RAF Carlisle was to close.
  If the consultation period about which hon. Members are worrying, gets a bit near to Christmas, we should worry about the fact that the Government will make the announcement on Christmas Eve, and that it will then be hidden. The Government do not take consultation seriously; if Ministers want to change things, that is what they must do.
  Mr. Soames rose—
  Mr. Martlew: The Minister should be careful; he will only have a five-minute speech, and he will be waffling for five minutes.
  I am very conscious that we are discussing the defence estimates. This is an annual debate, in which we look back over previous years. In a 1962 debate, speaking for the Opposition, Harold Wilson said that every Secretary of State always has a "pet project". This Secretary of State has a pet project and it appears to be to leave our armed forces demoralised and our defence strategy a shambles.
  We have had piecemeal policies of cuts, cuts and cuts, all designed so that the Tories can make one more cut. That, of course, will be in income tax and it will be introduced before the next general election. The Government's policy has nothing to do with the defence of this country; it is all to do with the political strategy of trying to con the voters into voting the Tories in for another term of office.
  Do hon. Members believe the Secretary of State when he says that there will be no more defence cuts? Did they believe the Tories when they said that there would be no tax increases and that VAT would not be placed on fuel? It is just another empty promise.
  Since 1979, six Tory Secretaries of State have spent £378 billion on defence and what we have today is a mess. The Government are tired and too stale and bereft of vision to have the responsibility to run our defences. It is time that the future of Britain was taken on by a party that is ready and able to meet the challenge. That party is the Labour party.
  9.50 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): What a tremendous act to have to follow. This has been, as defence debates always are, a lively and interesting occasion. Profoundly held views have been traded on behalf not only of national but, rightly, constituency interests. With the agreement of the Labour party and, I hope, the approval of the House, I shall speak only briefly tonight since I shall begin the debate for the Government tomorrow and I hope to deal with a number of the points that were made by Opposition Members and by my hon. Friends. I will, of course, write to them at length if I do not deal with their points.
  The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), whom I used to see, when in a previous incarnation at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with his eyes popping out of his head in synthetic fury, is no more

  115
  convincing as a shadow spokesman on defence. Today in a vacuous speech, he showed a truly deep lack of understanding as to the realities of defence. I think that all hon. Members would agree that the constant, parroting call for a defence review, at a time when the security architecture of the world seems to be changing on an almost daily basis, is a pretty fatuous response to the challenges that defence faces, not only in this country but throughout the world.
  The point that the hon. Gentleman made about defence costs studies was not only inaccurate but showed a want of understanding of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and this Department have achieved in putting back into the front line the enormous number and large range of improvements that are required and are to be warmly welcomed. We are improving resources devoted to training for all three services. We are increasing the strength of the Harrier squadrons and developing the new joint rapid deployment force with a sophisticated package of communications.
  All those changes follow logically from the change to the size and shape of the armed forces that resulted from "Options for Change". They have built on the considerable achievements that have been made and are improving and seeking efficiencies, particularly in the support area, where a great deal of work was required.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), in a distinguished speech, supported my right hon. and learned Friend's work in defence costs studies. I think that all hon. Members will wish to pay a great tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work that he did when Secretary of State for Defence, for the important work that he did when he was at the Northern Ireland Office and for the important plans that he laid on the building of this marvellous platform, which we hope will go forward to some form of agreement.
  I endorse particularly the tribute that my right hon. Friend paid to all the service men and women and those officials who have done, and are doing, so much in the continuous search for efficiency and improvement and during the critical changes that are of necessity taking place as the Ministry of Defence conducts its business.
  The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) made an impressive presentation for his constituents and an industry that he knows well, on behalf of the future large aircraft. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has taken note of what he and other right hon. Gentlemen and some right hon. and hon. Friends who were keen to bring the FLA to the House's attention have said.
  I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) has dropped his almost Trappist practices—his oaths of poverty, chastity and obedience—and returned to the Back Benches whence he recounted to us the three major factors—military, financial and industrial—relating to the FLA that he wished us to bear in mind. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend will have listened with great care to what he had to say.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) noted the necessity of continuing to match resources to commitments. He is a lone voice of sanity on defence matters in his party, and I thought that much of
  116
  what he said was very sensible. As he knows, we remain committed to our armed forces being properly manned and well equipped and supported. It is wrong to talk in numbers, but I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) that the figure that he seeks is 120,000.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East criticised indirectly the defence costs studies. The exercises that have been undertaken and the way in which the defence costs studies have been structured may not be the ultimate answer, but the work undoubtedly needed to be done, so as to make savings to enhance the capacity of the front line and because of the necessity of a cultural change in the way in which the Ministry of Defence conducts its business.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, congratulated my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on the work that he had done and, like my right hon. and learned Friend, emphasised the importance of the "Partnership for Peace". My hon. Friend welcomed the period of stability for which we have all worked and we all join him in congratulating the armed forces on the way in which they have coped with a period of considerable turbulence and change. It is interesting that the Select Committee, which is extremely active and covers assiduously the whole ambit of operation of the armed forces, has noticed how brilliantly the armed forces have coped with change.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the intervals between emergency tours, which is a matter frequently discussed by the Select Committee and the Department. Clearly, things may improve, but it is unlikely that we shall see the day when the forces are not likely to be stretched. Indeed, I think that the forces themselves would regret it if that day were to come. I noted my hon. Friend's call for 10,000 new soldiers and very much hope that the Chief Secretary heard it, too. I also noted his views on the services needed for the future. We will consider his proposals in great detail.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster also mentioned ballistic missile defence, of which we have begun a two-year study. We are grateful for his support in this matter and hope to hear more from him.
  The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place, provided perhaps the only opportunity in the debate to hear the rampant voice of the Labour party in its true form. He is a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and a proposer of the only official Labour party amendment on the Order Paper. It is unilateralist, anti-American and represents just about everything the Labour party stands for on defence.
  The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent questioned the relevance of our nuclear deterrent and he said that there had been no peace dividend. There has been a wonderful peace dividend. The peace dividend is that we are living in, by and large, a period of peace. We maintain the minimum nuclear deterrent capability required for our security. Great uncertainties and great dangers remain and we have established a stable and secure framework for maintaining the peace. It would be an act of unspeakable folly lightly to dismantle it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby dealt at some length with the question of the Bett review. I hope that—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can the uncalled among us who have been here all day—I make no personal complaint—expect benign consideration tomorrow?
  Madam Speaker: May I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that I have a very clear record here. The majority of hon. Members adhered to my strictures about keeping to 10 minutes or thereabouts. I have a record of those who did not do so, which is engraved on my heart. I have a record of the hon. Members who were in attendance for the whole of this day. I shall do my best to call them tomorrow. I assure the House that I keep very careful records and I know the hon. Members who took a great deal longer than 10 minutes today.

  Raytheon Jets, Clwyd
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  10.1 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: I have here a petition given to me by employees of the Raytheon factory in my constituency. It is entitled:
  "On behalf of the employees of Raytheon Corporate Jets to the American Ambassador to the United Kingdom."
  It continues:
  "For the attention of the President of the United States of America.
  We the undersigned appeal to your integrity to influence the Raytheon Corporation to maintain production in the United Kingdom of the Hawker 800/1000 and Major Variants aircraft.
  Our commitment to date has been unquestionable and our achievements within aircraft manufacturing unique."
  The work force says in the petition to the President of the United States:
  "we can epitomise everything in the UK that the Raytheon Corporation requires."
  That is what my constituents have given me to give to the United States ambassador and it is simply a way in which to show how strongly feelings are running in my constituency.
  I have here the names of the Raytheon board of directors. They operate 4,500 miles away in Lexington, Massachusetts. There they plan to rob my constituents of their jobs and my country of one of its precious remaining manufacturing capabilities. It is a list of lawyers, bankers and captains of industry in the United States who are well isolated and well insulated from the consequences of their policies. There is Charles Adams, a retired chairman, there is Mr. Max Bleck, the president of Raytheon, there is Richard D. Hill, the retired chairman of the board of the Bank of Boston Corporation and the First National Bank of Boston and there is Alfred Zeien, who is chairman and chief executive officer of the Gillette Co., to name but a few. The list also includes Dennis Picard, chairman and chief executive officer of Raytheon. They do not know the consequences of their policies for my constituents.
  It may well be known that last year British Aerospace sold its corporate jet company to the United States conglomerate Raytheon. When British Aerospace sold the corporate jet company, it said that it was a highly competitive business with a successful product range, but it mistakenly claimed at the time that the purchase by Raytheon would be good for the corporate jet business and for its employees and that it would enable further potential to be realised. Instead, the Raytheon company now intends to transfer production of the Hawker 800 jet to Kansas and it will be investing in an updated version of the 1000 series in the United States rather than here in Britain in my constituency.
  At the time of the sale by British Aerospace to Raytheon, I think, and so do my constituents, that the Government should have acted to ensure a successful future for the corporate jet business at Broughton. They should have anticipated the situation that has now developed. My plane-making constituents believe that they are the victims of asset stripping. It was certainly the breakfast sale of the century and the community that I

  119
  represent is still grappling with the implications of the sale. The whole community abhors the proposals by Raytheon.
  I support the plane makers totally. They ask me questions. They ask me why the board of British Aerospace sold off that magnificent machine. They also ask me why the then Minister with responsibilities for aerospace permitted the sale. They want to know—and know now—why the Government will not intervene and take some action to save their jobs. They ask why, if the aircraft was good enough for a hard-nosed United States company to buy, it was not good enough to keep in our own country. I remain convinced that the Broughton employees have an excellent case and I want the Government to step in and save those jobs. I want the Government, in effect, to join the fight that we have been continuing in Deeside, in Clwyd and in Wales. It is no exaggeration to say that, in this extraordinary case, my constituents have been betrayed. I know that they have suffered a great injustice. They have been sold lock, stock and fuselage. That is what has happened to them and their livelihoods. Raytheon is taking well-paid, highly skilled jobs of considerable status in industry and it is taking them from my constituents. Raytheon is taking those jobs away from Deeside and relocating them in the United States.
  That is an incredible story and the cruel irony is that my constituents will be offered 70 of their own jobs if they are prepared to follow Raytheon back to the United States. That is a very sad statement to make and it is unbearable for my constituents to have to face up to those consequences. They are a very young work force. They have the usual family and financial commitments and they are worried sick about the future. In my near 25 years in this House, I have never encountered such a shabby and such a distressing train of events. It is a disgraceful story.
  At home, in the constituency, all of us believe that the day of the announcement, 15 September, was a day of infamy in the history of industrial Deeside. Nobody engaged in industry has ever encountered such proposals as those in my part of Wales. I put it on record that all of the Deeside community supports the plane makers. All members of the community are disgusted by this blatant asset stripping and by the duplicity practised against them. They are disgusted by the cynical manipulation of their skills, their discipline, their loyalty and their success and productiveness.
  It would be constructive to show the Minister our weekly newspaper, The Chronicle, which ran the headline "Kicked in the teeth". I do not think that that is an exaggeration and the Minister should mark that description well. The evening newspaper, Evening Leader, has bluntly summed up the news with the heading "Jobs disaster". The regional newspaper, The Daily Post used the word "Betrayed". They are not my words but those used in local reportage. I know from my experience that those newspapers have printed fair descriptions.
  The constituency is now set to lose approximately 900 of the best jobs in Wales. We make what has long been the jewel in the crown of British Aerospace—a world-beating, two-engined luxury executive jet that can fly the north Atlantic. It outshines the competition and beats all in sight. That, presumably, is one of the reasons that Raytheon has seen it as a bargain and bought it.
  120
  On behalf of my constituents, I beg for urgent, constructive and imaginative Government intervention. That is what I and my constituents want. We want intervention that will save the jobs of those highly skilled men and women at Broughton. As I catalogue this sorry tale, I should like to see the smile wiped off the face of the junior Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry. To see him exchange grins with the Minister of State as I depict the distress of my constituents is not a good sight. I hope that my comments will engender some sense of shame in them. We make what has long been the jewel in the crown of British Aerospace and I beg for intervention that will save the jobs at Broughton.
  The Cabinet permitted the sale. The Government said yes to the board of British Aerospace and told it to go ahead. Once the Government gave their permission, the company's subsequent decision became the Government's responsibility. They should face up to it. The community that I represent hopes that they will.
  I recall that shortly after the British Aerospace deal with Raytheon, the then Chairman of British Aerospace stood down and went back home to the United States. I read that he received a golden handshake, perhaps it was platinum, of more than £2.5 million. He had done his job. He put in place a sequence of events that has led to my plane maker constituents at Broughton having no future.
  Is not it the case that recently British Aerospace workers have paid with their jobs for the incompetence or otherwise of their board chairman? The chairman of the shop stewards, Roger Smith, has written to me and it is only fair to put on record that he wrote:
  "I believe we at Broughton have been betrayed by Raytheon and our Government.
  We want the Prime Minister, Mr. Major, to intervene immediately. We were appalled by his correspondence to you"—
  their Member of Parliament—
  in regard of the decision."
  He continued:
  "The President of the Board of Trade Mr. Heseltine should intervene as he stated 'before breakfast, dinner and tea.' You will recall that it was Mr. Sainsbury who authorised the sale to Raytheon in Mr. Heseltine's absence."
  The House may not be aware that last year I took a deputation of plane makers to see the then Minister to beg him not to allow the sale to go ahead. We told him, and certainly the shop floor workers told him, what we feared. What we feared is what Raytheon has recently announced. The Government were told by people who knew what was likely to happen. That is why I plead and beg on behalf of my constituents for Government intervention.
  In all fairness and decency, and urgently, the Government should intervene. They should accept responsibility. Mr. Smith continued:
  "We demand Government intervention, no longer can this nation stand by and witness our Aerospace Industry's demise.
  Their lack of strategy in regard to the Aerospace Industry is appalling."
  Mr. Smith hopes that there will be a Select Committee hearing and he seeks a debate. At least we are having such a debate on the first day after the summer recess. I am grateful that my colleagues from the Principality and from centres of manufacturing are offering their support in this debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and Delyn (Mr. Hanson) for their constant support for me and the plane makers.

  121
  The Government seek excellence and best practice. I can give evidence of that. According to a performance summary covering 1992 to 1994, productivity increased by 33 per cent. The overhead costs reduced by $19 million. The labour charging rate was reduced by 16 per cent. The indirect:direct ratio improved by 48 per cent. Product cycle time was reduced by 20 days and the "inventory and WIP" was reduced by $101 million.
  We might all agree that it is not a two-bit operation. As the factory is but one mile and 11 fields from my home, I am proud to say that since 1963 the Hawker products have generated $7.5 billion in exports for the United Kingdom. That is a magnificent track record. It is industrial patriotism of a very high order. I am very proud to know the work force who are engaged in making that great product.
  The current order for Japan, the air self-defence force maritime search and rescue aircraft, is worth $600 million and is likely to grow to $1 billion. However, in January 1994, Raytheon dismissed 75 per cent. of the established international sales force. Some of my constituents think that their present predicament relates in part to that decision.
  Here is some bitter-sweet information. The Department of Trade and Industry carried out a formal assessment of Raytheon at Broughton in my constituency and confirmed its status as a "Centre of Excellence" under the "Managing in the 90s inside UK Enterprise" initiative. Even the BBC chose Raytheon Corporate Jets to feature in a new film illustrating leading edge working practices.
  The decision, which I hope may be changed, also has a very serious consequence for British Aerospace Airbus which is also located in my constituency across the tarmac from Raytheon. Airbus has the contract to make the jet's fuselage. Works convenor Mike Nesbitt tells me of his despair. In just two years, he has seen the loss of 2,000 aerospace jobs in that location in my constituency. He does not want to see any more jobs lost. The Raytheon decision may undermine the financial viability of the Airbus site at Broughton in my constituency. We regard that development as being of the utmost seriousness.
  The plane makers want urgent Government intervention—that is for sure. They want the Prime Minister to send the President of the Board of Trade to the United States to tell Raytheon that that industrial knifing is not on and that Raytheon must rescind the decision. The work forces look to the Secretary of State for Wales to take the lead in the Cabinet and fight its corner. I will fight on for my constituents. I will not surrender the interests of my constituents. I will work for the changing of the decision—whatever.
  Work force leaders want Mr. Denis Picard, the chairman and chief executive, to visit the factory and to engage in discussions with them. So far, all efforts to persuade Mr. Picard to go to the factory and, either in America or in the constituency, to meet shopfloor leaders, community leaders and leading councillors have failed. I ask the Minister to attempt to use his good offices to unlock the door to the chairman of Raytheon, Mr. Picard.
  Under the leadership of Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Wanham, there has been tremendous achievement at Broughton. The aircraft assembly has been radically transformed into a very efficient best-in-class manufacturing operation. We have much to be proud of so far. However, I have found Whitehall and the
  122
  Government to be irresolute and incapable of saving those precious jobs. That is the very daunting truth that I have learnt.
  Time is no longer with me. I ask the Minister to step to the Dispatch Box and say that the Government will intervene and try to save my constituents' jobs.
  10.21 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I readily acknowledge the importance of the debate that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) has secured. It means much to people in Wales. It is also a matter in which the hon. Gentleman has taken a long, close interest.
  The Government share the deep regret that is felt at Raytheon's decision to move its manufacturing facility away from Broughton in north Wales. We fully appreciate what a blow that news has been to the workers at the Broughton plant. Raytheon makes an important contribution to the economy of that part of north Wales. There is a long tradition of aeroplane manufacture in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. That, of course, will continue. It remains, though, a serious loss.
  It is important, therefore, to start from a clear understanding of what Raytheon has decided, its reasons for doing so, and the part that the Government played during that difficult period. Regrettable though it is, the company has made it clear that the decision was taken on purely commercial grounds. Only the company was in a position to be able to take that decision. Raytheon has explained that it is a reflection of the current state of world markets.
  In its discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the company made it perfectly clear that its decision was in no way a reflection of the high regard in which it holds its highly skilled and committed work force in north Wales. The company has only praise for the way in which the work force has sought to improve productivity over the past year.
  I stress also that the company has made it clear that the decision is no reflection of any lack of support—financial or otherwise—from the Government.
  It is because we have realised the importance of this matter that Ministers and the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency have remained in close touch with the company over the past few months. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), who was then a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, visited the headquarters of Raytheon Corporation in America in April; so, too, in June did David Rowe-Beddoe, the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency. In April, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales visited the plant at Broughton. He and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry met the president of Raytheon before the announcement was made in September. My hon. Friend at the Department of Trade and Industry demonstrates his keen interest in this matter by being present on the Front Bench. I know that he is looking forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman later this week, as is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  In turn, there has been regular contact between Raytheon and officials of the Welsh Office and the Department of Trade and Industry.

  123
  Against a background of weak world markets, the Government have lost no opportunity to promote sales of corporate jets overseas. Department of Trade and Industry Ministers have been briefed on Raytheon in advance of overseas trade visits. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the President of the Board of Trade have used their direct contacts with Governments and businesses overseas to promote sales of the jets. We are continuing with those efforts. It has been stressed that if attempts to secure further sales are successful, we would expect those aircraft to be manufactured at Broughton.
  In his most recent meeting, my right hon. Friend invited the president of Raytheon to consider whether the Broughton plant might be allowed to bid for further work within the group. The work force has, after all, demonstrated its commitment to the company over recent months. I am pleased to say that the president agreed to consider that.
  My right hon. Friend will now be writing to the president to reiterate those points. We all hope that the company's response will be favourable, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I would not wish to hold out false hopes to the House about our prospects of success. The decision to relocate the manufacture of corporate jets to the United States is, ultimately, a commercial matter for Raytheon. To the extent that the Government are able to bring their persuasive powers to bear, it is clear that we are doing just that. The final decision, however, is for the company alone.
  I know that the hon. Gentleman will be as pleased as I am that the economy in north-east Wales is showing encouraging signs of strength. Unemployment in Clwyd now stands at 7.9 per cent. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, it has fallen by nearly 16 per cent. over the past year.
  The strength of the local economy is clearly demonstrated by the companies that have chosen to locate in the area. Companies such as Toyota, Sharp and Kimberly-Clark are household names. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that others such as Hamilton Oil, Shotton Paper, Optical Fibres and Warwick International are having an equally important effect.
  The Government recognise that they have a continuing role to play in promoting further economic growth. We are anxious to attract more companies to north-east Wales. We are investing in the infrastructure and we are offering companies carefully targeted financial assistance. I am pleased to say that in the six months to the end of September, Clwyd attracted 12 investment projects. Those projects are expected to bring 910 jobs and capital expenditure of almost £71 million in due course. The county has, therefore, attracted more projects than any other county in Wales during this financial year, and the second highest level of jobs and capital expenditure.
  The area also benefits from ever-improving communication links. The Government's massive £700 million investment in the north Wales coastal route is the clearest possible commitment of our desire to see
  124
  improved access to the whole of north Wales. That is not the record of a Government who do not believe in providing carefully targeted support for industry. However, what all these examples have in common is that they facilitate the operation of the markets, rather than interfere with it. In the long run, it is only through healthy competition that companies in north-east Wales and, indeed, throughout the whole of the United Kingdom can prosper and thrive.
  I certainly appreciate the desire of the Raytheon work force to fight as hard as it can to persuade the company to change its mind. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Government must have regard to the consequences of a closure. If the closure goes ahead, it will be important to ensure that an effective range of support services is made available to those who lose their jobs.
  The fact that job losses are phased offers some assistance. It provides an opportunity for local agencies to work together to establish how the needs of workers made redundant can be met most effectively.
  The North-East Wales training and enterprise council will have a crucial role. I understand that it has already decided to use its powers to allow workers made redundant immediate access to retraining, thereby waiving the normal requirement that adults should be out of work for six months before being eligible for training for work. A full range of wider training and enterprise council training programmes will also be available to workers who might need them.
  The Welsh Development Agency has also been active locally and we expect it to continue to play an important role. North-east Wales has a strong tradition of a highly skilled work force. The closure does nothing to alter that fact. That crucial resource can only be of assistance to the agency as it promotes the area as a site for inward investment. It is equally relevant to local companies that are contemplating expansion.
  The Government fully recognise what a blow the Raytheon decision has been for the people of north-east Wales, which is why we stayed in touch with the company throughout the past year and Ministers used their contacts with Governments abroad and businesses overseas to try to attract new orders.
  The company's decision to close its manufacturing facility was taken on commercial grounds. We did all that we could to persuade it, but it remained a matter for the company alone.
  I am confident that the strengths inherent in the north-east Wales economy will help to overcome that blow. The area has an impressive record of attracting inward investment. It enjoys the benefits of an excellent work force and good communications. If the area is to be provided with effective support in the wake of closure, it is essential that all organisations with a contribution to make work closely together. The Government will do all that they can to make sure that is the case.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TREASURY

  Inflation
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the inflation rate from 1 October 1992 to 30 September 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Anthony Nelson
  In September 1993 the headline rate of inflation, as measured by the 12-month increase in the all items retail prices index, was 1·8 per cent.; and the underlying rate of inflation, as measured by the 12-month increase in the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments, was 3·3 per cent. In September 1994 the headline rate was 2·2 per cent. and the underlying rate was 2·0 per cent. —the lowest rate since 1967.

  EC Budget Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a statement on the matters discussed and decisions taken, along with any votes taken, at(a) the EC Budget Council on 25 July and (b) the Ecofin Council on 27 July.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Budget Council on 25 July. The Council considered the Commission's preliminary draft budget for 1995. The draft budget established by the Council totalled 75·7 billion ecu or £59·8 billion in commitment appropriations. The draft budget would require own resources totalling 1·999 per cent. of Community gross national product, compared with the existing own resources ceiling of 1·20 per cent. of Community GNP.

  The Council took no formal votes, with the Presidency concluding that the necessary majority existed to establish the draft budget for 1995.

  The summary table compares the outcome of the Budget Council to the proposals in the Commission's amended preliminary draft budget by reference to the financial perspective ceilings.

  Further information is contained in explanatory memorandum 8782/94 on the draft budget, which was deposited in Parliament on 27 September.

  The European Parliament will consider the draft budget for 1995 at its plenary in October. The Parliament's amendments and modifications will be considered at the

  Financial perspective expenditure ceilings

  Preliminary draft budget2

  Budget Council draft budget

  mecu

  £ million1

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  Commitment appropriations

  1. Common Agricultural Policy

  36,994

  29,219

  36,994

  29,219

  36,994

  29,219

  2. Structural operations

  25,264

  19,954

  25,264

  19,954

  25,264

  19,954

  3. Internal policies

  4,652

  3,674

  4,605

  3,637

  4,286

  3,385

  4. External action

  4,605

  3,637

  4,555

  3,597

  4,363

  3,446

  2
  second Budget Council in November. The European Parliament's Second Reading is likely to be in mid-December.

  The Budget Council also briefly discussed own resources shortfalls and agreed that the issue would be considered again in September after the Commission had provided more up-to-date figures.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer represented the United Kingdom at the Economic and Finance Council on 27 July. A copy of the press release, 8718/94, from the general secretariat of the Council has been placed in the Members' Library.

  The Council discussed the taxation of savings —withholding tax. My right hon. and learned Friend resisted any agreement in principle to action at the Community level, on the grounds that it was unnecessary, likely to be ineffective, and would divert business away from financial centres in the European Union.

  The Council reviewed progress on the new own resources decision. The Council discussed the definitive VAT regime. The Council agreed the following criteria which any definitive system should meet: fundamental simplification and fewer administrative obligations; no reduction in income for member states from VAT; no increased risk of tax fraud; and preservation of the neutral effect on competition of VAT. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor fully agreed with this list, and endorsed the Presidency's emphasis on simplification.

  The Council took note of a progress report from a working group on the VAT simplification directive. The Council was then informed of progress on a long-standing Commission proposal for a Community system of taxation of interest and royalty payments made between parent companies and subsidiaries in different member states.

  The Council discussed the question of a carbon/energy tax. The Chancellor agreed that member states should implement measures to ensure that commitments agreed under the Rio convention were met, but doubted that Community-wide tax was necessary. My right hon. and learned Friend noted that the United Kingdom was already on target to meet its own commitments using national measures. A range of opinions was expressed; but there was general agreement that the alternative of building on existing minimum excise duty rates for oils should be explored, and that ECOFIN should continue to take the lead role in discussing this issue.

  The other principal issue discussed was the possible case for the introduction of a reduced rate of excise duty on biofuels. There was a broad range of views. The Chancellor stated that he was sceptical about whether there were any benefits to be gained from such subsidies; and that it was wrong in principle to subsidise a product which was unlikely to become commercially viable in the near future.

  No formal votes were taken.
  3

  Financial perspective expenditure ceilings

  Preliminary draft budget2

  Budget Council draft budget

  mecu

  £ million1

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  5. Administrative expenditure

  3,852

  3,042

  3,827

  3,023

  3,691

  2,915

  6. Reserves

  1,146

  905

  1,146

  905

  1,146

  905

  Total Commitments

  76,513

  60,432

  76,390

  60,335

  75,745

  59,825

  Total payment appropriations

  72,924

  57,597

  72,412

  57,193

  71,955

  56,832

  1Throughout this reply the rate of £1=1·2661 ecu has been used. The rate notified in the Official Journal as prevailing on the last working day of last month—31 August.

  2 As amended from the figure which appeared in the Commission's overview of the PDB for 1995, to take account of the higher bids of the small institutions on administration under category 5.

  Prescription Charges
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount per pound which would need to be added to income tax to raise a sum equivalent to the amount raised by prescription charges for the national health service.

  Mr. Aitken
  The expected income from prescription charges in 1994–95, including receipts from the sale of prepayment certificates, is approximately £350 million, for the United Kingdom as a whole. This is equivalent to about one fifth of the yield of 1p on the basic rate of income tax.

  Resource Accounting Proposals
  Mr Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the costs of implementing resource accounting proposals in the civil service.

  Mr Aitken
  To the extent that resource accounting requirements can be incorporated in the normal cycle of replacement and upgrading of systems, there will be no additional cost to departments. The implementation target in the Green Paper, April 1998, has been set with this in mind. Departments are currently working up their detailed proposals for resource accounting on the basis of the Green Paper, but will need to be sure of the outcome of the current consultation process, which should be known early next year, before finalising their proposals.

  Civil Superannuation Vote
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what supplementary estimates will be required for civil superannuation votes in the years 1994–95,1995–96 and 1996–97;

  (2) how and when parliamentary approval will be sought for the supplementary estimate for the Civil Superannuation Vote, referred to in the White Paper "Continuity and Change".

  Mr. Aitken
  As announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) on 19 July, a winter supplementary estimate will be needed in 1994–95 for HM Treasury's civil superannuation vote. Parliamentary approval will be sought in the supply resolutions and winter Consolidated Fund Bill that will follow presentation of the winter supplementary estimates in mid-November. No requirements for supplementary estimates in 1995–96 and 1996–97 are foreseen at this time.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals on the control of clandestine trade in nuclear materials and equipment were put forward by the United Kingdom, and what proposals by other EU member states were agreed to by Her Majesty's Government at the Finance Council meeting in September.

  Mr. Aitken
  No proposals were put forward at the ECOFIN Council in September. This issue is being considered by the Foreign Affairs and Interior Ministers Councils.

  Endowment Assurance
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce measures to permit, without loss of exemption of the policy proceeds from taxation, extension of existing policies of endowment assurance to provide cover against critical illness.

  Sir George Young
  The Inland Revenue is currently conducting a review of life assurance taxation which includes consideration of the way in which policyholders are taxed. The Government will decide in due course in the light of that review whether or not changes to the present rules on policyholder taxation should be introduced and whether or not existing policies will be affected by any changes. However, under present legislation, it is already possible in certain circumstances for critical illness cover to be added to the cover provided by an existing endowment policy without affecting the exemption of the proceeds from taxation at the higher rate. There is also no bar to policyholders taking out separate critical illness cover.

  Council of Mortgage Lenders
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Council of Mortgage Lenders.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer met the Building Societies Association, whose members are also members of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, on 21 June this year.

  Economic and Finance Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what matters were discussed, what decisions taken and which were decided by vote, at the Ecofin Council on 19 September in Brussels.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Economic and Finance Council of the European Union in Brussels on 19 September.
  5
  The Council heard a summary from the President of the European Commission on current work on the White Paper follow-up. The Presidency outlined Ecofin's role in the run-up to the European Council at Essen in December. I emphasised the need to pull together the different strands of work effectively before Essen, and on trans-European networks, I stressed the importance of examining each priority project individually and reviewing the situation on the basis of results.

  The Council examined the revised convergence programme for the Greek economy 1994–99. It urged the Greek Government to pursue vigorously all the policies necessary to achieve the targets of the programme. The Council agreed to review, in the context of the Union's multilateral surveillance procedures, including the excessive deficits procedure, the implementation of the convergence programme year for year over the period covered by the programme.

  The Council welcomed Ireland's convergence programme 1994–96 and noted the strong performance of the Irish economy including the sound fiscal position and the continued reduction in Ireland's debt ratio. The Council encouraged the Irish Government to pursue the structural reforms and other policies necessary to improve the investment performance, sustain growth and achieve an enhanced employment performance.

  The Council decided in accordance with article 104c.6 of the treaty on European Union that each member state, except Ireland and Luxembourg, has an excessive deficit.

  The Council agreed a draft of the Presidency statement to the IMF/World bank meeting in Madrid.

  The Council briefly discussed the Italian reserve on the own resources decision. It was agreed that this issue would be discussed again at the 10 October Ecofin.

  No formal votes were taken at the Council meeting.

  Defaulting Taxpayers
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions since 1 January 1993 the Inland Revenue has instructed sheriff officers to execute diligence on a defaulting taxpayer within 10 days of the sum falling due.

  Sir George Young
  The Inland Revenue has instructed sheriff officers to execute diligence on a defaulting taxpayer within 10 days of the sum falling due on 143 occasions since 1 January 1993.

  The figures cover the period from 1 January 1993 to 6 October 1994.

  Drugs
  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many court cases involving drug smuggling have been initiated by HM Customs and Excise over the last year; how many of these have been thrown out of court due to lack of evidence; and what has been the cost incurred in investigating these rejected cases.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  HM Customs and Excise do not keep this type of record by case, but by reference to defendants: there may be several defendants in any case. In the year 1993–94 HM Customs and Excise prosecuted 1,457 defendants for drug offences; 16 of these were discharged on committal and a further 25, although 6
  committed for trial, were the subject of successful defence submissions and did not go before a jury.

  Information on costs in investigating the rejected cases is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

PRIME MINISTER

  South Africa
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he discussed arms and military equipment exports with South African Government members during his visit to South Africa in September.

  The Prime Minister: There was reference during my visit to the on-going confidential discussions between our two Governments concerning defence exports.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters in regard to nuclear safeguards, nuclear materials security and nuclear trade were raised during his visit to South Africa in September.

  The Prime Minister
  Those matters were not raised during my recent visit to South Africa. They are, however, frequently discussed by relevant experts from both our countries in the appropriate international forums.

  Coppicing
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the letter of the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) of 28 July, what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of coppicing as an integral part in Her Majesty Government's on-going programmes in renewable energy; what engineering assessment he has made of the development of suitable machinery for the harvesting of short-rotation coppice by Loughry college in County Tyrone; and what action he is taking to support its commercialisation in the marketplace.

  The Prime Minister
  The environmental impact of coppicing was studied by the energy technology support unit in 1988, in its report, "Energy Forestry in Britain: Environmental issues"—ETSU B 1166.

  Its main conclusion was that such environmental impacts should be no more severe than those associated with other forms of arable farming. Nevertheless, further, more detailed, work continues, with advice from, among others, the Countryside Commission, the Countryside Council for Rural Wales, English Nature, the Game Conservancy Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Forestry Authority.

  An assessment of the original version of the Loughry college harvester was reported in ETSU B 1382. A new, simpler, version developed with funding from the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, is now being assessed. This newer machine is not yet at a stage where commercial development would be appropriate.

  Copies of the reports have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Weapons, Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with the Government of Saudi Arabia on their policy towards the Iraqi nuclear weapons programme during his visit to Jeddah on 19 September.
  7
  The Prime Minister
  My discussions with King Fahd covered a wide variety of issues on Iraq, and underscored the closeness of our policies towards that country.

  We support the United Nations' Special Commission's efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability, as called for in United Nations Security Council resolution 687. Although United Nations weapons inspectors have noted improved Iraqi co-operation, gaps remain in accounting for Iraq's past weapons programmes. For that reason, and to avoid placing unhelpful pressure on UNSCOM, I believe that it is crucial that the length of the probationary period for monitoring Iraqi compliance remain open-ended.

  Official Meetings
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer on 11 July,Official Report, column 375, if he will now make it his policy to collect and publish statistics on the number of official meetings he holds with hon. and right hon. Members on constituency matters at 10 Downing street, broken down by political party and by regions in which their constituencies are situated.

  The Prime Minister
  No. I have nothing further to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 11 July,Official Report, column 375.

  Diesel Fuel
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the letter of 4 July from Baroness Cumberlege, Health Minister, to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of co-ordination between the Departments of Health, of the Environment, and of Transport, and the Treasury on the latest scientific understanding of the use of diesel fuel.

  The Prime Minister
  I am content with the existing arrangements. The Departments of Health and of the Environment are advised on health issues related to diesel and other fuels by expert committees. Officials from the Departments of Health, of the Environment and of Transport and the Treasury are in frequent consultation on those matters.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Peru
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid is to be given to Peru in the coming year; and for what it has been allocated.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) gave to her on 23 March at columns 247–48. The' amount and nature of our aid programme to Peru is likely to remain broadly similar during the coming year. Since March, two further projects, in contraceptive supplies—£1·36 million—and support for animal health laboratories—£0·67 million—.have been agreed and are under way.

  In addition, during his visit to Peru in September, my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General announced the Government's agreement to a request from the
  8
  Government of Peru to apply retrospective terms adjustment to outstanding bilateral aid loans to Peru, representing forgiveness of some £5·09 million of debt. This was granted to Peru on an exceptional basis in recognition of its progress in economic reform and substantial indebtedness.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration was given to the pension arrangements for United Kingdom national staff of the university of Zimbabwe during the Lancaster house talks on independence for Rhodesia.

  Mr. Baldry
  There was no specific discussion of pensions for United Kingdom nationals on the staff of the university of Zimbabwe during the Lancaster house talks. The constitution agreed at Lancaster house did, however, guarantee the payment of public service pensions abroad, although not protecting them against inflation or depreciation.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Zimbabwe concerning responsibility for the maintenance of pension levels for United Kingdom nationals who worked in the university of Zimbabwe and are now resident in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the level of pensions payable to former staff of the university of Zimbabwe recruited from the United Kingdom through the Inter University Council now resident in the United Kingdom; what action he has taken as a result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have received several representations from former employees of the university of Zimbabwe recruited through the Inter University Council about the level of their pensions. Those making representations have been advised that staff recruited through the IUC became locally appointed employees of the university of Zimbabwe, which also had responsibility for their terms and conditions of service, including pension provision. Her Majesty's Government have no responsibility in this matter, and there have been no discussions with the Government of Zimbabwe on the question of responsibility.

  However, we took the opportunity of this year's state visit by President Mugabe to draw the Zimbabwe Government's attention to the difficulties faced by United Kingdom citizens whose pensions have been undermined by inflation and depreciation of the Zimbabwe dollar.

  Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initial priorities have been identified by the co-ordinator of non-governmental organisations activities in Hargeisa in north-west Somalia.

  Mr. Baldry
  The ODA NGO liaison and support officer has identified the rehabilitation of basic health and education services and capacity building for local NGOs as priorities for ODA assistance. Since April, we have committed £400,000 in support of those activities. Additional proposals are being developed.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a Statement on the international response to the crisis in Rwanda and Zaire following the emergency session of the UN Security Council.

  Mr. Baldry
  Since the start of the crisis, the international community has committed nearly £382 million of humanitarian assistance for Rwandan displaced persons and refugees in neighbouring countries. This includes £60 million committed by the British Government.

  South Africa
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of South Africa regarding the method of aerial delivery of relief supplies known as Operation Snowdrop.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judges
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish a table showing the(a) number and (b) percentage of (i) men and (ii) women at each level of the judiciary in England and Wales at the latest available date.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table shows the number and percentage of men and women at each of the main levels of the judiciary in England and Wales as at 1 October 1994:

  per cent.

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary

  Men

  10

  100

  Women

  —

  —

  Lord Justices of Appeal

  Men

  28

  96·5

  Women

  1

  3·5

  Heads of divisions (excluding the Lord Chancellor)

  Men

  4

  100

  Women

  —

  —

  High Court judges

  Men

  89

  93·7

  Women

  6

  6·3

  Circuit judges

  Men

  483

  94·3

  Women

  29

  5·7

  Recorders

  Men

  832

  95·3

  Women

  41

  4·7

  Assistant recorders

  Men

  321

  84·0

  Women

  61

  16·0

  District judges

  Men

  266

  90·8

  Women

  27

  9·2

  Deputy district judges

  Men

  648

  88·5

  Women

  84

  11·5

  Stipendiary magistrates

  Men

  73

  88·0

  Women

  10

  12·0

  10

  per cent.

  Acting stipendiary magistrate

  Men

  75

  78·9

  Women

  20

  21·1

  Lay magistrates

  Men

  16,151

  53·7

  Women

  13,903

  46·3

  as at 1 January 1994

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department to whom applications to become lay justices of the peace in Northern Ireland should be addressed.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Applications should be addressed to the Assistant Secretary of Commissions (Northern Ireland) at the Northern Ireland Court Service, Windsor house, Bedford street, Belfast BT2 7LT.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the duties of lay justices of the peace in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Justices of the Peace in Northern Ireland carry out a wide range of functions contained in numerous enactments. Their main functions are:

  1. occasionally presiding in magistrates courts to remand accused persons in custody or bail following adjournment of criminal proceedings;

  2. undertaking "out-of-court" duties such as hearing complaints, issuing summonses, warrants of arrest and search warrants as well as signing declarations, administering oaths or taking affidavits, affirmations or recognisances.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria and qualifications are sought in respect of persons wishing to be considered for admission as lay justices of the peace in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Persons wishing to be considered for appointment as justice of the peace must be personally suitable in character, integrity and understanding for the functions which they have to perform. They must reside in, or within 15 miles of the boundary of the county court division for which they are proposed and should normally live or work within that division.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Stephen Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the 10 highest contributions made out of the legal aid fund to assist individuals in the last five years, the individuals involved and the nature of the proceedings.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 July 1994, c. 222]: The original answer listed a fraud case involving "Eagle Starr" (sic) as costing the legal aid fund £1·76 million. The reference should have been to "Eagle Trust".

  Small Claims Court
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what provision he intends to make for costs in the small claims court.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Although often referred to as "no-costs" regime, the small claims procedure does
  11
  provide for the recovery of some costs, as detailed in order 19, rule 4 of the county court rules. Under this rule, the costs stated on the summons and the costs of enforcing the award may be recovered. In addition, the court may award allowances to be paid in respect of the successful party's and witness's expenses, and expert's fees. There are no current plans to change this provision.

  Expert Medical Witnesses
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what research his Department has conducted into the average fees expert medical witnesses charge for preparing reports and giving evidence in court.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Many of the respondents to the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper, "Small Personal Injury Claims", published in October last year, gave examples of fees charged by medical experts, and indicated the level of fees that respondents considered realistic. Respondents came from a wide range of interested groups, including the medical profession. Additional consultation with the British Medical Association was also undertaken.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Television Licences
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will instigate a survey of the average number of telephone calls which citizens require to make to the television licensing helpline before finding the number not engaged; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. Under section 180 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, responsibility for the administration of the television licensing system, was transferred to the BBC with effect from 1 April 1991. The television licensing helplines are operated by TV Licensing under contract to the BBC; responsibility for ensuring that TV Licensing performs to an acceptable standard therefore rests on the BBC.

  G-Tech
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what investigations were carried out by the Director-General of Oflot into the activities in the United States of America of G-Tech, a member of Camelot Group plc; how many Oflot staff were involved in the investigations; and what other Government Departments or agencies were involved.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is a matter for the Director-General of the Office of the National Lottery. I shall ask him to write to the hon. Member and place copies of his reply in the Library of the House.

  Advisory Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to publish their advice to Government.
  12
  Mr. Sproat
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 July 1994,c. 179]: I regret to inform the House that the answer given was incorrect. The correct reply is as follows: the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art publishes an annual report which includes any advice given by the Committee to Government on matters connected with the export of cultural goods. Reports from the Library and Information Services Council may also include details of their advice to Government.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which the Government are required to consult before legislation proposals; and in respect of which bodies the Government must publish their response to advice supplied by them.

  Mr. Sproat
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 July 1994,c. 179]: I regret to inform the House that the answer given was incorrect. The correct reply is as follows: the Government are not required to consult any of the advisory bodies for which my Department is responsible before legislation proposals, or to publish a response to their advice. However, my Department would normally consult an advisory body on policy matters which might affect it.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are required to lay their annual report before Parliament.

  Mr. Sproat
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 July 1994,c. 180]: I regret to inform the House that the answer given was incorrect. The correct reply is as follows: the Reviewing Committee on the Exports of Works of Art and the Library and Information Services Council are the only advisory bodies for which my Department is responsible which are required to report annually and whose reports are laid in Parliament. The Committee's report is presented as a Command Paper and the Council's report forms part of the Secretary of State's annual report on the public library service, published as a House of Commons Paper. Reports from the Royal Fine Art Commission are also presented to Parliament as Command Papers, although there is no requirement for it to report annually.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National heritage if he will list his Department' advisory non-departmental public bodies which are required to produce annual reports.

  Mr. Sproat
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 July 1994,c. 180]: I regret to inform the House that the answer given was incorrect. The correct reply is as follows: the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art, the Library and Information Services Council and the Theatres Trust are the only advisory bodies which are required to produce reports annually.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which have a statutory basis.

  Mr. Sproat
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 July 1994, c. 469]: I regret to inform the House that the answer given was incorrect. The correct reply is as follows: the Library and Information Services Council was established under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 and the Theatres Trust was established under the Theatres Trust Act 1976.

ENVIRONMENT

  Access to Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what options for housing will be available to a homeless family accepted as being in priority need and not intentionally homeless for the 12 months after they became homeless as a result of the statement on access to local authority housing;

  (2) what options for housing will be available to a homeless family accepted as being in priority need and not intentionally homeless for the 12-month period of the first temporary tenancy if they are still not entitled to a local authority home according to the waiting list, as a result of the statement on access to local authority housing.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  If such a family have no accommodation available which is suitable in terms of its general condition and in relation to the family's particular needs the Government's homelessness reforms propose that the local authority would have a recurring duty to arrange such accommodation.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to consult further on matters contained in the statement on access to local authority housing; on which matters he will be consulting; with which organisations; and during which time period.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My officials will be holding further discussions with local authority and housing association representatives, and other relevant organisations, both in preparation for legislation and in taking forward those matters which do not require legislation.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to tighten up the code of guidance so that applications should be more thoroughly vetted following the statement on access to local authority housing.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We intend to draw on current best practice among local housing authorities, to ensure that assistance goes to those applicants who are eligible for it.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to modify the provisions on intentionality in the context of the statement on access to local authority housing.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We are still considering this matter, in discussion with representatives of local authorities and other relevant organisations.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions are made under the proposals contained in the statement on access to local authority housing for a family accepted as homeless to be given a succession of temporary tenancies; and if it is intended that there will be a limit on the number o f such tenancies or the period of time they can last for individually or together.

  Mr. Roberts B. Jones
  The terms of the provisions will depend upon how the legislation is drafted. But the Government's intention is that the local authority would have a duty to find accommodation for an eligible homeless household for a minimum of 12 months, and if the household continues to need assistance the duty would recur. In practice, a tenancy arranged by the authority to 14
  discharge its duty might well last longer than 12 months. In many parts of the country the household would gain local authority or housing association accommodation via a waiting list within 12 months.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that the costs of leakages in the water system and of cleaning water from pollution not created by consumers should be clearly identified, and an equitable system devised for the costs that these factors create; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government believe that wherever possible, those responsible for pollution should bear the costs of any necessary treatment. Each water company must exercise effective control over losses from the distribution system. Their success in controlling such losses is reflected in the scope for further efficiency savings in their operations, which has a direct bearing on the price limits determined by the director general and hence the charges faced by consumers.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will establish an independent review of water and sewerage charges with the remit of establishing a system which does not encourage limitations in water use that create public and individual health risks and taking into account the contribution that customers, the water companies and their shareholders and also those polluting water supplies should make to the costs of investment in water and sewerage services.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government have every confidence in the effectiveness of the existing regulatory system and the ability of the Director General of Water Services, who is carrying out his responsibilities as an independent regulator, and who has a duty to protect the interests of customers and to ensure that charges for water and sewerage are fair and equitable.

  Public Rights of Way
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to meet the Countryside Commission's target to clear, waymark and remove obstructions from all the 120,000 miles of public right of way in England.

  Mr. Atkins
  Achieving the target is essentially a matter for local highway authorities, with farmers, landowners and path users also having a role to play. The Countryside Commission's "Milestones" initiative encourages all those involved with rights of way to work together to achieve the target. Good progress is being made.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that water companies should be required to indicate where disconnections have occurred in households in receipt of state support and to make public such disconnections; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  No. Where water companies disconnect a water supply to an inhabited house and do not restore the supply within 24 hours, they are already required, under the Water Industry Act 1991, to inform the local authority in whose area the house is situated.

  Environmentally Adjusted Accounts
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to develop pilot systems of environmentally adjusted national accounts by 1995.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department, together with other Government departments, is to participate in a project led by the Central Statistical Office to develop a pilot system of satellite accounts linked to the input/output framework of national accounts.

  Planning Policy
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce a review of planning policy guidance note 16.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There are no proposals to review the policy on archaeology and planning as set out in PPG 16. However, the Department of National Heritage and English Heritage are reviewing the implementation of this PPG. Consultants have been appointed and preparatory work for a study is now under way.

  National Environmental Agency
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to establish a national environment agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Mr right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment published on Thursday 13 October draft legislative provisions to establish an Environment Agency for England and Wales and a Scottish Environment Protection Agency, together with a draft of the management statement for the Environment Agency. Copies have been placed in the House Libraries. The published draft clauses and schedules set out the constitution of the new agencies and their functions, powers and duties. They represent the core legislative provisions relating to the agencies, which will be presented to Parliament at the earliest opportunity as part of an environmental Bill. This early publication of the agency provisions will give interested parties a chance to inform themselves of the details of the proposed legislation before it is introduced to Parliament.

  Countryside Commission and English Nature (Merger)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the cost of a merger between English Nature and the Countryside Commission.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 7 October that he has decided not to proceed with a merger of the Countryside Commission and English Nature. Instead, a programme of closer working is to be developed.

  "Water - A Vital Resource"
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to the British Medical Association report, "Water—A Vital Resource", a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Atkins
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health published the Government's response to the 16
  BMA's board of science report "Water - A Vital Resource" on 16 June 1994, with which I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are in full agreement.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is(a) the value of assets sold under the right-to-buy legislation, (b) the proceeds received by local authorities and housing associations, (c) the money which local authorities have been allowed to spend from the proceeds and (d) the amount of the proceeds spent by local authorities, for each year from 1980 to date.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Information is not held centrally by the Department in the form requested.

  However, figures of receipts from sales of council dwellings to sitting tenants are collected by the Department and these show that between the introduction of right to buy in 1980 and the end of March 1994 the total value of such sitting tenant sales, net of discounts, is an estimated £18·5 billion.

  The number of sales to sitting tenants during this period was about 1,280,000 and 92 per cent. of such sales resulted from tenants exercising their right to buy.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a full copy of the National Rivers Authority's report into the causes of pollution at Helpston Health landfill site, Cambridgeshire; and whether, as a result of the full report, he expects Hunt's Refuse or Shanks and McEwan to be prosecuted for allowing leaching from the site to pollute the water supply.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Copies of the report commissioned by the National Rivers Authority on groundwater contamination in the area around Helpston, Cambridgeshire have been placed in the House Libraries. It is for the National Rivers Authority to consider whether or not it will prosecute.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who represented his Department at the Plan for Profit conference on waste management in London on 20 September; what was the cost of attendance; and what assessment he has made of the benefits accrued to his Department from the participation of departmental personnel.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department's directorate of pollution control and wastes was represented at this annual conference organised by the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors by the head of directorate, the head of wastes technical division and two other officers, as guests of the association. Representation was at a level consistent with the need to maintain the Department's working relationship with the industry and to keep abreast of issues of concern to the industry following the introduction of the new licensing regime earlier this year.

  Wetlands Preservation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional sites have been added to the sites recognised as of international importance under the
  17
  Ramsar convention on wetlands preservation since August; how many sites within the United Kingdom or under the United Kingdom jurisdiction are now listed under Ramsar; and which additional sites are under consideration for inclusion on the Ramsar list.

  Mr. Atkins
  Three additional wetlands of international importance have been added to the list of Ramsar sites since August; Loch Maree; Broadland; and Booby Pond and Rookery, Little Cayman. There are currently 83 United Kingdom Ramsar sites, including two sites in United Kingdom dependent territories. In due course some 70 further sites within the United Kingdom are expected to be considered for listing under the Ramsar convention. Further listings can also be expected in the United Kingdom dependent territories.

  Eco-labelling
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions there have been about eco-labels with other EC countries and EU institutions in the last three months; and if he will make a statement about progress towards an eco-labelling system in the EU.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board has had discussions with the ecolabelling competent bodies in to her member states and with the Commission about the delays there have been in implementing the EC scheme. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade wrote expressing his concerns about the delays to the Commissioner for Industrial Affairs and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State raised this matter at the Environment Council on 4 October. The Council unanimously adopted conclusions condemning the Commission for the delays and calling upon it to act quickly to put matters right.

  Toxic Waste Dumping
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take against the dumping of toxic waste and other hazardous materials(a) in the port of Liverpool and (b) other United Kingdom ports; and if he will give immediate consideration to the proposals set out in the letter to him from the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) of 19 September.

  Mr. Atkins
  Day-to-day control over imports of waste is a matter for local waste regulation authorities. In cases of waste entering the port of Liverpool, the responsible authority is Merseyside waste regulation authority.

  Government policy on the export and import of waste was announced on 15 June. In line with the principle of self-sufficiency which was set out in the 1990 environment White Paper, the presumption in future will be against imports of waste into the United Kingdom for disposal, other than in exceptional cases where wider environmental considerations apply. Imports for genuine recovery operations will continue to be allowed. My Department will be consulting publicly on more detailed proposals, in the form of a draft waste management plan, later this year.

  With regard to the proposals made by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) for a national waste disposal strategy, I refer to my right hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend, the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) on 20 July, Official Report, column 322,
  18
  in which he announced the Government's intention to draw up a draft waste strategy for England and Wales. This will aim to provide a coherent framework for waste management policies throughout the country. The draft strategy will be issued for consultation by the end of the year.

  Wildlife Trade
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if the police were consulted over changes to the bird registration system.

  (2) if the police have been included in consultation over the deregulation of wildlife sales control.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Yes. My Department consulted the police when the review started, and subsequently when our proposals to reduce the scope of the bird registration system were announced. The police have agreed to participate in an official level working group which will be reviewing the enforcement of sales and related controls.

  Heartlands Urban Development Corporation
  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures are being taken to protect existing spending commitments to the Heartlands urban development corporation under the new bidding regime of the single regeneration budget; and what are the existing commitments for the financial year(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c)1997–98 and (d) 1998–99.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  UDC's form a self-contained grouping within the SRB and all existing commitments will be honoured. The level of grant in future years will be determined, in the light of corporate plans, at the outcome of the current public expenditure survey.

  Birmingham Heartlands development corporation will have entered into commitments on the basis of its anticipated total income which includes receipts and funding from the European regional development fund. BHDC has been given an indicative wind-up date of March 1997 and its future expenditure strategy has been planned accordingly.

  Housing Association Grant
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the level of housing association grant rate for 1995–96; what response he has made to the opinions of the Environment Committee on this topic; and what criteria he has adopted for determining that figure for 1995–96.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My colleagues and I received 88 letters concerning housing association grant rates for 1995–96 in the period to 12 October.

  The Select Committee's report into the work of the Housing Corporation made no specific proposal concerning grant rates in 1995–96. Their general view that grant rates should be maintained in the absence of falls in procurement costs was carefully considered.

  The Housing Corporation advised me on the implications of changes in development costs and tenants' incomes, and the likely impact of lower grant rates on rents and affordability and on the supply of private finance to support the development programme. Their

  19
  analysis has been published, and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. It shows that the reduction in grant rates that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration announced on 3 August 1994 was very largely justified by lower procurement costs.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from(a) the Council of Mortgage Lenders or (b) other private financial institutions on the level of housing association grant.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Ministers here, as well as officials from my Department and the Housing Corporation, are in regular contact with lenders and with the Council of Mortgage Lenders. On the basis of those discussions, I am confident that private finance will continue to be available to enable associations to deliver the substantial programme of new affordable homes for which we have made provision.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for the last five years all EU environmental directives which have not yet been incorporated into United Kingdom law; and when he expects regulations to be published to do this.

  Mr. Atkins
  The main environmental directives still to be legally transposed in the United Kingdom are the nitrates directive, the urban waste water treatment directive and the habitats directive. The House of Commons has approved the regulations needed to transpose the habitats directive and these are being considered by the other place today. Regulations to implement the urban waste water treatment directive are being drafted and work to implement the nitrates directive is in hand.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a reference for, or list in the Official Report, the budgeted expenditure on homelessness within the general fund of each local authority in England for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have arranged for the available information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's response to the report, "Constructing the Team", by Sir Michael Latham.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  In common with the whole of the construction industry, the Government have given a warm welcome to the trust of Sir Michael Latham's report. We have invited Sir Michael to lead the initial implementation phase and provided administrative and other resources to ensure that momentum can be maintained. We are participating fully with industry and client groups to develop detailed responses to the report's recommendations. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has approved an interdepartmental scrutiny of Government's procurement of construction in response to Sir Michael's recommendation that the Government should commit themselves to being a best practice client.
  20
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for legislation to govern construction contracts.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We shall now be examining with industry and client groups Sir Michael Latham's particular proposals. We have made it clear that we are prepared in principle to legislate on these matters subject to agreement on the need and form of such legislation.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what policies his Department has for encouraging progress in the construction industry for operatives and companies from ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Sir Michael Latham's report, "Constructing the Team", recommended that equal opportunities in the industry should be vigorously pursued. A joint task force is being established to progress this recommendation. My Department will take an active part.

  Transitional Relief
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make an announcement on the future of transitional relief.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We expect to make an announcement about council tax transitional relief at the same time as the local government finance supplement proposals are announced, shortly after the Chancellor's Budget statement.

  Urban Improvement Programmes
  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was spent on programmes of section 11, estate action and urban programme in 1994–95; and what sum is committed to these programmes for 1995–96(a) nationally and (b) in Birmingham.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Planned spending by my Department in 1994–95 on these elements within the single regeneration budget is £60.5 million on section 11, £372·6 million on estate action and £82·9 million on the urban programme.

  In 1995–96 all existing commitments within the single regeneration budget will be honoured with the level of resources for each of the component elements of the budget determined at the outcome of the current public expenditure survey.

  Within Birmingham commitments in 1995–96 are currently £22·08 million for estate action and £1.14 million for the urban programme. The basis for the calculation of future commitments under the section 11 programme is still the subject of discussion with local authorities.

  Newham Borough Council
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state for the London borough of Newham the capital debt and relevant interest paid in respect of borrowing sanctioned by him or other Ministers in the year 1993–94 and the related standard spending assessment and basis of its calculations.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The level of borrowing undertaken in 1993–94, and the terms of any such borrowing, were a matter for the borough, subject to the
  21
  limits permitted under part IV of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  The SSA element for debt charges is intended to cover in full the financing costs associated with the appropriate amount of debt which would allow an authority to provide a standard level of service. It is based on those elements of the 1989–90 grant-related expenditure assessment relating to capital financing and credit approvals issued since 1 April 1990. It excludes credits approvals and assumed debt associated with the housing revenue account and credit approvals which are not expected to lead to a net increase in long-term borrowing. Newham's SSA element for debt charges in the 1994–95 revenue support grant settlement was £18·903 million. This financing cost was based on assumed debt outstanding for SSA purposes of £136·512 million at 1 April 1994 and estimated credit approvals for 1994–95 of £9·115 million. The estimate of 1993–94 credit approvals used in the calculation of assumed debt outstanding at 1 April 1994 was £9·476 million.

  Council Mortgage Lenders
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Council of Mortgage Lenders.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My right hon. Friend and Ministers in his Department have frequent meetings with the Council of Mortgage Lenders. Most recently, my noble Friend the Earl of Arran, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, met the Council of Mortgage Lenders on 7 June 1994.

  Castle Vale Housing Action Trust
  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures are being taken to protect existing spending commitments to the Castle Vale housing action trust under the new bidding regime of the single regeneration budget; and what are the existing commitments for the financial years(a)1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998–99.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Housing action trusts form a self-contained grouping within the single regeneration budget and all existing commitments will be honoured. The level of grant-in-aid for the Castle Vale HAT for 1995–96 and indicative figures for the two following years will be determined in the light of all the trusts' corporate plans at the outcome of the current public expenditure survey.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the maximum sum available to the Birmingham area from new bids under the single regeneration budget in 1995–96 on a basis pro rata to the current distribution of the totality of programmes now within the single regeneration budget.

  Sir. Paul Beresford
  In the current financial year forecast expenditure on the single regeneration budget nationally is £1442 million and it is expected that £68 million of this will be spent within Birmingham.

  The amount of resources available to the Birmingham area for new bids will not be known until the results of the bidding round are announced in January 1995.

  Women's Refuges
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many women and children used women's refuges in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years, and during 1994 to the latest available date;

  (2) what assessment has been made by his Department of the level of demand for places in women's refuges; what plans he has to increase refuge provision; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many (a) women's refuges and (b) places in women's refuges have been available to women escaping domestic violence in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Department does not hold information about the numbers of women's refuges, or places in refuges.

  The provision of women's refuges is best decided by local authorities and other agencies, taking into account such issues as the local supply of housing available for short-term use in emergency situations. Under the homelessness legislation local authorities have a statutory duty to provide accommodation or to assist persons who are at risk from domestic violence.

  For information about Wales I refer the hon. Lady to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much(a) capital funding and (b) revenue funding has been provided by his Department to women's refuges in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  In 1994–95 the Department is providing, through the Housing Corporation, £3.1 million capital funding for women's aid projects in England, largely to provide refuge places. Comparative figures for earlier years are given in the table.

  Year

  £million

  1988–89

  6·4

  1989–90

  2·1

  1990–91

  1·7

  1991–92

  5·2

  1992–93

  5·4

  1993–94

  5·8

  Information is not available about revenue funding, or for years prior to 1988–89. For information about. Wales I refer the hon. Lady to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Energy Saving Trust
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now list the funding available to the Energy Saving Trust over each of the next three years, the source of the funding and what steps the Government are taking to increase this funding; if he will make a statement about the future of the Energy Saving Trust and its contribution to achieving the United Nations conference on the environment and development, Rio summit, targets.
  23
  Mr. Roberts B. Jones
  The Energy Saving Trust is an independent organisation, but I understand that funding for schemes in which it is involved is as follows:

  a. Each electricity company in England and Wales has been set standards of performance on energy efficiency by the electricity regulator after consultation with the Trust. OFFER is also proposing standards for Scottish companies. Funding for schemes of up to £22 million in 1993–94 and £25 million over each of the next three years raised from electricity franchise customers will be available to help meet those standards. This includes funding proposed under the Scottish price control.

  b. Funding of £1 million in 1994–95 is available for the second year of the Trust's pilot combined heat and power scheme. The level of funding to be raised from gas customers for future schemes is a matter for on the decision of the Director General of Gas Supply. She is currently considering proposals for five schemes submitted by British Gas based on proposals from the trust.

  c. In addition the trust expects to raise some £2 million each year until 1997 from a variety of sources, including this Department, which will be spent on their pilot scheme for local energy advice schemes.

  The Government are considering how energy efficiency schemes involving the trust might be funded in the future. The Government are committed to their climate change programme which includes energy efficiency measures involving the trust.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Upper Waiting Hall Exhibitions
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to assistance dogs for the disabled to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 31 October to Friday 4 November.

  Travel Office
  Mr. Orme
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how the acquisition by American Express of the travel management interests of the Thomas Cook Group Ltd. will affect the services provided for the House and hon. Members by the Travel Office.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I have received firm assurances that the acquisition of Thomas Cook Travel Management by American Express will have no adverse effect on the quality and range of services provided by the Travel Office. The Administration Committee nevertheless intends to monitor closely the performances of the office to ensure that its standards of service are maintained.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Lord President of the Council on what date he published, or plans to publish, a consolidated list of specific responsibilities or activities of each Member of her Majesty's Administration as of July.
  24
  Mr. David Hunt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The "List of Ministerial Responsibilities including Agencies" is published by the Cabinet Office: the latest edition was published in September. Copies can be purchased from that office, and are available to Members free from the Vote Office.

EDUCATION

  Parents Charter
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many copies of the parents charter were distributed in(a) Southampton and (b) Hampshire; and what was the cost in each case.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The figures have been provided by the Royal Mail, which was contracted to carry out the distribution on behalf of the Department of Education:

  (a) Southampton–245,130 copies;

  (b) Hampshire (excluding Southampton)–147,782 copies.

  The actual cost of the distribution is commercial in confidence and to disclose it would compromise the Department's confidential tendering procedures.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement concerning anomalies in the funding of London boroughs for salaries of teachers in receipt of inner London allowances; and what actions Her Majesty's Government have taken, or intend to take, on any necessary adjustments.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  London boroughs already receive appropriate compensation in their education standard spending assessments for the overall extra labour and other costs they need to incur to deliver a standard level of service. The Government, in consultation with the local authority associations, will continue to review the standard spending assessment methodology annually.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grant-maintained schools have(a) fewer than 50 pupils, (b) 50 to 100 pupils, (c) 100 to 250 pupils, (d) 250 to 500 pupils, (e) 500 to 1,000 pupils, (f) 1,000 to 1,500 pupils and (g) more than 1,500 pupils.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is set out as follows:

  Pupil numbers are derived from the Department's January 1993 schools census and therefore included GM schools that were still under LEA control at that time.

  Number of GM schools

  Number of Pupils

  Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  Less than 50

  6

  —

  6

  50 to 100

  31

  —

  31

  100 to 250

  189

  4

  193

  250 to 500

  154

  57

  211

  500 to 1,000

  12

  381

  393

  1,000 to 1,500

  —

  157

  157

  More than 1,500

  —

  16

  16

  Education Authority Funding
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was the education standard spending assessment for each local education authority in the current financial year; how much was distributed to each local education authority; and what were the total amounts in each case.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Most central Government support for local authorities is in the form of revenue support grant and non-domestic rates. Standard spending assessments are used to determine the overall RSG paid to each authority. The education standard spending assessments for 1994–95 for each English local education authority are as follows:

  1994–95 Total Education SSA

  £ million

  City

  0·431

  Camden

  64·006

  Greenwich

  106·682

  Hackney

  101·461

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  50·987

  Islington

  78·237

  Kensington and Chelsea

  32·203

  Lambeth

  114·618

  Lewisham

  107·672

  Southwark

  102·889

  Tower Hamlets

  117·139

  Wandsworth

  82·667

  Westminster

  47·130

  Barking

  62·611

  Barnet

  102·209

  Bexley

  84·425

  Brent

  115·434

  Bromley

  93·379

  Croydon

  113·587

  Ealing

  113·070

  Enfield

  108·289

  Haringey

  93·825

  Harrow

  70·019

  Havering

  85·134

  Hillingdon

  88·522

  Hounslow

  85·358

  Kingston upon Thames

  42·350

  Merton

  54·216

  Newham

  124·425

  Redbridge

  91·838

  Richmond upon Thames

  36·845

  Sutton

  61·293

  Waltham Forest

  95·503

  Birmingham

  436·962

  Coventry

  113·298

  Dudley

  96·732

  Sandwell

  111·048

  Solihull

  63·030

  Walsall

  100·462

  Wolverhampton

  97·752

  Knowsley

  75·309

  Liverpool

  202·234

  St· Helen's

  63·692

  Sefton

  99·572

  Wirral

  125·582

  Bolton

  94·061

  Bury

  56·138

  Manchester

  184·189

  Oldham

  85·047

  Rochdale

  80·644

  Salford

  77·387

  Stockport

  86·738

  Tameside

  74·115

  26

  £million

  Trafford

  69·128

  Wigan

  103·969

  Barnsley

  73·214

  Doncaster

  114·613

  Rotherham

  91·790

  Sheffield

  165·369

  Bradford

  207·828

  Calderdale

  72·075

  Kirklees

  138·275

  Leeds

  239·163

  Wakefield

  103·599

  Gateshead

  69·607

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  95·334

  North Tyneside

  64·739

  South Tyneside

  55·570

  Sunderland

  111·363

  Isles of Scilly

  1·135

  Avon

  297·673

  Bedfordshire

  211·153

  Berkshire

  267·815

  Buckinghamshire

  249·922

  Cambridgeshire

  222·581

  Cheshire

  328·551

  Cleveland

  218·506

  Cornwall

  155·039

  Cumbria

  161·414

  Derbyshire

  302·673

  Devon

  321·710

  Dorset

  191·515

  Durham

  208·516

  East Sussex

  207·757

  Essex

  548·518

  Gloucestershire

  170·799

  Hampshire

  502·990

  Hereford and Worcester

  216·529

  Hertfordshire

  351·155

  Humberside

  309·881

  Isle of Wight

  43·735

  Kent

  553·522

  Lancashire

  479·942

  Leicestershire

  313·809

  Lincolnshire

  199·967

  Norfolk

  237·184

  North Yorkshire

  215·596

  Northamptonshire

  206·719

  Northumberland

  108·114

  Nottinghamshire

  343·437

  Oxfordshire

  181·352

  Shropshire

  135·496

  Somerset

  141·986

  Staffordshire

  345·541

  Suffolk

  201·176

  Surrey

  285·235

  Warwickshire

  153·367

  West Sussex

  220·291

  Wiltshire

  185·524

  Manchester

  184·189

  Oldham

  85·047

  Rochdale

  80·644

  Salford

  77·387

  Stockport

  86·738

  Tameside

  74·115

  Trafford

  69·128

  Wigan

  103·969

  Barnsley

  73·214

  Doncaster

  114·613

  Rotherham

  91·790

  Sheffield

  165·369

  Bradford

  207·828

  Calderdale

  72·075

  Kirklees

  138·275

  Leeds

  239·163

  Wakefield

  103·599

  Gateshead

  69·607

  27

  £ million

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  95·334

  North Tyneside

  64·739

  South Tyneside

  55·570

  Sunderland

  111·363

  Isles of Scilly

  1·135

  Avon

  297·673

  Bedfordshire

  211·153

  Berkshire

  267·815

  Buckinghamshire

  249·922

  Cambridgeshire

  222·581

  Cheshire

  328·551

  Cleveland

  218·506

  Cornwall

  155·039

  Cumbria

  161·414

  Derbyshire

  302·673

  Devon

  321·710

  Dorset

  191·515

  Durham

  208·516

  East Sussex

  207·757

  Essex

  548·518

  Gloucestershire

  170·799

  Hampshire

  502·990

  Hereford and Worcester

  216·529

  Hertfordshire

  351·155

  Humberside

  309·881

  Isle of Wight

  43·735

  Kent

  553·522

  Lancashire

  479·942

  leicestershire

  313·809

  Lincolnshire

  199·967

  Norfolk

  237·184

  North Yorkshire

  215·596

  Northamptonshire

  206·719

  Northumberland

  108·114

  Nottinghamshire

  343·437

  Oxfordshire

  181·352

  Shropshire

  135·496

  Somerset

  141·986

  Staffordshire

  345·541

  Local Education Authority (LEA)

  Proportion of Potential Schools Budget not Included in Aggregated Schools Budget

  1994–94

  1993–94

  1992–93

  1991–92

  1990–91

  All LEAs where LMS in operation before April 1992

  Avon

  14·4

  14·2

  16·4

  17·2

  17·7

  Barking

  14·7

  11·7

  12·2

  14·8

  13·0

  Barnet

  13·4

  14·0

  14·8

  16·3

  15·6

  Barnsley

  15·0

  14·6

  14·7

  14·1

  16·6

  Bedfordshire

  11·0

  12·8

  14·8

  16·7

  16·0

  Berkshire

  10·0

  11·7

  10·9

  12·3

  12·3

  Bexley

  12·4

  12·2

  11·7

  18·7

  18·7

  Birmingham

  13·2

  12·6

  15·7

  16·6

  17·0

  Bolton

  15·0

  13·1

  11·5

  11·7

  10·9

  Bradford

  align="right">13·5

  13·9

  15·3

  13·3

  14·0

  Brent

  10·0

  10·2

  13·1

  16·5

  16·4

  Bromley

  13·6

  14·4

  15·3

  15·1

  19·3

  Buckinghamshire

  14·9

  14·7

  14·7

  13·4

  15·1

  Bury

  11·7

  12·7

  12·9

  14·7

  18·1

  Calderdale

  12·3

  13·9

  14·4

  14·5

  18·1

  Cambridgeshire

  13·8

  14·0

  12·8

  12·6

  19·3

  Cheshire

  11·3

  11·3

  11·7

  12·7

  15·7

  Cleveland

  14·4

  13·6

  15·6

  16·6

  16·4

  Cornwall

  12·9

  14·7

  15·0

  16·1

  16·4

  Coventry

  12·9

  13·9

  17·0

  17·2

  19·1

  Croydon

  9·9

  12·5

  13·2

  19·0

  N/A

  Cumbria

  13·5

  11·6

  13·3

  14·6

  17·5

  Derbyshire

  15·0

  14·6

  15·5

  16·0

  16·6

  Devon

  12·2

  12·7

  12·7

  12·9

  16·9

  Doncaster

  15·0

  14·2

  15·8

  16·0

  14·6

  Dorset

  13·4

  13·5

  15·8

  14·8

  18·2

  Dudley

  7·5

  9·5

  14·9

  15·5

  16·0

  Durham

  14·0

  14·2

  14·7

  17·8

  16·9

  28

  £ million

  Suffolk

  201·176

  Surrey

  285·235

  Warwickshire

  153·367

  West Sussex

  220·91

  Wiltshire

  185·524

  Mrs Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will show for each local education authority and for each year since 1988–89(a) the percentage of the potential schools budget which is not delegated to schools through the aggregate schools budget, (b) the percentage of the general schools budget which is not delegated to schools through the aggregate schools budget and (c) the percentage of pupils in schools covered by schemes of delegation.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested at(a) and (b) is set out in the tables, for the financial year 1990–91, when the first statutory schemes for the local management of schools came into force, and subsequent years.

  LMS schemes came into force in 1990–91 for all local education authorities with the exception of 10 whose schemes came into force in 1991–92—Croydon, Hereford and Worcester, Hertfordshire, Hillingdon, Isles of Scilly, Leicestershire, Manchester, Newham, Stockport, Wirral— and 12 whose schemes came into force in 1992–93—the inner London authorities other than Westminster. From their inception, these schemes covered all county and voluntary schools maintained by the authorities concerned; they have since been extended to cover all special schools, with effect from 1993–94 in the cases of Bedfordshire, Brent, Bromley, Buckinghamshire, Harrow, Lincolnshire, Northumberland and Rotherham, and with effect from 1994–95 in the case of all other authorities.
  29

  Local Education Authority (LEA)

  Proportion of Potential Schools Budget not Included in Aggregated Schools Budget

  1994–94

  1993–94

  1992–93

  1991–92

  1990–91

  Ealing

  13·9

  13·3

  13·9

  17·1

  18·3

  East Sussex

  13·8

  14·3

  14·8

  14·6

  15·9

  Enfield

  12·1

  13·0

  13·6

  15·3

  18·5

  Essex

  14·1

  12·9

  14·9

  14·9

  16·0

  Gateshead

  13·9

  14·6

  16·1

  16·1

  16·7

  Gloucestershire

  13·6

  15·0

  16·8

  15·5

  13·2

  Hampshire

  13·4

  14·1

  13·4

  13·9

  14·2

  Haringey

  14·9

  14·0

  16·2

  16·2

  20·6

  Harrow

  11·2

  13·4

  17·2

  17·6

  18·5

  Havering

  11·7

  13·6

  13·9

  14·9

  16·1

  Hereford/Worcester

  11·7

  12·6

  14·5

  16·0

  N/A

  Hertfordshire

  8·7

  8·9

  12·9

  13·8

  N/A

  Hillingdon

  13·4

  14·9

  15·6

  16·1

  N/A

  Hounslow

  14·0

  12·2

  15·2

  16·7

  18·4

  Humberside

  14·1

  14·9

  14·8

  15·4

  18·3

  Isle of Wight

  13·1

  15·0

  14·2

  16·3

  17·5

  Isles of Scilly

  13·7

  14·5

  14·9

  16·8

  N/A

  Kent

  14·8

  14·5

  15·5

  14·2

  15·1

  Kingston

  14·5

  15·0

  14·4

  15·7

  21·5

  Kirklees

  15·8

  14·8

  14·5

  15·0

  16·6

  Knowsley

  10·9

  13·4

  15·6

  16·8

  18·1

  Lancashire

  14·7

  15·0

  15·7

  17·3

  17·3

  Leeds

  10·1

  11·2

  13·2

  13·7

  13·9

  Leicestershire

  13·6

  11·5

  14·6

  15·7

  N/A

  Lincolnshire

  13·2

  12·2

  13·7

  14·5

  14·9

  Liverpool

  13·5

  15·0

  15·5

  17·1

  15·1

  Manchester

  11·0

  10·9

  12·8

  12·0

  N/A

  Merton

  11·7

  13·3

  15·7

  15·1

  20·2

  Newcastle

  14·6

  13·9

  15·1

  17·6

  20·3

  Newham

  15·0

  14·9

  17·9

  20·5

  N/A

  Norfolk

  12·2

  14·8

  13·8

  15·6

  16·4

  North Tyneside

  14·1

  14·9

  15·2

  15·5

  17·7

  North Yorkshire ·

  13·1

  N/A

  14·6

  15·8

  17·4

  Northamptonshire

  10·7

  12·4

  12·4

  14·0

  15·3

  Northumberland

  11·1

  12·1

  12·8

  11·8

  13·5

  Nottinghamshire

  13·3

  13·7

  14·9

  16·0

  17·3

  Oldham

  13·2

  14·7

  15·7

  16·9

  18·4

  Oxfordshire

  11·3

  11·9

  14·1

  15·3

  18·6

  Redbridge

  13·0

  13·8

  15·0

  16·9

  17·3

  Richmond

  11·1

  14·4

  15·0

  17·4

  20·0

  Rochdale

  11·3

  11·3

  11·7

  11·5

  14·3

  Rotherham

  13·8

  14·8

  15·3

  14·6

  13·9

  Salford

  12·2

  14·0

  15·3

  14·0

  15·6

  Sandwell

  13·5

  13·9

  14·4

  17·3

  16·8

  Sefton

  13·0

  11·6

  11·2

  12·1

  12·6

  Sheffield

  15·0

  14·7

  15·9

  14·1

  17·4

  Shropshire

  14·6

  13·8

  13·7

  13·9

  15·4

  Solihull

  9·6

  9·9

  14·2

  14·4

  14·7

  Somerset

  13·8

  14·6

  14·4

  14·5

  17·1

  South Tyneside

  13·5

  13·9

  14·0

  14·1

  16·2

  St Helens

  14·5

  14·8

  14·6

  15·5

  16·7

  Staffordshire

  12·1

  13·3

  14·6

  15·2

  15·4

  Stockport

  10·7

  12·5

  11·7

  11·3

  N/A

  Suffolk

  12·4

  12·4

  13·0

  12·4

  14·3

  Sunderland

  12·1

  12·3

  11·7

  11·6

  13·1

  Surrey

  13·1

  14·5

  14·3

  15·4

  14·4

  Sutton

  14·0

  14·4

  15·3

  14·9

  16·6

  Tameside

  14·1

  14·8

  15·3

  16·2

  15·6

  Trafford

  13·4

  13·5

  15·3

  16·1

  15·6

  Wakefield

  14·6

  14·9

  16·0

  15·7

  17·1

  Walsall

  12·3

  11·9

  14·3

  14·5

  14·3

  Waltham Forest

  10·2

  14·2

  17·9

  19·8

  20·4

  Warwickshire

  14·3

  13·9

  13·0

  13·3

  14·8

  West Sussex

  12·9

  13·2

  12·6

  12·3

  12·5

  Westminster

  11·5

  11·6

  14·4

  15·1

  22·0

  Wigan

  13·1

  14·4

  15·9

  17·0

  16·7

  Wiltshire

  14·0

  12·8

  15·6

  16·7

  17·7

  Wirral

  13·7

  13·3

  14·3

  14·3

  N/A

  Wolverhampton

  11·3

  10·1

  19·1

  18·5

  18·2

  Inner London LEAs where LMS in operation from April 1992

  City of London

  13·0

  13·5

  13·0

  Camden

  17·0

  15·0

  16·8

  30 31

  Local Education Authority (LEA)

  Proportion of Potential Schools Budget not Included in Aggregated Schools Budget

  1994–94

  1993–94

  1992–93

  1991–92

  1990–91

  Greenwich

  10·8

  13·7

  20·4

  Hackney

  16·5

  18·4

  20·2

  Hammersmith/Fulham

  13·0

  15·4

  18·3

  Islington

  7·5

  7·4

  14·8

  Kensington/Chelsea

  14·2

  18·3

  23·9

  Lambeth

  15·8

  16·4

  20·3

  Lewisham

  15·4

  16·2

  18·9

  Southwark

  13·9

  16·7

  20·9

  Tower Hamlets

  13·8

  14·1

  22·8

  Wandsworth

  17·7

  19·2

  15·8

  Local Education Authority (LEA)

  Proportion of General Schools Budget not Included in Aggregated Schools Budget

  1994–95

  1993–94

  1992–93

  1991–92

  1990–91

  All LEAs where LMS in operation before April 1992

  Avon

  25·1

  23·3

  27·8

  32·4

  34·5

  Barking

  28·1

  22·0

  26·9

  25·6

  34·9

  Barnet

  33·2

  29·1

  29·2

  30·2

  32·1

  Barnsley

  29·2

  30·2

  34·3

  31·2

  34·6

  Bedfordshire

  27·5

  29·2

  29·5

  30·0

  31·9

  Berkshire

  24·5

  24·4

  27·0

  29·7

  N/A

  Bexley

  30·8

  30·3

  30·4

  33·4

  33·2

  Birmingham

  29·0

  26·8

  30·0

  32·6

  33·1

  Bolton

  26·7

  25·8

  25·0

  26·1

  28·5

  Bradford

  33·2

  33·0

  34·8

  34·2

  34·1

  Brent

  28·5

  25·3

  26·5

  31·6

  33·7

  Bromley

  31·6

  31·6

  31·4

  32·3

  33·3

  Buckinghamshire·

  29·3

  29·5

  29·4

  29·1

  31·9

  Bury

  24·0

  24·1

  26·1

  27·1

  30·9

  Calderdale

  26·4

  25·5

  34·3

  34·4

  37·1

  Cambridgeshire

  30·1

  30·9

  30·1

  31·6

  40·4

  Cheshire

  26·0

  25·5

  28·7

  27·7

  29·4

  Cleveland

  27·5

  27·0

  27·5

  29·4

  28·7

  Cornwall

  29·9

  33·1

  34·6

  37·3

  35·6

  Coventry

  27·4

  28·5

  35·6

  37·5

  42·3

  Croydon

  25·7

  24·9

  25·2

  32·4

  N/A

  Cumbria

  31·1

  28·7

  34·2

  31·7

  37·4

  Derbyshire

  31·3

  30·8

  32·7

  33·6

  33·8

  Devon

  29·1

  29·6

  32·0

  34·5

  N/A

  Doncaster

  26·2

  25·7

  27·7

  28·7

  27·5

  Dorset

  29·2

  26·1

  30·7

  31·3

  32·3

  Dudley

  23·7

  28·3

  30·8

  31·7

  N/A

  Durham

  27·2

  28·5

  30·7

  31·6

  30·8

  Ealing

  34·0

  33·1

  27·3

  25·5

  N/A

  East Sussex

  28·9

  28·8

  35·0

  33·2

  33·3

  Enfield

  30·3

  30·0

  32·0

  38·3

  44·9

  Essex

  27·8

  27·8

  26·4

  26·4

  27·6

  Gateshead

  26·7

  28·2

  33·8

  34·2

  33·5

  Gloucestershire

  27·4

  25·5

  31·5

  30·9

  29·7

  Hampshire

  26·3

  25·9

  26·1

  26·1

  27·0

  Haringey

  34·8

  31·2

  34·5

  33·5

  38·2

  Harrow

  27·4

  28·9

  29·5

  28·4

  30·7

  Havering

  23·8

  21·7

  23·4

  28·2

  29·4

  Hereford/Worcester

  26·1

  25·7

  28·3

  31·2

  N/A

  Hertfordshire

  21·2

  21·3

  26·8

  27·7

  N/A

  Hillingdon

  32·0

  33·3

  32·3

  24·6

  N/A

  Hounslow

  32·4

  31·3

  34·4

  32·3

  38·9

  Humberside

  27·6

  27·5

  28·3

  29·2

  31·8

  Isle of Wight

  29·9

  28·1

  29·1

  35·5

  33·0

  Isles of Scilly

  36·4

  33·2

  37·7

  36·7

  N/A

  Kent

  29·2

  28·2

  28·3

  29·3

  28·6

  Kingston

  28·0

  25·0

  23·1

  30·3

  N/A

  Kirklees

  32·6

  32·7

  33·3

  33·1

  34·6

  Knowsley

  25·0

  25·9

  27·7

  27·3

  N/A

  Lancashire

  29·7

  30·1

  31·1

  32·5

  N/A

  Leeds

  27·6

  29·9

  35·9

  34·8

  N/A

  Leicestershire

  26·1

  22·7

  28·2

  30·0

  N/A

  Lincolnshire

  28·1

  27·9

  26·8

  25·3

  29·3

  32 33

  Local Education Authority (LEA)

  Proportion of General Schools Budget not Included in Aggregated Schools Budget

  1994–95

  1993–94

  1992–93

  1991–92

  1990–91

  Liverpool

  27·2

  25·7

  24·6

  26·1

  25·9

  Manchester

  31·0

  30·5

  30·7

  29·1

  N/A

  Merton

  28·3

  28·6

  33·5

  29·7

  42·0

  Newcastle

  30·2

  27·8

  30·0

  32·2

  35·8

  Newham

  34·1

  36·5

  37·7

  41·0

  N/A

  Norfolk

  28·3

  29·4

  27·7

  27·8

  26·9

  North Tyneside

  22·2

  29·9

  28·7

  28·6

  30·3

  North Yorkshire

  25·3

  N/A

  29·2

  31·5

  31·8

  Northamptonshire

  23·4

  26·2

  24·0

  27·4

  27·8

  Northumberland

  25·7

  26·7

  32·7

  32·9

  31·9

  Nottinghamshire

  25·9

  26·3

  27·3

  28·4

  30·1

  Oldham

  29·1

  30·2

  34·3

  38·5

  34·3

  Oxfordshire

  30·2

  31·0

  29·1

  30·2

  34·7

  Redbridge

  25·9

  25·8

  29·2

  31·2

  32·6

  Richmond

  21·8

  26·5

  27·3

  30·1

  33·7

  Rochdale

  30·9

  30·8

  34·2

  34·0

  33·6

  Rotherham

  24·8

  27·5

  29·0

  27·9

  27·8

  Salford

  25·4

  26·3

  27·2

  29·5

  24·6

  Sandwell

  28·9

  27·7

  26·7

  30·9

  32·1

  Sefton

  24·2

  24·2

  23·5

  24·6

  N/A

  Sheffield

  29·1

  29·8

  30·7

  30·1

  31·9

  Shropshire

  30·9

  28·6

  27·3

  30·7

  29·8

  Solihull

  21·0

  21·3

  27·1

  29·0

  30·1

  Somerset

  26·8

  28·2

  27·8

  27·2

  34·5

  South Tyneside

  27·1

  29·2

  32·4

  35·5

  39·1

  St· Helens

  26·6

  24·8

  26·9

  34·0

  35·6

  Staffordshire

  25·8

  27·3

  28·7

  30·0

  31·4

  Stockport

  21·1

  23·2

  22·3

  23·5

  N/A

  Suffolk

  24·5

  25·2

  27·7

  28·0

  30·6

  Sunderland

  20·3

  24·1

  26·2

  25·8

  28·5

  Surrey

  32·1

  32·9

  30·9

  31·5

  31·0

  Sutton

  34·8

  31·7

  36·6

  34·5

  37·3

  Tameside

  26·1

  28·0

  29·6

  31·1

  30·6

  Trafford

  28·4

  31·4

  34·5

  36·0

  44·0

  Wakefield

  31·6

  34·3

  32·8

  32·6

  33·1

  Walsall

  25·2

  24·9

  29·0

  29·4

  30·5

  Waltham Forest

  29·7

  35·6

  38·1

  37·7

  42·5

  Warwickshire

  26·0

  26·4

  27·6

  28·0

  31·2

  West Sussex

  24·7

  27·4

  24·3

  25·9

  28·7

  Westminister

  24·5

  24·8

  27·2

  32·3

  37·8

  Wigan

  20·1

  22·9

  25·7

  27·7

  28·4

  Wiltshire

  27·3

  25·5

  26·1

  29·8

  N/A

  Wirral

  25·2

  24·1

  27·9

  29·9

  N/A

  Wolverhampton

  28·0

  27·7

  33·5

  32·5

  34·7

  Inner London LEAs where LMS in operation from April 1992

  City of London

  34·2

  33·2

  39·9

  Camden

  30·1

  26·9

  29·6

  Greenwich

  26·0

  25·8

  32·2

  Hac

  kney

  32·7

  36·9

  39·6

  Hammersmith/Fulham

  27·7

  37·3

  34·8

  Islington

  19·6

  17·1

  26·2

  Kensington/Chelsea

  31·2

  35·1

  40·6

  Lambeth

  32·0

  31·9

  36·5

  Lewisham

  30·3

  29·3

  33·1

  Southwark

  29·9

  31·0

  34·2

  Tower Hamlets

  42·7

  45·0

  48·5

  Wandsworth

  36·7

  38·0

  32·9

  Notes to Tables

  1. A local education authority's General Schools Budget (GSB) is the authority's total planned expenditure in respect of the schools covered by its LMS Scheme: its Potential Schools Budget (PSB) consists of the GSB, less the authority's planned central expenditure on certain items which are either statutorily excepted from delegation to schools or are otherwise difficult to delegate: and its Aggregated Schools Budget is that part of the GSB which is distributed to individual schools in the form of "budget shares" determined by formula.

  34

  35

  2. The figures in the Tables have been derived from the annual budget statements which local education authorities are required to publish under section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988: all percentages have been rounded to one decimal place. "N/A" indicates either that no statutory LMS scheme was yet in operation for the authority, or that the authority's budget statement for the year in question is not to hand.

  3. In the case of inner London authorities (other than Westminister), the introduction of LMS was deferred until April 1992, and the delegation requirements applicable in their case differ from those applicable elsewhere. These authorities are therefore shown separately in the Tables.

  Research Budget
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her Department's total budget for research in education.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department's total budget for research in education is £11 million for 1994–95.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many times during the 1993–94 Session information requested in parliamentary questions has been refused on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Boswell
  On the basis of a computer search, since the beginning of the 1993–94 Session there has been one occasion on which information requested in a parliamentary question was refused on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Living Earth Project
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what contribution her Department is making to the Living Earth project on environmental awareness linking schools and business.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None. We have no record of any approach by Living Earth.

  Education Authority Funding
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will show for each local education authority and for each year since 1988–89(a) the total capital expenditure per pupil in full-time education, (b) the proportion which is met by borrowing by the local authority, (c) the proportion which is met out of revenue by the local authority and (d) the proportion which is met from capital receipts by the local authority.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is taking some time to collate. I shall write to my hon. Friend with my reply as soon as possible.

  Public Information
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for education how much has been spent by her Department in each of the last three years to(a) produce public information in alternative formats for visually impaired people and (b) publicise the availability of accessible information amongst visually impaired people.

  Mr. Forth
  (a) DFE expenditure on the production of public information for visually impaired people in Braille and on audio tape over the last three years is as follows:
  36

  £

  1992

  6,730

  1993

  29,365

  1994

  172,364

  1 to date

  (b) DFE publications for the visually impaired are publicised alongside the conventionally printed versions, supported by mailings to organisations and associations with special responsibilities for blind and visually impaired people. It is not possible to disaggregate the cost.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will indicate which departmental publications are currently available(a) in Braille, (b) in large print and (c) on tape; and if she will indicate what efforts have been made by her Department to inform visually impaired people about the availability of publications in alternative formats to normal print.

  Mr. Forth
  DFE publications are currently available in the following alternative formats for the blind and visually impaired:

  (a) Braille:

  The Updated Parent's Charter Special Educational Needs (SEN)—

  Code of Practice.

  SEN—A guide for parents

  SEN Tribunal—How to appeal National School Tests in 1994 Student grants and loans 1994–95

  (b) Large Print: no publications available.

  (c) Audio Tape:

  The Updated Parent's Charter Special Education Needs (SEN)—

  Code of Practice

  SEN—A guide for parents

  SEN Tribunal—How to appeal National School Tests in 1994 The Charterfor Higher Education

  The Charter for Further Education

  DFE publications for the visually impaired are publicised alongside the conventionally printed versions, supported by mailings and "Sound Advice", an audio-tape magazine sent to organisations and associations with special responsibilities for blind and visually impaired people.

  National Governors Council
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what funding her Department has provided to the National Governors Council; what conditions have been attached to such funding; and what requirement there is that its affiliated members accept into membership governors of(a) local authority schools, (b) grant-maintained schools, (c) city technology colleges and (d) independent schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has made available grant of up to £31,000 towards the cost of drawing up the council's proposed constitution, and organising and running a one-day conference to launch the council on 29 October.

  One of the council's aims is to be an independent forum for all associations of governing bodies in England and Wales, but there is no requirement for local associations to include specific categories of schools within their membership.

  Pupil Distribution
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will show for each local education authority and for each year since 1988–89(a) the proportion of pupils resident in the authority but educated outside the authority, (b) the proportion of pupils resident outside the authority but educated within the authority and (c) the difference between (a) and (b), showing in each case whether the authority is a net exporter or net importer of pupils.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In the table, column A the percentage of pupils belonging to the authority educated in another local education authority; column B shows pupils from elsewhere educated in an authority as a percentage of pupils resident and educated within the authority; and column C the difference. The figures are based on pupils attending maintained schools, other than sixth-form colleges; and pupils attending independent schools or receiving education otherwise than at school, under arrangements made by local education authorities. The figures are for January 1993; the information requested for other years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Education Authority

  (A)

  (B)

  (C)

  Exports

  Imports

  Net exporter

  Doncaster

  1·17

  0·86

  0·30

  Rotherham

  0·75

  3·76

  -3·00

  Sheffield

  1·61

  0·59

  1·02

  Bradford

  3·26

  0·65

  2·61

  Calderdale

  1·48

  2·52

  -1·03

  Kirklees

  1·57

  1·04

  0·53

  Leeds

  1·14

  1·48

  -0·35

  Wakefield

  0·64

  1·74

  -1·10

  Gateshead

  2·58

  2·22

  0·36

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3·89

  3·58

  0·31

  North Yyneside

  3·27

  3·03

  0·25

  South Tyneside

  1·35

  1·95

  -0·60

  Sunderland

  1·15

  1·61

  -0·46

  Isles of Scilly

  0·00

  1·13

  -1·13

  Avon

  0·61

  0·89

  -0·28

  Bedfordshire

  1·59

  1·76

  -0·17

  Berkshire

  2·65

  2·67

  -0·02

  Buckinghamshire

  4·91

  2·00

  2·90

  Cambridgeshire

  1·32

  0·91

  0·40

  Cheshire

  0·96

  2·18

  -1·22

  Cleveland

  0·21

  0·45

  -0·24

  Cornwall

  0·87

  0·44

  0·43

  Cumbria

  0·09

  0·77

  -0·68

  Derbyshire

  1·34

  1·02

  0·32

  Devon

  0·58

  0·54

  0·04

  Dorset

  0·52

  2·42

  -1·90

  Durham

  1·22

  0·33

  0·89

  East Sussex

  2·01

  1·29

  0·72

  Essex

  1·94

  0·64

  1·30

  Glouchestershire

  0·89

  1·59

  -0·70

  Hampshire

  1·46

  0·93

  0·53

  Hereford and Worcester

  2·58

  1·96

  0·62

  Hertfordshire

  1·06

  4·21

  -3·15

  Humberside

  0·63

  1·18

  -0·55

  Isle of Wight

  0·04

  0·01

  0·03

  Kent

  0·67

  0·84

  -0·17

  Lancashire

  1·17

  0·54

  0·63

  Leicestershire

  0·69

  0·56

  0·14

  Lincolnshire

  2·31

  1·49

  0·82

  Norfolk

  1·22

  0·76

  0·46

  North Yorkshire

  1·28

  2·70

  -1·42

  38

  (A)

  (B)

  (C)

  Exports

  Imports

  Net exporter

  Northamptonshire

  0·63

  1·24

  -0·61

  Northumberland

  1·00

  2·05

  -1·04

  Nottinghamshire

  0·82

  0·77

  0·05

  Oxfordshire

  1·21

  2·99

  -1·78

  Shropshire

  1·15

  1·42

  -0·26

  Somerset

  2·13

  0·98

  1·15

  Staffordshire

  1·57

  1·29

  0·27

  Suffolk

  0·87

  1·64

  -0·77

  Surrey

  4·43

  3·45

  0·98

  Warwickshire

  2·18

  2·89

  -0·71

  West Sussex

  1·21

  2·74

  -1·53

  Wiltshire

  1·93

  0·97

  0·96

  London Authority Education

  (A)

  (B)

  (C)

  Exports

  Imports

  Net Exporter

  City

  81·36

  283·05

  -201·69

  Camden

  20·61

  40·71

  -20·10

  Greenwich

  8·64

  12·00

  -3·36

  Hackney

  21·55

  9·22

  12·33

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  22·94

  29·45

  -6·51

  Islington

  22·86

  21·18

  1·68

  Kensington and Chelsea

  31·02

  43·24

  -12·22

  Lambeth

  29·33

  9·14

  20·19

  Lewisham

  16·84

  11·01

  5·83

  Southwark

  15·32

  16·41

  -1·09

  Tower Hamlets

  5·75

  4·68

  1·07

  Wandsworth

  16·68

  18·02

  -1·34

  Westminster

  24·25

  51·88

  -27·64

  Barking

  5·01

  7·70

  -2·69

  Barnet

  7·85

  17·66

  -9·81

  Bexley

  6·32

  6·78

  -0·45

  Brent

  19·60

  7·07

  12·53

  Bromley

  4·15

  9·06

  -4·91

  Croydon

  9·75

  6·81

  2·94

  Ealing

  11·08

  5·37

  5·71

  Enfield

  6·65

  8·01

  -1·36

  Haringey

  16·05

  8·90

  7·15

  Harrow

  11·02

  8·87

  2·14

  Havering

  3·49

  5·14

  -1·65

  Hillingdon

  5·53

  4·23

  1·30

  Hounslow

  10·12

  13·94

  -3·82

  Kingston Upon Thames

  8·10

  14·73

  -6·63

  Merton

  12·01

  13·47

  -1·46

  Newham

  4·59

  2·14

  2·45

  Redbridge

  6·28

  7·62

  -1·34

  Richmond Upon Thames

  8·90

  29·50

  -20·60

  Sutton

  9·33

  11·71

  -2·38

  Waltham Forest

  6·37

  3·18

  3·19

  Birmingham

  3·49

  1·47

  2·02

  Coventry

  1·32

  1·46

  -0·14

  Dudley

  3·44

  4·33

  -0·89

  Sandwell

  3·97

  5·05

  -1·08

  Solihull

  3·07

  11·84

  -8·77

  Walsall

  2·50

  5·00

  -2·50

  Wolverhampton

  4·41

  2·85

  1·56

  Knowsley

  13·20

  4·91

  8·29

  Liverpool

  2·68

  3·45

  -0·77

  St Helen's

  4·84

  5·13

  -0·29

  Sefton

  1·19

  4·31

  -3·12

  Wirral

  0·96

  0·35

  0·61

  Bolton

  2·02

  3·16

  -1·14

  Bury

  6·53

  5·45

  1·08

  Manchester

  7·74

  4·07

  3·67

  Oldham

  1·85

  7·59

  -5·74

  39

  (A)

  (B)

  (c)

  Exports

  Imports

  Net Exporter

  Rochdale

  4·97

  1·63

  3·33

  Salford

  3·81

  4·63

  -0·82

  Stockport

  2·11

  2·95

  -0·84

  Tame side

  2·91

  3·94

  -1·03

  Trafford

  4·68

  4·93

  -0·25

  Wigan

  3·25

  4·51

  -1·26

  Barnsley

  2·74

  1·22

  1·22

  Note: Minus sign shows that fhe authority is a net importer.

  Education Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what matters were discussed, and what decisions were taken at the EU Education Council held in St. Petersburg on 15 and 16 September.

  Mr. Boswell
  This conference, which my right hon· Friend attended, was not a formal meeting of the EU 40
  Education Council. It provided a useful opportunity to learn about the efforts currently being made by the Russian Government to secure the reform of its educational system, and allowed Ministers to take stock of the assistance and co-operation programmes in education being pursued with the Russian Federation both at Community level and by individual member states. A communiqué was issued at the close of the conference. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Nurse Training
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when the working group established by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to consider the implications of the transfer of nurse training to the higher education sector will report their findings; if this report will be published; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  This is a matter for the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  University Research Funding
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the present arrangements for funding university research.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The Government assessed the arrangements for funding university research last year and set out their conclusions in the science, engineering and technology White Paper, "Realising our Potential".

  Chemistry
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met officers of the Royal Society of Chemistry to discuss the role of chemistry in science policy.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have not yet met the officers of the Royal Society of Chemistry. However, my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary will be opening the Society's annual congress in Edinburgh next spring, and we look forward to continuing close relations.

  Public Service Reforms
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which OECD countries have introduced public service reforms similar to those in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. David Hunt
  All OECD countries are introducing public service reforms. In many of these areas the United Kingdom is seen as the leading innovator and model of good practice. For the third year in succession the United Kingdom is offering an opportunity for OECD countries to exchange information and benefit from good practice through its international service for the citizen conference, on 8 and 9 December this year. Eminent speakers from eight countries have been invited to share their experiences of public service reform with an international audience.

  EU Research Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what matters were discussed, what decisions taken, and which were decided by vote, at the EU Research Council on 29 September in Brussels.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The EU Research Council reached political agreement on seven specific programmes under the EU framework programme: information technologies, telematics applications of common interest; marine science and technology; standards, measurements and testing; co-operation with third countries; non-nuclear energy; and agriculture and fisheries, including agro-industry, food technologies, forestry, aquaculture and rural development. These will be formally adopted by the Council when the texts have been finalised. Furthermore, the Council reached a consensus on the controlled thermo-nuclear fusion programme under the Euratom framework programme. Member states also agreed a mandate for the Commission to negotiate a science and technology agreement with Israel.

  "Innovation and the Tax System"
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology report on "Innovation and the Tax System" was published; when its work was completed; whether its recommendations were available to Ministers when they were drawing up the Government's recent White Paper on Competitiveness; and what further work he intends the Office of Public Service and Science to do on the report's recommendations.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The report was completed in March 1994 and published on 4 July. The recommendations were available to Ministers when drawing up the White Paper on competitiveness. My Department will take account of the recommendations in continuing to promote innovation based on science, engineering and technology.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if all fees and payments made to members of public bodies are held on the Purpose 24 databank.

  Mr Robert G. Hughes
  No.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information is held on the Purpose 24 databank, data protection registration No. F0220056.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The Purpose 24 databank contains details about those people known to the public appointments unit to be interested in being considered for public appointments. The information recorded on the database is that provided by the individuals themselves or their nominators including personal details and details of posts and other positions held.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many nominations to public bodies were made from the public appointments unit's register of suitably qualified people who are willing to be considered for public appointments in(a) 1991, (b) 1992 and (c)

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Some 3,000 nominations were made in 1991–92, over 3,500 in 1992–93 and over 4,000 in 1993–94.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much the public appointments unit cost to run in(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The cost of running the Public Appointments Unit was £260,466 in 1991–92 and £254,823 in 1992–93.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many times during the 1993–94 Session information requested in parliamentary questions has been refused on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There have been six occasions during the 1993–94 parliamentary Session when part of the information requested in parliamentary questions has not been given on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consideration he has given to instructing chairmen or women or chief officers of Government agencies or quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations personally to sign letters in reply to those
  43
  hon. Members who would formerly have received signed replies from Ministers.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  It is for Ministers in each Department to decide the best way in which to reply to correspondence from hon. Members.

  Where the correspondence covers operational matters dealt with by an executive agency, the agency chief executive, who has the detailed knowledge which the hon. Member is seeking, as well as the necessary delegated authority, is best placed to reply. It is open to an hon. Member who is dissatisfied with a reply from an agency chief executive to raise the matter with the responsible Ministers.

  The term "quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation" is being used increasingly loosely outside government to embrace diverse organisations from both the public and private sectors. Ministers continue to answer where they have responsibilities in respect of particular bodies. Operational questions may be best addressed to the bodies themselves.

  Civil Service Sports Facilities
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current cost to the public purse of providing all forms of sports facilities for civil servants in England and Wales.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The Government contribute to the cost of sport and recreation in the civil service mainly through a grant-in-aid the Civil Service Sports Council. In 1993–94, the grant-in-aid was £1·33 million. In addition, Departments and executive agencies may make reasonable provision for amenities and recreational facilities for the use of all staff; information about the cost of this provision is not held centrally.

  CERN Large Hadron Collider
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his letter DD/94/P/618 of 13 July, what response he has had from France about commitment to the CERN large hadron collider; and what collaboration he had from the United States of America and the Japanese.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  France have now made a formal offer of an additional contribution towards the cost of the large hadron collider, in recognition of her status as a CERN host country. This offer and the way forward is now being given careful consideration by the UK as well as our other partners in CERN. We hope to hold further discussions in the near future.

  Contacts with our colleagues in the USA and Japan have continued throughout the discussions on the LHC. We have made it clear that a project of this magnitude must proceed on the basis of a fair and sustainable financial framework. They will be familiar with, and will welcome, the efforts which we, with our CERN partners, are making to establish tight cost control of the project.

  Women in Science
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made of his development unit on women in science.
  44
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The Office of Science and Technology is currently recruiting staff for the development unit. The unit will begin its work as soon as possible.

  Civil Service Reform
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will set out the terms of reference and powers of the efficiency unit as a result of proposals in the White Paper, "Continuity and Change", how it will be accountable to Parliament; and how it will interact with the National Audit Office and the Committee of Public Accounts.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Efficiency Unit supports the Prime Minister's adviser on efficiency, Sir Peter Levene, who is also my adviser on competition and purchasing. It forms part of the Office of Public Service and Science, for whose activities I am accountable. Its relationship with the National Audit Office and the Committee of Public Accounts is no different from that of other parts of my Departments. Its terms of reference and responsibilities are published in the 1994 report of the Cabinet Office —Chapter 5 of Cm 2518—and its role in relation to efficiency plans is in the White Paper itself — paragraph 3·21 of Cm 2627.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what will be the role of the Government accountancy service and Government information service if proposals to delegate below the senior civil service structure contained in the White Paper, "Continuity and Change", are implemented.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Under the proposals on delegation set out in the White Paper, "The Civil Service: Continuity and Change", the five centrally managed groups — the Government Accountancy Service, the Government Information Service, the Government Legal Service, the Government Economic Service and the Government Statistical Service — would continue to provide a cental service to the professional specialists in each group. The exact services — and degree of centralisation — will vary from group to group, as they do now, but may include recruitment, training, career development and the organisation of postings.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether all departmental and agency staff below grade 5 will still be regarded as Crown servants if proposals contained in the White Paper, "Continuity and Change", are implemented.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Yes. The White Paper"The Civil Service: Continuity and Change" contains no proposals which will affect the status of departmental staff as Crown servants, whatever their grade.

  Private Sector Forum
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give details of meetings he or his officials have held with the Private Sector Forum; and whether minutes of those meetings will be publicly available.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Member to my letter of 26 August to him, which included a record of the Private Sector Forum of 8 July. I have also placed a copy of the record note in the Library. Only one meeting of the
  45
  Private Sector Forum has been held. Details of any future meetings will be made public.

  Permanent Secretaries' Handbook
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if Ministers may read the permanent secretaries' handbook.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Yes.

  EU Science and Technology Assembly
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what contribution was made by the United Kingdom to the first plenary session of the Science and Technology Assembly held in Brussels on 6 September; and if he will place in the Library copies of any reports made available of the EU Science and Technology Assembly.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The European Science and Technology Assembly consists of approximately 100 leading European scientists and engineers, appointed by the Commission in a personal capacity, to provide it with opinions and assessments on science and technology matters. The members of the assembly do not represent the member states from which they come. The assembly will present its opinions to the Commission and, when these are made available to member states, the Government will place them in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Year

  Navigator

  Air Electronics Operator

  Air Enginner

  Air Loadmaster

  Air Signaller(Radio Calibration)

  1989–90

  89

  31

  22

  37

  5

  1990–91

  79

  44

  28

  29

  5

  1991–92

  43

  31

  21

  14

  4

  1992–93

  46

  33

  28

  26

  6

  1993–94

  40

  33

  8

  21

  1

  Total

  297

  172

  107

  127

  21

  The number of non-pilot aircrew expected to be trained by the Royal Air Force in each of the next five years is as follows:

  Year

  Navigator

  Air Electronics Operator

  Air Enginner

  Air Loadmaster

  Air Signaller(Radio Calibration)

  94–95

  46

  14

  6

  11

  2

  95–96

  41

  19

  6

  13

  2

  96–97

  44

  25

  13

  30

  2

  97–98

  41

  25

  13

  30

  4

  98–99

  43

  25

  13

  32

  3

  TOTAL

  215

  108

  51

  116

  13

  Nuclear Warheads
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Defence from which date his Department has kept records of requests made to British Nuclear Fuels or its predecessor division within the Atomic Energy Authority for the production of fissile material for use in warheads.

  Mr. Freeman
  Readily available records of such requests date back to 1971.

DEFENCE

  RAF Stations
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force stations have been closed in the last five years; how many he expects will be closed during the next five years; and what proportion of the number of stations open in 1989 will open in 1999.

  Mr. Soames
  Twenty Royal Air Force stations, both in the United Kingdom and overseas, have been closed since the beginning of 1989. As a result of recent announcements, including the "Defence Costs Study", it is proposed that a further 14 stations should close in the next five years. Estate requirements are continually reviewed, however, and it is therefore not possible to forecast accurately what proportion of stations which were open in 1989 will remain open in 1999. These figures do not include USAF bases, or small parented or administered sites.

  Non-pilot Aircrew Training
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many non-pilot aircrew were trained by the Royal Air Force in each of the last five years; and how many he expects to be trained in each of the next five years.

  Mr. Soames
  The number of non-pilot aircrew trained by the Royal Air Force in each of the last five years was as follows:

  Naval Recruitment
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of advertising for recruits to the Royal Navy by way of advertisement in the teenagers' magazine "Fast Forward" was in(a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994; and how many times the advertisement will appear in this or comparable magazines during the forthcoming year.
  47
  Mr Soames
  Expenditure on Royal Navy recruitment advertising in the magazine "Fast Forward" was £23,506 in financial year 1992–93 and £28,377 in 1993–94. While no further advertisements are planned for the "Fast Forward" publication this year, it is intended to place around 50 advertisements in a range of comparable magazines.

  Creche Facilities
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what creche facilities he plans to provide in(a) the armed forces and (b) civilian offices in his Department; and if he will make statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Responsibility for the provision of child care facilities is delegated to individual budget holders. It is my Department's policy however, to increase the provision of child care facilities for service personnel and civilian staff were possible, and budget holders are encouraged to set up new child care facilities where there is sufficient demand, and where they can be justified on value-for-money grounds.

  At present we have seven workplace nurseries operating nationwide, available both to civilian and service personnel, with plans for a further five.

  Additional child care facilities, in the form of creches and playschemes, are available to service and civilian personnel and their dependants on bases in the United Kingdom and overseas as a result of local voluntary initiatives.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps(a) he has taken and (b) he proposes to take to ensure that naval vessels from other countries in United Kingdom waters are aware of the operational and safety arrangements in relation to United Kingdom fishing boats, including rules regarding minimum separation, notification and broadcast warnings and information.

  Mr. Soames
  Foreign naval vessels operating in United Kingdom waters are required to observe the international regulations for the prevention of collision at sea. These regulations apply to all surface vessels, both military and non-military, including fishing vessels.

  The conduct of dived foreign submarines in United Kingdom waters is governed by the code of practice, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The code, among other provisions, stipulates minimum separation distances. Briefing on the provisions of the code is signalled to foreign submarines before they enter United Kingdom waters. Submarines programmed to participate in a major exercise are given further oral or written briefing before the exercise commences.

  In addition to operational safety measures, fishermen also receive advance notification of dived movements, including those of foreign submarines, in all regularly used submarine exercise areas around the United Kingdom coast. Notification is by means of the SUBFACTS broadcast scheme and, before major exercises, via a notice to fishermen.

  Pregnant Service Women
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken under article 7 of the equal treatment directive to prevent witnesses, who have 48
  been giving evidence during court cases relating to women employed in the armed forces who have become pregnant, from being victimised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Victimisation and other forms of harassment are not tolerated within the armed forces. We are not aware that any service personnel who have acted as witnesses at industrial tribunal hearings have complained of victimisation, but action would be taken where incidents were reported.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria were used to decide whether or not those women dismissed by reason of pregnancy could be re-enlisted in each of the services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  In accordance with the normal rules, acceptance for re-entry into the services depends on the availability of a suitable vacancy and an applicant's previous employment record. If re-entry is within five years of leaving, the previous rank and seniority would normally be retained.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Economic and Commercial Information
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is the duty of Her Majesty's economic and commercial representatives abroad to transmit to the competent departments economic information on trade flows, prices, employment and other aspects of competitiveness as soon as possible after it has been released by the Governments to which they are accredited.

  Mr. Goodlad
  British embassies and high commissions are required to report on economic developments in the countries they cover. The frequency with which a particular post reports and the type of reporting it provides is governed by factors including the size and staffing of the post, which itself reflects United Kingdom's economic and commercial interests, and by the amount and quality of information available. Posts in the United Kingdom's main overseas markets would normally report information on trade flows, prices and employment at least once a month.

  Visas
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, following the European Court of Justice's Surinder Singh judgment in July 1992, he will refund fees to those persons who would have been eligible for gratis visas had the European Court of Justice ruling existed at the time the fees were paid.

  Mr. Baldry
  [pursuant to the answer on 29 June 1994, 578-791]: The answer should have read:
  Yes. My Department will consider written applications for a refund of fees from those non-European Union nationals who paid a fee before July 1992 for the settlement visa granted them to enter the United Kingdom with their British citizen spouse who had been exercising substantive rights under the Treaty of Rome, by either working, looking for work, being self-employed or managing a business, in another member state of the European Union. The amount which may

  49
  be refunded will be between £7 and £100 and will be made up of the value of the fee plus an ex gratis sum in recognition of the time since the fee was paid. Applicants will be asked to provide evidence to support their claim.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many overseas visits he and each of his Ministers have made between 1 January and 30 June; during how many he, or each of his Ministers, participated in fund-raising activities for the Conservative Party; and if he will name the Ministers and the countries in which these activities took place.

  Mr. Baldry
  Between 1 January and 30 June 1994, Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office made 69 overseas visits in their official capacity. Fund-raising activities for the Conservative party are not part of our official duties.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals Her Majesty's Government intend to make at the third preparatory committee meeting in Geneva on 11 to 16 September, for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review and external conference in April next year; what support will be made available to non-governmental organisations wishing to attend the prepcom as observers; and if he will place in the Library copies of any non-confidential documents distributed at the preparatory committee meeting in September.

  Mr. David Davis
  At the third preparatory committee meeting we continued to work to ensure that outstanding procedural and administrative matters relating to the 1995 conference could be settled. The preparatory committee decided at its second session that representatives of non-governmental organisations should be allowed, on request, to attend the meetings of the committee other than those designated closed meetings. In accordance with this decision, 52 NGOs attended the meetings of the committee and time was set aside during the week for NGOs to brief delegates on their views. Copies of the NPT secretariat's progress report and the statement delivered by the Presidency of the European Union have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions are being placed on British tourists in entering the Turkish occupied part of Cyprus; and what representatives he has made.

  Mr David Davis
  There were four days in July when the crossing point in Nicosia was closed by demonstrations following the decision of the European Court of Justice on trade between the European Union and northern Cyprus. It has remained open since.

  Burma
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Burma.
  50
  Mr. Goodlad
  The situation in Burma remains of great concern. There has been no significant progress towards democratic reform and human rights abuses continue.

  We are encouraged, however, by the meeting on 20 September between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the ruling state law and order restoration council. We hope that this first meeting signals the start of serious discussions leading to real democratic reform in Burma and the early and unconditional release of ASSK and other political prisoners.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the number of Nigerians arrested but not tried since the general election last year.

  Mr. Baldry
  We do not have precise information on the large number of Nigerians detained without trial since the annulment of the presidential election last year. We believe that few detainees are currently being held, but those detained include well-known figures such as Chief Abiola and leaders of the National Democratic Coalition. With our European Union partners, we have appealed strongly to the Nigerian Government to respect the fundamental human rights of all their citizens.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Nigeria.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are extremely concerned about the current situation in Nigeria. An early return to democratic civilian rule is essential for the political stability and economic prosperity of that country. We continue to follow developments closely with our European Union partners, and will maintain the measures that we announced with our European Union partners in 1993.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to Shell about its record of environmental exploitation in the Ogoni rivers area of Nigeria; and what response he has had.

  Mr. Baldry
  No such representations have been made.

  Malawi
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Malawi.

  Mr. Baldry
  Malawi's first multi-party elections were held on 17 May as part of a peaceful transition process, bringing President Muluzi's United Democratic Front to power. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Overseas Development have both met the President since his election. The new Government face formidable social and economic problems, but have made a firm commitment to poverty alleviation, which is a key focus of our aid programme in Malawi.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government of Sudan's forces have been making incursions into north-west Kenya.
  51
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are not aware of any incursions by Sudanese Government forces into north-west Kenya.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the supply by the Government of Sudan of arms to southern factions.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We believe that the Sudanese People's Liberation Army factions obtain their arms from a variety of sources. We have seen reports concerning the supply of arms by the Government of Sudan to one faction, but have no clear evidence to confirm this.

  Both the main factions have clashed with Government forces as well as each other, in recent months.

  Palestine
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will respond positively to the request by Yasser Arafat that the United States of America and European countries should station international observers in the former occupied territories.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Council of the European Union, in its joint action in support of the middle east peace process adopted on 19 April, stated that the European Union would, at the request of the parties, participate in a temporary international presence in the occupied territories, as called for in Security Council resolution 904. No such request has yet been received.

  Austria
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's relationship with Austria; what ministerial visits have taken place there in the past 12 months; what bilateral trade initiatives and contracts the United Kingdom has with that country; and how many official Austrian visits have been made to the United Kingdom in the past year.

  Mr. David Davis
  The United Kingdom enjoys very good relations with Austria.

  Since October 1993 my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have paid ministerial visits to Austria.

  Sectors in which the Department of Industry has planned trade initiatives include clothing, processed food, security equipment, medical equipment and the whole area of public purchasing.

  Austria is the United Kingdom's 25th largest market and our visible exports to Austria in 1993 amounted to £912 million, a 14.7 per cent. increase over 1992. UK exports rose by 16 per cent. during the first six months of 1994 and are set to exceed £1 billion over the year. The UK is Austria's ninth largest supplier. In 1993 Austrian exports to the UK totalled £971 million, but on the evidence of the first six months of this year the UK is enjoying a surplus on its trade with Austria for the first time in over 20 years.

  Since October 1993 the following Austrian Ministers have visited the United Kingdom: Mrs. Rauch-Kallat,
  52
  Minister for the Environment; Dr. Franz Vranitzky, Federal Chancellor. Other Austrian official visits to the UK have comprised Dr. Franz Ceska, Secretary-General of the Federation of Austrian Industrialists; Dr. Bernhard Gorg, Head of Vienna OVP Parliamentary Group; Dr. Heinrich Neisser, Leader of the Austrian OVP.

  Slovakia
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's relationship with Slovakia; what ministerial visits have taken place there in the past 12 months; what bilateral trade initiatives and contracts the United Kingdom has with that country; and how many official Slovakian visits have been made to the United Kingdom in the past year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom maintains close relations with Slovakia. Since September 1993, six British Ministers have visited the country. During the same period, the Slovak Foreign Minister, two other Ministers and the Slovak Speaker have visited Britain. The Slovak President attended the D-day ceremonies in Britain in June this year.

  Trade is increasing, totalling about £70 million for the first eight months of this year. The Department of Trade and Industry is actively encouraging British companies to look at opportunities in Slovakia.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times during the 1993–94 Session information requested in parliamentary questions has been refused on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Once, on 30 March 1994,Official Report, column 778–79.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with his Japanese counterpart or officials of the Japanese Government, in regard to nuclear proliferation controls and the clandestine plutonium trade, during his visit to Japan in September.

  Mr. David Davis
  These subjects were not discussed during my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's visit to Japan. Both nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear smuggling are of serious concern to Her Majesty's Government, however, we are considering them with others in a number of international forums including the G7.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he raised the proliferation implications of Japan's import of nuclear reprocessing technology from the United States of America during the 1980s during his visit to Japan in September.

  Mr. David Davis
  No, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs did not raise this matter.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings or other communications he has had with his EU
  53
  counterparts since 1 August to discuss the measures to combat smuggling of plutonium and other nuclear materials.

  Mr. David Davis
  This matter was discussed at an informal meeting of European Union Foreign Ministers at Usedom on 10 and 11 September and again at the Foreign Affairs Council on 3 and 4 October. It was agreed that proposals would be prepared for the European Council at Essen in December.

  UN General Assembly
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the agreed agenda for the 49th General Assembly of the United Nations that opened in New York on 20 September.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Copies of the agenda for the United Nations General Assembly have been sent to the Library.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals the United Kingdom put to the 49th general assembly of the United Nations in New York; what proposals put forward by other nations were supported by the United Kingdom; and if he will place copies of the United Kingdom submission, and submissions from other countries supported by the United Kingdom, in the Library.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Copies of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday 28 September have been put in the Library. Speeches by Heads of State and Foreign Ministers will be placed in the Library. Other relevant UN documents will be placed in the Library when they become available.

  Biological Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation his Department had at the meeting of the United Nations biological weapons convention held in Geneva on 19 to 30 September; what proposals were put forward by Her Majesty's Government; and whether any resource or financial commitment was made by the United Kingdom in support of the verification measures.

  Mr. David Davis
  The United Kingdom's delegation to the bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons convention special conference was led by the leader of the United Kingdom permanent delegation to the conference on disarmament. He was supported by officials and experts from the FCO, MOD, DTI and the chemical and biological defence establishment, Porton Down.

  Following a UK initiative, the EU submitted a proposal to the conference for the establishment of a follow-up group to prepare, by the time of the 1996 BTWC fourth review conference, a legally binding verification protocol, focusing on declarations and inspections. The conference eventually agreed to establish a group to do further work on a verification regime, albeit with a less specific mandate and time scale than we would have wished.

  The costs of this group's work will be shared among states parties to the BTWC. The costs of any eventual verification regime are likely to be borne by states parties to the regime.

  Taiwan
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he has taken in pursuit of admitting the Republic of China to a seat on and membership of the United Nations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The question of possible Taiwanese membership of the UN was raised again this year in the General Committee, but it was decided not to include it in this year's UNGA agenda. The core of the problem is the relationship between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan. Any resolution of it will depend on an understanding reached between them.

  European Parliament
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of the European Parliament each year since 1989–90; and what amount is included in the draft Budget for 1995.

  Mr. David Davis
  The outturn for expenditure by the European Parliament each year from 1989–93 in ecu and sterling was:

  ecu

  £

  1989

  381,146,291

  256,043,458

  1990

  429,706,145

  306,932,961

  1991

  488,691,650

  342,125,210

  1992

  579,968,058

  425,820,894

  1993

  624,592,678

  486,253,544

  The amount in the 1994, as adopted is 665,910,000 or £502,839,236.

  The amount in the 1995 draft budget is 693,321,000 or £544,549,953.

  Conversion rates for years prior to 1994 are:

  Year

  £

  1989

  1 = 1·4886

  1990

  1 = 1·4000

  1991

  1 = 1·4284

  1992

  1 = 1·3620

  1993

  1 = 1·2845

  1994 figures are converted at the rate of £1=1·3243, which is the rate set for UK VAT and fourth resource contributions to the 1994 Community budget.
  1995 figures are converted at the rate of £1=1·2732, the rate notified in the Official Journal as prevailing on the last working day of last month — 30 September 1994.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the current allowances payable to Members of the European Parliament.

  Mr. David Davis
  Applicable as of 1 January 1994 the following are payable:Telephone and fax — unlimited use from offices in Strasbourg.
  Travel allowances — Within the Union these are calculated by a flat rate of 0·76 ecu or £0·57 for every km up to 400 km and 0·38 ecu or £0·29 for every km thereafter. Outside the Union, MEPs are

  55
  reimbursed the actual cost of the return air fare by the most direct route; first class travel is allowed only for journeys exceeding nine hours. MEPs receive a daily allowance of 103·0 ecu or £77·78 while on official business.
  Subsistence - for meetings outside the Union, MEPs receive one half of the normal allowance, plus the reimbursement of the actual cost of hotel room and breakfast.
  General expenses - 2,830.0 ecu or £2,136·98 per month.
  Office and Secretarial assistance - 7,737.0 ecu or £5,842·33 per month.

  Economic and Social Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters were discussed and what decisions taken, and which were taken by vote, at the Economic and Social Council meeting in Brussels on 14 and 15 September.

  Mr. David Davis
  The Committee discussed and adopted a range of opinions on proposals for legislation and Council decisions on which it had been consulted, as well as several own—initiative opinions. Details have been provided in a document which has been made available in the Library of the House.

  European Legislation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make arrangements for the texts of the dated and signed explanatory memoranda from Ministers concerning each proposal for draft legislation and other documents placed before the Council of Ministers of the European Community currently deposited in the Vote Office of Parliament to be printed and published at regular intervals.

  Mr. David Davis
  Explanatory memoranda are currently lodged at four depository libraries in the United Kingdom and are accessible through public libraries. Interested parties may obtain from Departments the information contained in individuals EMs on draft Community proposals which concern them. Memoranda often cover fast—moving issues, and remain useful only for a limited period. Against this background, we consider that the costs of publishing EMs at regular intervals would be disproportionate to the likely benefits.

  India
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent approaches have been made to the Indian Government regarding allegations of human rights violations in that country.

  Mr. Baldry
  We frequently raise our concerns about the human rights situation in India. The Prime Minister raised the issue in March with the Indian Prime Minister and the Secretary of State in July with the Indian Foreign Minister.

  Mr. Tejinder Singh
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has now taken up the case of Tejinder Singh with the authorities in Delhi; and if he will make a statement on progress.
  56
  Mr. Baldry
  Our High Commission in New Delhi asked the Indian authorities for further information on the case of Tejinder Singh in August. They have not yet received a response, but will continue to pursue.

  Henderson Island
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his letter of 28 July to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what further research and consultation with the Pitcairn islanders he has undertaken on Henderson Island; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Further research has been carried out by the governor's office in Wellington. On the basis of this we are now drafting a discussion document, in consultation with interested non-governmental offices. This will be presented to the Pitcairn islanders when a British official next visits Pitcairn, and can be discussed face to face.

  European Union (Citizens' Duties)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in respect of the obligation or duties of citizens of the European Union as defined in article 8A of the treaty on European Union, if he will state(a) the criteria and (b) the court which determines when they are not being complied with and the legal basis of any penalty.

  Mr. David Davis
  Article 8a of the treaty of Rome does not impose any duties or obligations on the citizens of the Union.

  Article 8 does talk of citizens being subject to "duties imposed" by the treaty. However, neither the Maastricht treaty nor the previous treaties impose any duties on individuals, other than a general duty to comply with Community law.

  It is in the first instance for the domestic courts to determine whether an individual has complied with Community law. Any penalty will normally be determined by domestic law.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Council Tax Benefit
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to amend regulation 37 of the Council Tax Benefit (General) Regulations 1992 which calculates notional income from invested capital in the light of the reduction of interest rates since the regulation was introduced in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The formula is not intended to represent any rate of return from capital invested and is not linked in any way to interest rates. It does not, therefore, alter in line with any fluctuations in these rates. Rather it is a means of ensuring that help is targeted on those who need it most. Base rates at the time the regulation was introduced were 8 per cent.,
  57
  and although they rose to a peak of 15 per cent. in October 1989, where they remained for over a year before falling to today's level of 5·75 per cent., the formula has remained the same.

  We keep the capital rules under review, but there are no current plans for change.

  Income Support
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy that the payment of water and sewerage charges as a separate payment on top of basic weekly benefit should be reintroduced for those receiving income support; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No. One of the Governrnent's aims in introducing the reformed social security scheme in April 1988, was to leave customers free to manage their own affairs in the light of their own circumstances and preferences. Water and sewerage charges should be treated in a similar manner to other items of expenditure in the family budget.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what happens to interest earned on maintenance payments held by the Child Support Agency;

  (2) what plans he has to (a) pass on interest earned on maintenance payments held by the Child Support Agency to the parent with care or (b) deduct it from the payments made by the parent without care responsibility;

  (3) what interest rate is payable on maintenance payments held by the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Agency does not receive interest from the bank in respect of clients' funds temporarily held by the agency. Instead the agency's bank charges are abated. The administrative costs of attributing amounts of interest to individuals would be disproportionate to the typically small amounts of money involved. Clients of the agency benefit from the lower bank charges and the economy of effort through the consequent reduction in the agency's administrative costs, which is reflected in the level of the fees charged.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the guidelines which the Child Support Agency uses to determine compensation claims in respect of cases where customers are claiming loss through maladministration.

  Mr. Burt
  We shall be making public the criteria under which payments for redress may be considered, as we do already for other agencies within the Department. As is normal practice throughout government, the precise terms of the guidance is specifically exempt from the provisions of the code of practice on Government information under exemption 7—part II, paragraph 7·10 of the guidance on interpretation—which covers Her Majesty's Treasury general guidelines on extra-statutory payments in Government accounting.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many times during the 1993–94 Session information requested in parliamentary questions has been refused on the ground of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Hague
  Five.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretay of State for Social Security how many individuals who were in receipt of invalidity benefit prior to retirement have become ineligible for the higher pensioner rate of income support; and what is the estimated cost of extending eligibility to this group.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Income Support
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals over retirement age receive the higher pensioner premium of income support.

  Mr. Evans
  In November 1993, the latest date for which figures are available, the total number of claimants over retirement age whose income support entitlement included the higher pensioner premium was 768,000.

  Source:
  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry November 1993 (Based on a 5 per cent. sample).

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide(a) a breakdown of the number of housing benefit claimants split into rent rebate and rent allowance categories and the total amounts paid under each heading, (b) the numbers and amounts of housing benefit back-dated payments regulation 72(15) and the amount paid as a percentage of each local authority's housing benefit expenditure, (c) the numbers, amounts and percentage of amount in relation to total housing benefit expenditure in relation to discretionary payments regulation 69(8) and (d) the numbers and amounts of housing benefit overpayment and the amount as a percentage of the authorities overall housing benefit expenditure for each district and islands council in Scotland for each available year since 1991–92.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his letter of 20 July, POS (4) 3019/11 to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, when he expects to complete his examination of potential applications for information technology in the automation of benefit payments; and what study he has made of related attempts by individuals to obtain benefit by fraudulent means.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Department of Social Security and Post Office Counters Ltd. invited, on 17 August 1994, expressions of interest from potential suppliers of systems
  59
  for the automation of benefit payments. Ninety-two expressions of interest have been received. Suppliers will shortly be asked to submit an outline proposal, which will inform the next stage of examination. It is hoped to conclude the selection of suppliers and technology by the end of 1995.

  Improvement of the payment system is part of the Benefits Agency's on-going review of its claims and payment systems to ensure that benefit goes only to those who are genuinely entitled. Our strategy for fighting fraud is based on the principles of prevention, detection and deterrence.

  Refugees
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated annual cost of social

  ANNEX B

  Proportion of pensioner units with occupational pension and the average amount for those in receipt

  Percentage Units with Occupational Pension

  Average Amount for those in Receipt (£ per week. 1992 prices)

  Percentage growth in average amount since 1979 1992

  1974

  1979

  1992

  1974

  1979

  1992

  1992

  (a) All Persioner Units

  Pensioner Couples

  53

  65

  72

  51·30

  52·80

  92·20

  75

  Single Pensioners

  24

  32

  53

  37·20

  35·00

  52·90

  51

  All Pensioner Units

  34

  43

  60

  44·80

  44·40

  71·80

  62

  (b) Recently Retired Pensioner Units

  Pensioner Couples

  53

  68

  73

  56·20

  62·10

  100·30

  62

  Single Pensioners

  24

  37

  53

  46·40

  37·70

  71·70

  90

  All Pensioner Units

  43

  55

  65

  54·30

  55·30

  91·90

  66

  Notes

  1. The Estimates of the percentage of pensioner units in receipt of occupational pension income are based upon data from the Family Expenditure Survey and the GAD Survey of Occupational Pension Schemes. Due to this use of additional information, it is not possible to derive the overall average occupational receipt from the estimates in this table.

  3. Recently retired pensioner units are defined as: single women aged 60 - 64; single men aged 65 - 69; and couples in which the husband is aged 65 - 69.

  4. All average amounts are means.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to secure an improvement in co-ordination between all those organisations involved in the delivery of training to young people.

  Mr. Paice
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my hon. Friend, the former Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 19th July 1994,Official Report, Column 127–28.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to ensure that young people with special training needs will be able to take full advantage of the modern apprenticeship scheme.

  Mr. Paice
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the former Under-Secretary of State 60
  security benefits paid to refugees and those applying to be considered as refugees.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The full information is not available in the form requested. Available information is that in May 1993 there were 37,000 asylum seekers on income support. Some were also receiving housing benefit and/or council tax benefit.

  It is estimated that annual expenditure on these benefits is in excess of £200 million per year.

  Details of recipients of other benefits are not broken down to show refugee status.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest information held about pensioners' income; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 July 1994, columns 201-204]: Table 3 contained some incorrect figures. A revised table follows.

  to the hon. member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 20 July 1994, Official Report, columns 224–25.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) men and (b) women who were on Government training programmes within the Greater London area at the latest appropriate date.

  Mr. Paice
  The number of trainees on youth training and training for work in London is not available broken down by gender. The total numbers in training and a breakdown of entrants/leavers by gender are given in the following tables:

  Training Schemes in London

  Number in Training at June 1994

  Youth Training (Inc. Youth Credit)

  18,400

  Training for Work

  17,700

  Source:

  Training Enterprise Council Operating Agreement (Annex J)
  61

  Entrants/leavers by sex in 1993–94 (per cent.)

  Male

  Female

  Youth Training (Inc. Youth Credit) Leavers

  59

  41

  Training for Work Starters

  58

  42

  Source:

  YT Leavers

  TfW Starts

  European Union Retraining Funds
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his plans for spending European Union funds available to the United Kingdom for retraining workers in industries undergoing structural change.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The resources available to the United Kingdom under objective 3 and 4 of the European Community's structural funds will be devoted in the period 1994–96 exclusively to schemes to help the unemployed. The Government are currently preparing a plan for transmission to the Commission which will aim at cost-effective use of structural funds money available under the ADAPT Community initiative.

  Sex Equality Branch
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people work in the sex equality branch; what is their remit; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Thirty-six people work in the sex equality branch, which is responsible for furthering the Employment Department's aim to promote sex equality at work and wider opportunities for women in the workplace and beyond.

  Time-limited Contracts
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the United Kingdom were in(a) part-time and (b) full-time employment, (i) with or (ii) without time-limited contracts or the equivalent in the years (1) 1984 and (2) 1992.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information from the spring 1992 labour force survey is given in the following table. Comparable estimates for 1984 are not available.

  Employees working full/part-time on fixed term contracts United Kingdom - spring 1992

  Full-time '000s

  Part-time '000s

  All employees1 '000s

  On fixed contracts

  383

  198

  581

  Not on fixed contract

  16,249

  5,063

  21,316

  All employees

  16,632

  5,261

  21,897

  1Includes small number who did not state full or part-time

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey-not seasonally adjusted

  Non-vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary's letter to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West of 12 September, what consultations he has had with the National Council for Vocational Qualifications in relation to the appointment of independent auditors to monitor the quality of non-vocational qualifications awarded to training providers' clients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Paice
  Discussions have taken place between officials and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications about the role and number of additional staff to monitor the quality of national vocational qualifications. Detailed proposals are awaited.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of those achieving(a) NVQ 1, (b) NVQ 2 and (c) NVQ 3 who are working are women.

  Mr. Paice
  Estimates from the labour force survey in spring 1994 for the proportion of those in employment holding NVQ/SVQ in Great Britain who are women are shown in the following table:

  Highest level held

  Per cent.

  NVQ/SVQ level 1

  60

  NVQ/SVQ level 2

  58

  NVQ/SVQ level 3

  39

  People in employment include employees, self-employed, those on Government employment and training programmes and those doing unpaid family work.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of those achieving and failing(a) NVQ 1, (b) NVW 2 and (c) NVQ 3 are women.

  Mr. Paice
  Estimates from the labour force survey in spring 1994 for the proportion of those holding NVQ/SVQs in Great Britain who are women are shown in the following table:

  Highest level held

  Per cent.

  NVQ/SVQ level 1

  58

  NVQ/SVQ level 2

  56

  NVQ/SVQ level 3

  39

  Candidates are only submitted for certification when assessment shows them to be competent. There are no failures.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the budget agreed with each TEC for 1994–95 broken down by programme area.
  63
  Mr. Paice
  The budgets made available by the Department to each training and enterprise council, by programme area, are shown in the following table:

  TEC Budgets 1994–95

  Youth training

  WRFE

  Career guidance year 9-10

  Careers libraries

  Training for work

  South East

  Hampshire

  15,106,666

  3,642,947

  1,285,523

  54,703

  10,832,502

  Heart of England

  5,694,866

  915,245

  482,976

  23,368

  3,919,846

  Isle of Wight

  1,605,572

  311,161

  102,659

  7,435

  1,477,441

  Kent

  16,400,753

  2,956,296

  1,395,445

  60,014

  12,451,952

  Milton Keynes & N. Bucks

  5,528,127

  406,133

  226,435

  6,373

  2,824,335

  Surrey

  4,823,602

  1,916,586

  —

  40,098

  5,064,749

  Sussex

  10,696,850

  2,359,789

  1,113,362

  310,698

  10,563,542

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  15,440,460

  2,818,723

  1,080,602

  42,515

  8,684,611

  London

  AZTEC

  3,784,135

  1,421,967

  336,313

  21,708

  6,498,797

  CENTEC

  6,570,634

  1,409,694

  401,175

  23,735

  14,414,841

  CILNTEC

  6,936,267

  1,427,046

  208,417

  13,057

  12,571,342

  London East

  12,854,780

  3,197,839

  919,191

  38,176

  20,518,363

  North London

  4,125,403

  1,966,948

  534,074

  23,677

  12,424,582

  North West London

  2,882,196

  1,733,128

  305,290

  13,107

  6,271,138

  SOLOTEC

  6,779,580

  1,914,471

  1,011,578

  33,535

  7,752,474

  South Thames

  10,175,785

  2,942,646

  799,186

  31,114

  22,628,482

  West London

  7,392,430

  2,261,287

  649,254

  26,943

  7,016,948

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  5,937,048

  1,090,068

  498,517

  15,980

  5,506,553

  CAMBSTEC

  3,114,720

  653,402

  362,558

  15,687

  2,601,570

  Essex

  16,577,365

  2,996,500

  1,268,953

  51,818

  11,294,151

  Greater Peterborough

  5,072,899

  833,507

  220,523

  11,548

  4,774,504

  Hertfordshire

  11,447,223

  1,954,253

  780,328

  47,672

  7,398,366

  Norfolk & Waveney

  10,942,005

  1,718,777

  725,116

  29,610

  10,813,090

  Suffolk

  12,447,882

  786,804

  440,331

  17,464

  4,162,161

  South West

  Avon

  12,049,031

  1,720,115

  716,833

  38,043

  14,209,852

  Devon & Cornwall

  18,717,697

  3,546,981

  1,216,000

  52,436

  22,286,966

  Dorset

  6,695,489

  1,242,212

  524,569

  24,258

  5,368,272

  Gloucestershire

  6,619,913

  1,043,516

  419,832

  24,664

  4,310,120

  Somerset

  5,579,887

  1,236,498

  406,111

  20,281

  4,867,001

  Wiltshire

  5,535,863

  1,340,500

  468,085

  23,018

  4,669,597

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  13,084,266

  2,478,393

  —

  31,591

  20,365,575

  Central England

  4,093,850

  968,608

  324,760

  13,161

  4,998,145

  Coventry & Warwickshire

  10,722,649

  1,837,131

  622,261

  28,695

  11,854,454

  Dudley

  4,623,153

  787,689

  —

  9,214

  5,099,161

  HAWTEC

  6,482,333

  848,419

  227,283

  18,955

  4,245,428

  Sandwell

  5,786,077

  665,278

  —

  10,532

  5,898,597

  Shropshire

  5,967,341

  891,798

  342,429

  19,745

  4,743,949

  Staffordshire

  15,655,714

  2,064,249

  826,267

  34,486

  10,611,997

  Walsall

  3,615,258

  538,316

  —

  8,425

  3,707,430

  Wolverhampton

  4,246,005

  680,444

  —

  7,896

  5,165,870

  TEC Budgets 1994–95

  Employer investment in people

  Childcare

  Skillchoice

  National development

  Learning for work

  Management fee

  South East

  Hampshire

  1,243,061

  172,500

  842,140

  64,300

  192,108

  2,077,936

  Heart of England

  680,000

  119,501

  —

  66,457

  98,952

  1,327,290

  Isle of Wight

  364,986

  66,000

  —

  —

  3,248

  608,998

  Kent

  1,017,976

  226,400

  —

  3,000

  351,188

  2,439,069

  Milton Keynes & N. Bucks

  533,864

  56,375

  —

  51,500

  30,352

  872,665

  Surrey

  1,212,808

  187,641

  —

  —

  14,784

  1,456,040

  Sussex

  1,109,203

  95,500

  —

  —

  123,424

  2,028,019

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  1,203,051

  177,475

  —

  —

  124,880

  2,330,138

  64 65

  Employer investment in people

  Childcare

  Skillchoice

  National development

  Learning for work

  Management fee

  London

  AZTEC

  729,166

  137,638

  883,045

  —

  114,013

  —

  CENTEC

  2,432,027

  115,638

  —

  28,770

  220,808

  2,745,161

  CILNTEC

  1,219,104

  34,734

  —

  20,000

  121,856

  2,224,928

  London East

  1,293,154

  220,995

  —

  —

  249,312

  3,406,009

  North London

  1,147,758

  181,399

  —

  44,870

  80,248

  2,009,080

  North West London

  575,566

  282,636

  —

  18,817

  103,488

  1,361,688

  SOLOTEC

  747,371

  92,964

  —

  41,750

  159,925

  2,185,167

  South Thames

  1,440,673

  158,576

  —

  68,388

  269,248

  3,287,564

  West London

  915,181

  —

  —

  18,650

  174,720

  1,937,756

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  529,456

  193,850

  —

  7,500

  38,752

  1,068,176

  CAMBSTEC

  760,611

  133,844

  1,721,547

  20,467

  42,952

  807,398

  Essex

  788,751

  152,417

  —

  29,600

  153,328

  2,822,392

  Greater Peterborough

  570,620

  174,295

  —

  —

  29,746

  963,931

  Hertfordshire

  818,811

  212,721

  2,787,511

  13,500

  290,192

  1,846,040

  Norfolk & Waveney

  872,627

  242,000

  —

  —

  22,232

  1,643,377

  Suffolk

  812,000

  149,000

  —

  3,016

  61,920

  1,253,185

  South West

  Avon

  1,340,368

  229,223

  —

  9,000

  109,265

  2,413,442

  Devon & Cornwall

  2,164,913

  377,120

  —

  3,066

  236,768

  3,668,211

  Dorset

  1,353,675

  149,644

  802,183

  34,384

  85,800

  1,584,730

  Gloucestershire

  686,649

  137,209

  —

  —

  69,776

  1,328,726

  Somerset

  899,000

  118,620

  —

  16,000

  51,128

  1,327,713

  Wiltshire

  578,472

  149,988

  548,420

  36,472

  67,275

  1,330,118

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  818,946

  242,456

  1,389,580

  115,355

  104,944

  2,930,874

  Central England

  562,823

  193,968

  —

  —

  92,848

  1,103,920

  Coventry & Warwickshire

  979,215

  169,722

  1,489,250

  46,596

  143,976

  1,987,244

  Dudley

  352,753

  60,615

  —

  —

  108,584

  1,080,844

  HAWTEC

  562,313

  126,274

  —

  —

  43,680

  1,059,616

  Sandwell

  393,437

  60,614

  —

  —

  84,392

  1,136,818

  Shropshire

  510,829

  113,484

  —

  —

  45,808

  1,192,009

  Staffordshire

  1,123,904

  218,212

  —

  —

  125,776

  2,405,275

  Walsall

  345,083

  101,233

  —

  —

  59,920

  996,184

  Wolverhampton

  359,917

  60,650

  —

  —

  72,576

  1,084,411

  TEC Budgets 1994–95

  Employer investment in people

  Childcare

  Skillchoice

  National development

  Learning for work

  Management fee

  East Midlands

  Greater Nottingham

  839,191

  130,001

  1,135,632

  20,202

  112,000

  1,490,945

  Leicester

  1,036,285

  190,360

  0

  0

  123,424

  1,916,704

  Lincolnshire

  766,035

  141,043

  0

  54,270

  69,524

  1,619,046

  North Derbyshire

  524,986

  124,040

  0

  6,556

  18,032

  984,953

  North Nottinghamshire

  612,906

  130,110

  0

  15,000

  64,456

  1,192,082

  Northamptonshire

  883,184

  125,150

  0

  0

  51,576

  1,281,577

  Southern Derbyshire

  995,681

  100,001

  0

  5

  78,960

  1,332,705

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley and Doncaster

  532,103

  0

  0

  0

  78,064

  1,917,873

  Bradford and District

  604,117

  134,324

  0

  0

  83,048

  1,597,894

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  454,073

  171,945

  0

  5,500

  82,712

  1,672,607

  Humberside

  1,495,341

  238,378

  0

  15,846

  63,728

  2,727,821

  Leeds

  900,585

  167,295

  0

  63,186

  120,680

  1,960,057

  North Yorkshire

  577,514

  163,541

  0

  0

  17,319

  1,483,406

  Rotherham

  369,274

  83,294

  0

  0

  51,296

  1,187,019

  Sheffield

  1,105,619

  118,771

  0

  24,380

  119,396

  2,025,143

  Wakefield

  429,374

  78,152

  0

  37,200

  43,740

  1,275,379

  66 67

  TEC Budgets 1994–95

  Employer investment in people

  Childcare

  Skillchoice

  National development

  Learning for work

  Management fee

  North West

  Bolton and Bury

  553,950

  86,294

  0

  4,999

  63,056

  1,139,882

  Cumbria

  470,223

  106,179

  0

  0

  56,840

  1,513,550

  Eltec (East Lancs)

  699,000

  134,110

  0

  43,709

  98,784

  1,332,800

  Lawtec (Lancs West)

  1,305,490

  199,721

  0

  6,000

  51,968

  2,208,975

  Manchester

  1,630,472

  274,632

  0

  38,000

  247,016

  2,438,329

  Metrotec Ltd (Wigan)

  378,000

  76,480

  0

  36,000

  49,448

  889,060

  Normidtec

  432,641

  106,675

  0

  22,000

  15,176

  1,379,342

  Oldham

  207,794

  60,133

  0

  0

  36,344

  799,032

  Rochdale

  465,776

  56,933

  0

  0

  34,608

  769,853

  South and East Cheshire

  858,225

  71,673

  1,093,920

  0

  32,648

  850,358

  Stockport (High Peak)

  485,850

  90,600

  0

  29,375

  14,336

  972,809

  Merseyside

  Cewtec

  740,000

  141,924

  740,850

  128,646

  94,976

  1,720,181

  Merseyside

  1,543,505

  187,400

  0

  15,000

  147,896

  3,726,912

  Qualitec

  133,437

  57,973

  0

  15,000

  0

  836,599

  North East

  County Durham

  616,200

  191,277

  0

  34,965

  86,800

  2,509,461

  Northumberland

  369,774

  75,234

  603,170

  16,500

  23,744

  1,364,519

  Sunderland City

  381,830

  108,893

  0

  21,000

  0

  1,617,717

  Teesside

  679,430

  199,366

  0

  21,113

  128,296

  2,864,408

  Tyneside

  1,027,580

  249,631

  1,315,000

  70,405

  179,536

  3,088,835

  TEC Budgets 1994–95

  Youth training

  WRFE

  Careers guidance year 9–10

  Careers libraries

  Training for work

  East Midlands

  Greater Nottingham

  8,873,421

  1,474,963

  411,567

  22,931

  7,909,295

  Leicester

  11,707,244

  1,640,342

  617,895

  35,689

  8,000,950

  Lincolnshire

  10,097,316

  1,268,470

  411,022

  20,184

  11,310,036

  North Derbyshire

  4,780,228

  762,416

  225,382

  13,298

  4,465,685

  North Nottinghamshire

  8,049,829

  782,200

  274,378

  17,010

  6,864,832

  Northamptonshire

  6,747,909

  1,219,041

  443,687

  24,372

  3,677,035

  Southern Derbyshire

  7,926,205

  1,207,082

  338,073

  20,875

  6,680,602

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley and Doncaster

  11,231,677

  151,497

  422,328

  16,720

  13,226,355

  Bradford and District

  8,156,103

  807,899

  447,381

  27,524

  7,348,956

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  9,137,810

  1,334,893

  511,804

  19,550

  9,920,249

  Humberside

  14,788,882

  1,719,268

  740,899

  23,400

  15,469,065

  Leeds

  6,833,800

  1,371,922

  569,069

  33,186

  10,388,387

  North Yorkshire

  7,008,192

  1,580,987

  639,136

  28,540

  6,460,703

  Rotherham

  4,724,170

  493,455

  254,103

  6,995

  5,202,021

  Sheffield

  8,073,007

  1,409,272

  428,101

  14,410

  12,028,692

  Wakefield

  4,309,289

  635,542

  275,587

  14,649

  5,622,084

  North West

  Bolton and Bury

  6,596,854

  1,075,679

  386,000

  12,999

  5,392,104

  Cumbria

  9,754,227

  801,549

  408,900

  21,257

  5,997,170

  Eltec (East Lancs)

  9,411,718

  1,670,762

  457,721

  18,927

  7,074,335

  Lawtec (Lancs West)

  12,153,753

  2,498,438

  686,561

  28,247

  11,619,943

  Manchester

  15,688,340

  2,695,706

  868,043

  34,781

  16,458,591

  Metrotec Ltd (Wigan)

  5,226,318

  761,240

  287,048

  8,682

  6,699,333

  Normidtec

  7,025,151

  1,004,151

  402,308

  15,435

  5,504,926

  Oldham

  4,353,242

  424,580

  219,378

  6,477

  3,513,678

  Rochdale

  3,821,248

  557,783

  187,330

  5,688

  4,436,458

  South and East Cheshire

  6,944,187

  705,981

  285,674

  9,199

  4,005,311

  Stockport (High Peak)

  5,129,690

  695,422

  306,999

  10,614

  3,779,547

  Merseyside

  Cewtec

  8,497,001

  1,036,676

  521,360

  18,001

  9,214,910

  Merseyside

  20,298,196

  2,302,656

  861,320

  32,200

  24,171,147

  Qualitec

  4,270,192

  483,121

  162,150

  5,523

  3,456,984

  68 69

  TEC Budgets 1994–95

  Youth training

  WRFE

  Careers guidance year 9–10

  Careers libraries

  Traning for work

  North East

  County Durham

  11,257,776

  1,091,126

  449,115

  24,170

  12,962,112

  Northumberland

  6,151,631

  431,564

  0

  13,604

  6,084,092

  Sunderland City

  6,487,963

  764,731

  0

  15,239

  10,626,801

  Teesside

  12,468,630

  1,060,337

  461,038

  29,164

  16,590,623

  Tyneside

  17,516,871

  1,541,416

  639,084

  31,183

  19,530,190

  Social Affairs Council
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what matters were raised at the recent EC Social Affairs Council; and what were the conclusions.

  Mr. Portillo
  I attended the Social Affairs Council on 22 September in Brussels, accompanied by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment.

  As a follow-up to some aspects of the Commission's white paper on growth, competitiveness and employment, the Council agreed a report on tackling unemployment intended as a contribution to discussion at the Essen European Council. The report focuses on four themes: training; flexibility of working time; long-term unemployment and value for money from public spending on unemployment. It will complement work by Finance Ministers and others following up the white paper in preparation for the Essen European Council.

  The Council was unable to reach an agreement on the draft directive on parental leave. I noted the United Kingdom's consistent opposition to the proposal over more than a decade, and our view that it was not an appropriate area for Community action. The current United Kingdom arrangements for up to 40 weeks' maternity leave for mothers with a right to return to work were recognised as generous and I said that now was not an appropriate time to add to the burdens placed on business and to put jobs at risk. Commissioner Flynn indicated that he would now initiate discussions with the social partners under the agreement of the Eleven.

  There were orientation debates on the draft directive on the posting of workers and on the draft directive on part-time and temporary work. The Council discussed a number of specific questions posed in advance by the Presidency. There were no clear conclusions and several member states, including the United Kingdom, expressed their difficulties with the proposals.

  In discussion on the draft directive on the reversal of the burden of proof in sex discrimination cases, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Employment made it clear that the directive was unacceptable to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom's system of industrial tribunals operated very effectively in such cases. In addition, the directive ran counter to a key principle of United Kingdom law and was unacceptable on subsidiarity grounds. The Commission said that in the light of the United Kingdom's fundamental objections it would review how best to proceed.

  Commissioner Flynn gave a brief presentation of the Commission's white paper on the future of European social policy. The German Presidency has indicated that
  70
  there will be a substantive discussion at the next Social Affairs Council in December.

  Other member states adopted the directive on european works councils under the agreement of the Eleven. In accordance with the terms of the social protocol to the Maastricht treaty, the provisions of the directive will have no legal effect within the United Kingdom. Employees based in the United Kingdom will not count towards the threshold which determines whether the directive applies to multinational companies. Companies will remain free to decide for themselves what arrangements are best for consulting their United Kingdom employees.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what matters were discussed, what decisions taken, and which were decided by vote, at the Social Affairs Council in Brussels on 22 September.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel today (Sir M. Marshall). There were no formal votes, but the other 11 member states adopted the directive on European works councils.

  Gas Fitters
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what minimum standards of qualification apply to operators entering premises for the purposes of repairs or fitting any gas appliance or pipe; what changes have been made since 1984; and what change he plans.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1984 require anyone who works with gas fittings supplied with gas through pipes to be competent. The Health and Safety Commission's approved code of practice "Standards of training in safe gas installation" of 1987 fleshes out the concept of competence as a combination of knowledge, practical skill and experience.

  The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 require that all gas installation businesses working with fittings supplied with gas through pipes must be a member of a class of persons approved by the Health and Safety Executive.

  The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994 which come into force on 31 October this year, consolidate the 1984 and 1990 regulations into a singe regulatory package. From 1 April 1995, the regulations will extend the requirement to be a member of a class of persons approved by HSE to those working with gas fittings not supplied through pipes—for example, gas supplied from tanks and cylinders.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring; and if he will set out his targets to help small businesses in the next year.

  Mr. Paice
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the United Kingdom economy. The Government help small firms by keeping inflation and interest rates low and by reducing legislation and administrative burdens. They also provide direct assistance where appropriate and are currently establishing a network of business links to provide high-quality business support across the country.

  The Department funds training and enterprise councils to improve the performance of small businesses by increasing their understanding of the business case for training their people. TECs are increasingly linking this support to the achievement of the investors in people standard. Materials are available to help small firms achieve the standard.

  A year ago there were 200 organisations with fewer than 200 employees which had reached the investors in people standard—this included just over 100 with fewer than 50 employees. The most recent information shows that there are 694 organisations with fewer than 200 employees recognised as investors in people—of which 406 have under 50 employees. There are also over 7,200 organisations with fewer than 200 employees which have made a formal commitment to achieving the standard: over 4,600 of these have fewer than 50 employees.

  The small firms training loans scheme was launched on 16 June 1994. Three thousand loans are forecast this year. The White Paper on competitiveness announced a new measure to build, over a three-year period from April 1995, a cadre of 24,000 key workers in small firms with up-to-date skills to train others in their firms and to help spread the training culture more widely.

  Funds for the business start-up scheme have been transferred to the single regeneration budget in 1994–95. It is expected that some 25,000 people will be helped in 1994–95. Around 34,000 people were awarded an allowance in England in 1993–94. The most recent survey of scheme entrants 18 months after start-up shows that approximately 71 per cent. were still operating their business.

  Subject Access Requests
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many subject access requests were received by his Department in the last year; what estimate he has of the percentage of those requests which were enforced subject access requests; and if he will make a statement concerning his policy towards enforced subject access.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of subject access requests received by the Department, in the year to 30 September 1994, was 79.
  72
  Applicants are not required to give their reasons for disclosure so it is not possible to estimate the percentage of requests which were enforced subject access requests.

  It is the Employment Department's policy to answer all subject access requests in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Nitric Acid
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what volumes of nitric acid are currently licensed for storage by British Nuclear Fuels plc at Sellafield.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  There is no requirement for the volumes of nitric acid stored at Sellafield to be specified as part of the nuclear site licence.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the level of unemployment in the construction industry in(a) the Liverpool, Riverside constituency and (b) Merseyside at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested is not available.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many overseas visits he and each of his Ministers have made between 1 January and 30 June; during how many he, or each of his Ministers, participated in fund-raising activities for the Conservative party; and if he will name the Ministers and the countries in which these activities took place.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Ministers have made nine overseas visits in their official capacity in the period between 1 January and 30 June 1994. None of these visits involved fund-raising for the Conservative party.

Race Relations Employment

  Advisory Service
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which representative ethnic minority organisations his Department consulted before it included the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service in the Department's market-testing programme.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  There was no need for the Department to consult ethnic minority organisations before including the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service in its market testing programme. The RREAS is a self-contained organisation which offers advice and guidance on racial equality in employment directly to employers in the private and public sectors. The service has no formal links with ethnic minority organisations. There is no reason why any changes in its administration or management should impact on the work of such organisations.

  Trade Union Membership
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentage of employees in(a) coal mining, (b) water supply, (c) textiles, (d) rail transport, (e) local government, (f) the fire

  73
  service, (g) the police, (h) the courts, (i) defence, (j) security, (k) schools and (1) higher education belonged to a trade union in each year from 1989 to 1991.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The number and percentage of employees who were trade union members in 1989, 1990 and 1991 is given in the following table. Further

  Membership of trade unions among employees in selected industries in Great Britain - 1989, 1990 and 1991

  Industry

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Trade union membership (000s)

  Trade union density (per cent.) (a)

  Trade union membership (000s)

  Trade union density (per cent.) (a)

  Trade union membership (000s)

  Trade union density (per cent.) (a)

  All employees

  8,491

  39

  8,375

  38

  8,117

  37

  Coal extraction and manufacture of solid fuels

  120

  90

  112

  92

  91

  90

  Water supply

  54

  82

  53

  79

  55

  74

  Textiles

  84

  43

  77

  37

  59

  36

  Railways

  107

  94

  102

  92

  91

  91

  National and local government

  538

  66

  537

  64

  568

  63

  Fire Services

  49

  91

  55

  91

  53

  92

  Police

  116

  57

  137

  63

  139

  66

  Justice

  41

  65

  51

  66

  48

  60

  National defence

  63

  24

  71

  27

  62

  24

  School education (b)

  752

  63

  760

  62

  609

  60

  Higher education (b)

  150

  56

  177

  56

  248

  56

  (a) Proportion in a category who are members of a trade union or staff association. Those who did not report their membership status are regarded as non-union members.

  (b) Figures for each year during this period are not directly comparable in the education sector because of changes in the funding status and hence categorisation of employees in the new universities.

  Source

  Labour Force Surveys, 1989, 1990 and 1991

  Structural Fund
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements have been made to ensure that structural fund resources are being made available now to national and local agencies under(a) objective 2 and (b) objective 3.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy today.

  Penningtons and Pinnacle PR Companies
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received regarding the recruitment activities of Penningtons and Pinnacle PR companies in the North of England; and if he will undertake an investigation into those activities.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Employment Department was made aware in July 1994 of articles in local newspapers about Penningtons and Pinnacle PR. The Employment Service was informed and asked all jobcentres if they had received any complaints have been received.

  In addition, the Employment Department's head of information wrote to Penningtons on 20 July 1994 seeking more information. There has been no response.

WALES

  Sheep
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the current population of sheep
  74
  information is available from the Employment Gazette, June 1994.

  Information is not available for some of the industries specified by the hon. Member. However, where possible, figures for industries which most closely approximate to those requested have been supplied instead.

  in the Principality (a) at the latest available date, (b) 0 years ago and (c) 20 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is estimated that there were 11,100,000 sheep in 1994 compared with 9,000,000 in 1984 and 6,700,000 in 1974.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on road traffic reductions; and if he will make a statement on what measures he proposes to reduce road traffic and congestion.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Several, and our policies are set out in "Roads in Wales: 1994 Review" published in July.

  Unemployment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the change in the level of unemployment since December 1992.

  Mr. Redwood
  At September 1994, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Wales stood at 117,800. This represents a fall of 15,400 or 11.6 per cent. since December 1992.

  Old Industrial Areas
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his plans for the regeneration of old industrial areas of Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am using the full range of my Department's responsibilities in conjunction with local
  75
  government and the development agencies to promote the successful regeneration of old industrial areas of Wales.

  Incomes
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average income per capita in Wales as a percentage of the United Kingdom average; and what were the equivalent figures in 1979.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The most comprehensive measure of income is gross domestic product. The latest available data are for 1992, when GDP per head in Wales was 86.1 per cent. of the United Kingdom figure. In 1979, it was 86.2 per cent. However, since 1985, GDP per capita in Wales has grown faster than in any part of the United Kingdom.

  Coal Industry
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of the coal industry in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  Arrangements for the transfer of British Coal's operations in Wales to the private sector are currently under way. I am confident that this will secure a healthy long-term future for the industry.

  Government Efficiency
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to improve the efficiency of government in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office has secured legislation to reorganise the structure of local government, and imposed tighter controls on the management of the executive public bodies in Wales. Within the Welsh Office a wide range of measures are being taken to improve efficiency, including market testing and the rationalisation of accommodation. The Welsh Office's programme of market testing will continue to contribute to improving economy and efficiency.

  Milk Quota
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had from the farming unions, landowners' organisations and the professional bodies in relation to delays in processing of milk quota transactions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received representations from the National Farmers Union about delays in processing milk quota transactions.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he has made in setting up improvements in computer systems for handling milk quota movements and leasing and transfer applications; what is the average length of time currently taken to process(a) a quota leasing transaction and (b) a permanent quota transfer application; and what consultation he has had with the Intervention Board and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors regarding the delayed processing of quota transactions.

  Mr. Redwood
  This is a matter for the Intervention Board executive agency.

  The current backlog was caused by delays in the transfer of up-to-date information from the milk marketing boards to the Intervention Board. These have
  76
  now been resolved and I understand that the Intervention Board expects to clear the backlog by the end of October. Thereafter they aim to turn both leasing and transfer confirmations round in two weeks.

  My officials have been in regular touch with the Intervention Board and have been present at discussions, which also included representatives of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, on a variety of matters concerning the operation of the milk quota system.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation he has had with the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce concerning delays in processing of milk quota transfers.

  Mr. Redwood
  My officials are in touch regularly with the Intervention Board on all matters relating to its operation of the milk quota system.

  Community Health Council
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) on how many occasions in the past 10 years has any proposed member of a community health council, who is a former employee of the NHS been debarred from membership of that council on grounds related to previous dismissal from the NHS; if such procedures to debar appointment to the council are made by his Department autonomously, or on application from the relevant health authority or family health service authority; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) on how many occasions suspended or sacked previous employees of a health authority have been refused membership of community health councils for the same area; if he will list the persons involved; whether representations were made (a) on their behalf and (b) against their appointment; if so, by whom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no record of this information. Appointments to membership of community health councils are governed by the Community Health Councils Regulations 1985 (SI 1985 No 304), as amended by the Community Health Councils (Amendment) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990 No 1375).

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list applications for the funding of severance pay, and early retirement from grant-maintained status schools in Wales in 1993–94.

  Mr. Redwood
  Details of the individuals involved are confidential. During the 1993–94 financial year severance pay was approved in respect of two teachers and early retirement for three.

  Mid-Glamorgan Family Health Service Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to appoint the new chairman of the Mid-Glamorgan family health service authority.

  Mr. Redwood
  I expect to make an announcement shortly.

  Trainee Teachers
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the Curriculum and Assessment Council for Wales in relation to monitoring in schools and colleges for trainee teachers.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales has responsibility for the funding and assessment of quality of initial teacher training courses provided by higher education institutions in Wales. Its powers were extended by the Education Act 1994 to allow it to fund initial training provided by schools and to assess the quality of that training. I have written to the chairman of the HEFCW with some broad guidance on the council's remit in this area. The council is required under the 1994 Act, to have regard to evidence from Her Majesty's chief

  TEC Budgets 1994–95

  Gwent

  Mid Glamorgan

  South Glamorgan

  West Wales

  Powys

  North East Wales

  Targea

  Total

  Youth Training

  5·939

  7·389

  4·101

  9·888

  1·659

  3·335

  5·330

  37·641

  Credits (Transitional)

  —

  0·767

  0·250

  1·000

  —

  0·663

  —

  2·680

  Credits (Development)

  —

  —

  0·250

  —

  —

  —

  0·550

  0·800

  YT/Credits (Total)

  5·939

  8·156

  4·601

  10·888

  1·659

  3·998

  5·880

  41·121

  Work Related FE

  1·192

  1·170

  0·850

  2·127

  0·317

  0·631

  0·986

  7·273

  Education/Business Links

  0·194

  0·230

  0·188

  0·406

  0·142

  0·166

  0·201

  1·527

  Careers Information

  0·010

  0·010

  0·010

  0·017

  0·005

  0·009

  0·011

  0·072

  Education/Business Total

  0·204

  0·240

  0·198

  0·423

  0·147

  0·175

  0·212

  1·599

  Training for Work (Fees)

  4·787

  5·116

  3·403

  6·153

  0·850

  1·660

  3·269

  25·238

  Learning for Work (Fees)

  0·099

  0·130

  0·100

  0·138

  0·014

  0·050

  0·077

  0·608

  Skill Choice

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·700

  0·700

  Business/Enterprise

  1·231

  1·440

  1·111

  2·658

  0·438

  1·043

  1·329

  9·250

  Local Initiative Fund

  0·413

  0·390

  0·249

  0·392

  0·175

  0·200

  0·211

  2·028

  TEC Challenge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·120

  0·120

  Total

  1·643

  1·830

  1·360

  3·050

  0·612

  1·243

  1·660

  11·398

  Out of School Childcare

  0·135

  0·140

  0·135

  0·133

  0·093

  0·084

  0·084

  0·805

  TEC Admin Costs

  1·483

  1·610

  1·312

  2·281

  0·533

  1·097

  1·170

  9·485

  TEC Total

  10·596

  13·146

  8·455

  18·902

  3·362

  7·228

  10·692

  72·381

  Excludes funding for coal mitigation measures and modern engineering apprenticeships as contracted figures have not yet been agreed.

  Welsh Health International
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, the Health Promotion Authority for Wales and the Welsh development agency concerning the future of the Welsh Health Development International.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Housing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date the proposal for a housing association ombudsman for Wales was rejected; what consultations took place prior to its rejection; and if he will make a statement.
  78
  inspectors of schools in Wales about the quality of training provision. The council is also required to have regard to other assessments of quality as appear appropriate or to which it is directed by me.

  The Curriculum and Assessment Council for Wales has no statutory responsibility in the assessment of quality of initial training.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the budget agreed with each TEC in Wales for 1994–1995 broken down by programme area.

  Mr. Richards
  The budgets made available to each training and enterprise council in Wales, by programme area, are shown on the following table.

  Mr. Redwood
  I concluded that the small number and the nature of complaints coming forward in Wales did not justify such an ombudsman service. Housing for Wales had already taken a lead in resolving tenants' complaints. That decision was communicated to Housing for Wales on 6 April 1994.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of Tai Cymru in relation to the working party set up jointly with the Welsh Federation of Housing Associations with respect to guidance on rent setting; what provisions he has made to ensure equivalence between secure and assured tenants housing associations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation he has had with the chairman of Tai
  79
  Cymru in relation to the guidelines for housing association rental levels, where rent assessment committees set the rent above the assured rent levels.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. Housing for Wales guidance to associations, however, is that where the rent assessment committee sets a rent above that which the housing association wishes to charge the association need not move to a higher rent determined by a committee, even though that would be the assured rent.

  Grant Thornton Inquiry
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning the date of(a) completion and (b) publication of the Grant Thornton inquiry into the Welsh Development Agency land assembly arrangement for Tesco plc.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  M4
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will improve junction 46 on the M4 to permit eastbound traffic to exit at the junction and westbound traffic to gain access at the junction.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to improve junction 46 on the M4.

  Botanical Gardens
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will plac in the Library a copy of the consultant's report into the cost benefit analysis of the Welsh national botanical gardens and any papers comparing alternative locations for the garden.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department has commissioned consultants to consider the feasibility of establishing a national botanic garden for Wales. Their report is expected before the end of the year and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Blood Transfusion Service
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority in relation to the future of the National Blood Transfusion Service in Wales and its chain of command and departmental health authority reporting structure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. At my request, the Welsh Health Common Services Authority and the National Blood Transfusion Service (Wales) are undertaking a review of future management arrangements of the NBTS(W). A report of the review will be submitted to my officials in due course.

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he received the consultants' report on the implementation of fire prevention works at Cardiff royal infirmary from South Glamorgan health authority; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have not yet seen a copy of the report, which was commissioned by South Glamorgan health 80
  authority. The director of the Welsh Office Health Department has seen a copy in the course of discussions with senior staff of the health authority. Any inquiries about the report should be directed to South Glamorgan health authority. I would expect it to be published shortly.

  Patients
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to issue new guidelines in relation to the permissible circumstances for switching from private patient status to NHS or vice versa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The guidance on private practice in NHS hospitals, which includes matters to do with the patient's right to change status, is currently being reviewed. It will be revised where necessary to ensure that it is clear and up to date.

  Highways Directorate
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to complete his options review of agency status for the highways directorate of his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am currently considering the future status of the highways directorate of my Department and will make an announcement in due course.

  Incentive Prescribing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales that representations he has received in relation to the setting up of pilot projects in incentive prescribing in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Specific proposals for prescribing incentive schemes have been received from seven family health services authorities. Four have been approved, two have been referred back to the FHSAs concerned and one is under consideration.

  Health Promotion
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with health authorities and local authorities in relation to health promotion and the future of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales and its funding and functions.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have arranged a full review of national health promotion in Wales as part of the regular re-examination of public bodies. This will focus in particular on the role, responsibilities and future funding of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales. The views of a cross-section of interest including health authorities and local authorities have been sought and will be considered. The review will be concluded by the end of this year.

  Welsh Economic Council
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the date of, and the agenda for, the next meeting of the Welsh Economic Council and place copies of the supporting documentation in the Library.
  81
  Mr. Redwood
  The next meeting of the Welsh Economic Council will be held on Monday 25 July.

  The agenda for the meeting comprises two topics for discussion: communications, and business and the environment.

  I will ask the Welsh Economic Council if any of the supporting documents may be placed in the Library of the House.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to place in the Library copies of all speeches he, or other Ministers in his Department, make on matters for which he has departmental responsibility in the period 21 July to 16 October.

  Mr. Redwood
  Arrangements will be made for copies of speeches made by Ministers in my Department in a public forum, which make policy statements, to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State (1) how many special advisers have(a) joined and (b) left his Department in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years because (a) management consultants and (b) joined a firm of consultants; and

  (3) if he will publish the names of the employers joined by special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: There is no requirement for special advisers to provide details of their employers after leaving Government service.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times during the 1993–94 Session information requested in parliamentary questions has been refused on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Howard
  None.

  Charities
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what charities and voluntary organisations the Government appoints, or has power to approve or veto the appointment of, trustees or board members or senior executives.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  This information is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  St. Helena
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to recommend to Parliament the right of entry for the people of the island 82
  of St. Helena into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mother and Baby Units
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the 1994 social services inspection report on prison mother and baby units in England and Wales.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have arranged for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Videos
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department is funding on the effects of video viewing on the behaviour of young offenders; and when its results will be available for publication.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. learned Friend is currently considering a research proposal. It is too early yet to say when the results will be available if he decides to fund the project.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation exercises his Department has carried out as to the future structure of local or other statutory authorities having competence in the field of civil defence or emergency planning.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Guidance on the requirement for civil defence planning was given to the Local Government Commission. In addition, we have recently consulted local authorities on possible arrangements for the delivery of emergency planning after local government reorganisation.

  Police Forces
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing the(a) number and (b) percentage of (i) men and (ii) women at each level in the police forces in England and Wales at the latest available date.

  Mr. Maclean
  At the end of August 1994 there were 49 chief officers in the police service covering England and Wales, all of whom were men. Tables showing the distribution of men and women in all the other ranks in each force, including those on central service and with regional crime squads, have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals on the control of nuclear materials smuggling were put forward by the United Kingdom; and what proposals from other EU member states were agreed to by the United Kingdom at the Home Office and Justice Ministers Council meeting in Brussels on 7 and 8 September.

  Mr. Howard
  The United Kingdom representatives played a full part in the informal Justice and Home Affairs
  83
  Council of 7 September and in the ministerial conference non drugs and organised crime between the European Union and the countries of central and eastern Europe in Berlin on 8 September. The conference unanimously agreed a declaration which called for the following matters to be examined relating to the theft and illegal trade of radioactive and nuclear material: the preparation of a joint comprehensive assessment of the situation; co-operation regarding the protection and safeguarding of nuclear stocks; setting up rapid reporting channels; mutual assistance of prosecuting authorities; intensification of border controls; penalties provided for, and regulations on the forfeiture of illicit proceeds from, such crimes.

  Authority

  Precept Payable in 1993–94 £

  Precept/head of population £

  1993–94 precept discounted to 1983–84 prices £

  1983–84 precept £

  Increase/decrease compared with 1983–84 £

  Barking & Dagenham

  5,958,975

  38·84

  3,677,707

  2,936,430

  +25·2

  Barnet

  15,446,177

  51·11

  9,532,933

  6,613,880

  +44·1

  Bexley

  10,380,790

  47·29

  6,406,724

  3,407,586

  +88·0

  Brent

  10,967,589

  42·13

  6,768,879

  5,518,940

  +22·6

  Bromley

  16,125,370

  55·04

  9,952,112

  5,507,880

  +80·7

  Camden

  11,230,818

  53·75

  6,534,418

  12,276,600

  -46·8

  Croydon

  15,163,989

  47·39

  9,378,217

  7,520,800

  +24·7

  Ealing

  12,939,433

  47·01

  7,985,844

  6,138,300

  +30·1

  Enfield

  12,266,646

  46·91

  7,570,619

  5,364,100

  +41·1

  Greemwich

  9,882,660

  40·84

  5,746,501

  3,483,900

  +64·9

  Hackney

  8,398,260

  40·60

  4,883,362

  3,981,600

  +22·6

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  9,802,406

  57·41

  5,699,835

  4,047,960

  +40·8

  Haringey

  9,842,688

  48·68

  6,076,623

  3,915,240

  +55·2

  Harrow

  9,925,730

  49·63

  6,125,873

  3,782,520

  +62·0

  Havering

  10,453,195

  45·55

  6,451,410

  4,169,620

  +54·7

  Hillingdon

  11,416,499

  49·29

  7,045,933

  6,525,400

  + 8·0

  Hounslow

  9,724,205

  50·28

  6,001,498

  5,386,220

  +11·4

  Islington

  9,177,882

  46·33

  5,336,691

  5,695,900

  - 6·3

  Kensington & Chelsea

  11,956,815

  71·32

  6,952,566

  7,631,400

  - 8·9

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  7,229,710

  54·36

  4,461,968

  3,096,800

  +44·1

  Lambeth

  12,889,597

  43·64

  7,494,954

  6,337,380

  +18·3

  Lewisham

  11,553,750

  43·71

  6,718,195

  3,716,160

  +80·8

  Merton

  8,597,056

  51·48

  5,305,855

  3,318,000

  +59·9

  Newham

  7,741,028

  37·40

  4,777,539

  3,852,198

  +24·0

  Redbridge

  10,469,086

  44·99

  6,461,217

  4,003,720

  +61·4

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  9,785,162

  59·76

  6,039,119

  3,492,748

  +72·9

  Southwark

  10,378,324

  39·60

  5,975,247

  6,271,020

  - 4·7

  Sutton

  8,573,235

  49·86

  5,291,153

  3,207,400

  +65·0

  Tower Hamlets

  7,569,022

  39·36

  4,401,183

  4,910,640

  -10·4

  Waltham Forest

  8,751,619

  40·24

  5,401,246

  3,351,180

  +61·2

  Wandsworth

  14,527,012

  47·87

  8,447,067

  4,612,020

  +83·1

  City of Westminster

  15,580,451

  73·20

  9,059,613

  34,175,400

  -73·5

  Notes

  1 The average precept per head of population in London Boroughs in 1993–94 was £48·14;

  2 The total precept received from London Boroughs in 1993–94 was £328,153,964, equivalent to £207,960,100 at 1983–4 prices. This represents a real terms increase of 10·5 per cent. over the actual precept for 1983–4(£188,1248,942);

  3 Precept income from London Boroughs in 1993–4 represented 17·7 per cent. of total income, compared with 23.6 per cent. in 1983–4.

  Mental Health
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners with identified mental illness are awaiting to move to medium secure units;

  (2) what is the average delay time for those prisoners waiting for a medium secure bed; and if he will give a breakdown by number and category the reasons for transfer delays.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out in respect of each London borough for the financial year 1993–94, the amount paid by each to the Metropolitan police, the appropriate sum per head for each inhabitant, the increase or decrease relative to the sum paid in 1983–84, discounted at the appropriate RPI, together with equivalent hours for Greater London as a whole, excepting the City of London, and the proportion of such payments to all income received.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested by the hon. Member is set out in the table.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  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. Ian McCartney, dated 17 October 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the transfer of mentally disordered offenders, and the delays surrounding such transfers.
  The most up-to-date information on the number of transfers held centrally is for 27 June 1994. On that day there were 174 mentally

  85
  disordered prisoners awaiting transfer to NHS psychiatric facilities of all types—local psychiatric hospitals, medium secure units and Special Hospitals. Of these approximately forty per cent. would have been awaiting transfer to a medium secure unit.
  I regret that the detailed information you request on the delays surrounding transfers is not collected centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  PC Rhys Trigg
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give his reasons for reinstating PC Rhys Trigg after his dismissal by the Police Commissioner.

  Mr. Maclean
  Mr. Trigg exercised his right, under section 37 of the Police Act 1964 as substituted by section 103 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, to appeal against the decision by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to uphold the finding and punishment imposed by a disciplinary board that he was guilty of a disciplinary offence of abuse of authority and dismissed.

  In accordance with paragraph 3 of schedule 5 to the Police Act 1964 as so substituted, a tribunal was set up to inquire into the case and report to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. The tribunal had a full rehearing of the evidence and witnesses which were heard by the disciplinary board. The tribunal was unanimous in finding that Mr. Trigg was not guilty of the offence and recommended that the appeal should be allowed and Mr. Trigg reinstated. My right hon. Friend accepted this rcommendation.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing the total expenditure for 1993–94 on emergency planning for(a) fire and civil defence authorities, (b) county councils, (c) district and borough councils, (d) industry acting on the Government's behalf including nationalised and privatised bodies and (e) other statutory bodies.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information sought is not available centrally. Civil defence grant is made available to local authorities as a contribution towards their total expenditure.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision his Department will make for emergency planning in the event of the establishment of unitary local authorities.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Local authorities in England and Wales, together with the principal associations representing them, have been consulted on the delivery of emergency planning following the outcome of the local government review. We are considering those responses and hope to make an announcement later this year.

  "Today"
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the occasions when he has contributed to the BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme 86
  since August 1993, stating the date and topic of each of his contributions.

  Mr. Howard
  No records are kept on such matters.

  Medical Research
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures currently exist in law to deal with persons who deliberately disrupt medical research; and what assessment he has made of the current adequacy of these measures.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government attach great importance to the continuation of medical research, subject to the strict controls set out in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and are committed to ensuring an environment in which such research can flourish. I am satisfied that existing provisions of the criminal law give the police and the courts a wide range of powers for dealing with the activities of persons who deliberately disrupt medical research. I am, however, keeping the position under review, in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what cash resources were made available to education authorities in London from section 11 grants devoted to the teaching of English as a second language in the last financial year for which these grants were paid; and what plans Her Majesty's Government have to sustain such teaching by other means in 1995–96.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The table shows the level of section 11 grants payable in respect of local education authorities' expenditure in 1993–94 on approved projects concerned entirely or primarily with teaching English as a second language in schools, or at pre-school level.

  The projects continue to attract such funding in the current financial year. Since 1 April 1994, grant has been paid to the first group of authorities from the new single regeneration budget for which the Department of the Environment has lead responsibility, while authorities in the second group have continued to receive grant from the Home Office under section 11. Over 40 per cent. of the relevant projects were originally approved until 31 March 1997, and we have made it clear that existing commitments will be honoured.

  As to new additional funding from 1995–96, such activity was within the scope of the bidding guidance for the single regeneration budget published in April, and applications have also been invited for section 11 grant.

  Authority

  £

  Brent

  1,456,511

  Greenwich

  1,572,728

  Hackney

  3,466,412

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  582,028

  Haringey

  2,630,865

  Islington

  1,593,722

  Kensington & Chelsea

  1,060,465

  Lambeth

  1,062,702

  Newham

  1,823,386

  Southwark

  2,964,612

  Tower Hamlets

  7,228,566

  wandsworth

  1,762,389

  87

  Authority

  £

  Barking & Dagenham

  285,412

  Barnet

  866,982

  Bexley

  144,987

  Camden

  1,432,780

  Croydon

  1,108,480

  Ealing

  3,359,869

  Enfield

  1,324,482

  Harrow

  726,718

  Havering

  50,636

  Hillingdon

  303,153

  Hounslow

  1,576,105

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  123,861

  Merton

  636,479

  Redbridge

  1,084,599

  Richmond

  69,014

  Sutton

  37,447

  Waltham Forest

  1,552,590

  Westminster

  1,774,619

  Human Rights
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what publicity his Department has undertaken in respect of Her Majesty's Government's report on human rights in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We have announced in reply to questions in both Houses that we submitted the United Kingdom's fourth periodic report under the International Covenant on Civil and Polictical Rights to the United Nations on 7 October and that copies of the report were that day placed in the Library. In accordance with the policy that the report should be freely available outside Parliament for those who wish to receive a copy; on 8 October we sent copies to those non-governmental organisations with a particular, established interest in the report, and we have since supplied copies on request.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he submitted to the United Nations the British Government's report on human rights in the United Kingdom required under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The United Kingdom's fourth periodic report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was submitted to the United Nations on 7 October 1994. On the same day copies of the report were placed in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Equine Population
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated current equine population of Northern Ireland; for what principal purposes horses, ponies, donkeys and mules are used in the Province; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  It is estimated that there is a current equine population of 25,000 animals in Northern Ireland. Horses are used mainly for hunting, show jumping, eventing and racing; ponies are used for leisure activities; donkeys are kept mainly as pets; there is no record of any mules kept in Northern Ireland.

  Health and Social Services Trusts
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria are used in making appointments to the boards of Northern Ireland health and social services trusts; and whether a list of suitable appointees exists.

  Mr. Ancram
  Non-executive directors of health and social services trusts, including chairmen, are appointed to act in a personal rather than a representative capacity. Although there are no specific qualifications, those appointed are likely to have some or all of the following attributes:

  to have interest and concern for health and social services;

  to possess a specialist skill or knowledge;

  to have experience of the voluntary sector, preferably including operational matters;

  to live or work in the area to be served by the trust;

  to bring a sense of independence and objectivity to the deliberations of the trust;

  to have an understanding of management structure and performance;

  to be willing to give the necessary time commitment to the post—a minimum of up to 1.5 days a months for non-executive directors and up to 2.5 days a week for chairman.

  In addition, the Department seeks to achieve equality of representation in terms of gender and community background and encourage more young people to participate.

  There is a central databased containing background details of all those who have expressed interested in public appointments, while Baroness Denton holds receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how potential appointees to Northern Ireland health and social services trusts may indicate to those responsible for making such appointments their willingness to become board members.

  Mr. Ancram
  It is open to any member of the public to make it known that he or she is interested in being considered for apointment to an HSS trust. Anyone so interested should write to the Department of Health and Social Services or directly to the HSS trust in question. Local community organisations are also encouraged to nominate.

  Ms. Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider creating a register of interests of the board members of Northern Ireland health and social services trusts.

  Mr. Ancram
  In line with developments in the rest of the United Kingdom my noble Friend Baroness Denton has decided that HPSS bodies must establish and maintain a publicly available register of interests for chairmen and board members. Guidance will be published shortly in the form of codes of practice on conduct and accountability which will require significant interests to be published in the organisation's annual report.

  Ms. Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Norther Ireland if he will list the name of each board member of the Northern Ireland health and social services trust with(a) the occupation of non-executive directors, (b) the levels of the remuneration paid to non-executive directors and (c) the date of appointment of each director and the length of term of office in each case.
  89
  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested in respect of the 13 HSS trusts in Northern Ireland has been placed in the Library.

  Trainee Doctors
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland from what central source funding is made available for flexible training schemes for trainee doctors wishing to pursue a career in general practice; how many places each year are made available on such schemes; how many who have completed their pre-registration year and have been selected for general practice training are on a waiting list; what proportion of these are women; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  Funding for flexible training of trainee doctors wishing to pursue a career in general practice is provided by the Department of Health and Social Services through the Central Services Agency. The number of places available for flexible training is not fixed. There is no waiting list. There are currently 27 females and 19 males in vocational training for general practice of whom one person, a female, is currently in flexible training.

  The Department are committed to encouraging flexible training and funds initiatives particularly in specialities with female under-representation. The Northern Ireland Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education ensures that all trainees are aware of the option for flexible training.

  Dystonia
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many cases of dystonia have been diagnosed in the Southern health board area;

  (2) how many cases of dystonia have been diagnosed in the Northern health board area;

  (3) how many cases of dystonia have been diagnosed in the Western health board;

  (4) how many cases of dystonia have been diagnosed in the Eastern health board area.

  Mr. Ancram
  This information is not collected.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if dystonia is recognised as a specific disease in relation to social security benefits.

  Mr. Ancram
  The only social security benefits which are paid in respect of specified diseases are industrial injuries benefits, which provide preferential benefits for employed earners disabled by accidents and prescribed diseases arising out of employment. Dystonia is not prescribed for the purpose of industrial injuries benefits. All other benefits paid in respect of sickness or disablement do not depend on a specific condition but rather on the effects to which that condition gives rise.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research is currently being carried out on dystonia in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  No research into the condition of dystonia is being directly funded by the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland at present. The Department has not received any applications for support for research into dystonia in recent years.

  Making Belfast Work
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list expenditure by wards in Belfast under the Making Belfast Work initiative from its inception.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The information is not currently available and could be collected only at disproportionate cost. However, work is on-going on a project monitoring database which will allow such requests to be dealt with in future.

  Sex Discrimination
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all councils which have sex discrimination cases lodged against them.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The following councils currently have sex discrimination cases lodged against them before the industrial tribunals:

  Belfast City Council

  Ards Borough Council

  Armagh District Council.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have lodged sex discrimination claims against local government employers in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Since 1 January 1989, 35 people have lodged sex discrimination claims against local government employers before the industrial tribunals.

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what review has been made since 30 August of the different cost benefits of(a) the proposed Scotland-Northern Ireland electricity interconnect or and (b) a revised interconvector between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  None. These are matters for the parties concerned—NIE plc, Scottish Power plc and the Electricity Supply Board in the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the cost of reinstating the electricity interconnector between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The decision to restore the electricity interconnector between Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland is a matter for NIE plc and the electricity supply board. I am told that the cost is of the order of £1.2 million.

  Foyle Fisheries Commission
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons are employed by the Foyle Fisheries Commission on(a) a part-time basis and (b) a full-time basis; and how many in each category are perceived to be (i) protestants and (ii) catholics.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Foyle Fisheries Commission employs four persons on a part-time basis and 23 persons on a full-time basis. Of the part-time employees two are perceived to be Protestant and two are perceived to be Catholics. Of the full-time staff 13 are perceived to be Protestants and 10 are perceived to be Catholics.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many licensed(a) red meat and (b) poultry abattoirs there were in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is given in the table.

  Licensed Abattoirs in Northern Ireland 1990–994

  Number in operation at:

  Red meat

  Poultry meat

  1 January 1990

  23

  11

  1 January 1991

  20

  11

  1 January 1992

  20

  12

  1 January 1993

  19

  10

  1 January 1994

  16

  10

  Recorded imports of livestock into Northern Ireland 1985–1993 (including shipments from Great Britain)

  Adult cattle

  Calves

  Sheep and lambs

  Pigs

  Other 1livestock

  1985

  191,873

  2,190

  67,274

  59,237

  1,829,300

  1986

  202,708

  330

  57,186

  63,955

  2,573,730

  1987

  145,551

  133

  70,074

  61,829

  2,454,222

  1988

  170,706

  583

  55,337

  45,955

  942,620

  1989

  111,788

  639

  75,834

  52,516

  949,201

  1990

  113,400

  512

  53,012

  53,251

  1,702,045

  1991

  82,505

  280

  50,503

  78,142

  1,837,359

  1992

  64,790

  748

  113,957

  100,391

  1,145,495

  1993

  50,119

  1,656

  22,370

  267,777

  2785,831

  1 Includes poultry and horses.

  2The statistics for imports of sheep, pigs and other livestock in 1993 are incomplete. With the implementation of the Single Market and the consequent closure of border posts full statistics on imports, especially from the Republic of Ireland, are not available for 1993.

  Illegal Netting
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patrols for the control of illegal netting were carried out on Lough Neagh in(a) 1991, (b) 1992, (c) 1993 and (d) to date in 1994.

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of patrols carried out by the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland for the control of illegal netting on Lough Neagh is set out in the table:

  Year

  Number of patrols

  1991

  116

  1992

  123

  1993

  167

  19941

  171

  1 up to 30 September.

TRANSPORT

  Newcastle Bypass
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received and from whom, about the extension of noise insulation protection to further properties since the opening of(a) the Al western bypass in Newcastle and (b) the Woolsington bypass;

  (2) what amount of compensation has been paid to Newcastle city council for its properties affected by the
  92
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the prevalence and use of mobile abattoirs.

  Mr. Ancram
  There are no mobile abattoirs in Northern Ireland.

  Livestock Imports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) adult cattle, (b) calves, (c) sheep/lambs, (d) pigs and (e) other livestock were imported into Northern Ireland in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Woolsington bypass scheme; and what sum of compensation has been paid in total to all other property owners in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne affected by the scheme;

  (3) how many properties have been granted noise insulation protection in respect of (a) the Al western bypass in the city of Newcastle and (b) the Woolsington bypass; how many such properties in each case were in the ownership of Newcastle city council; and what was the cost of such noise insulation protection on each scheme.

  (4) what amount of compensation has been paid to Newcastle city council for its properties affected by the Newcastle western bypass scheme; and what amount of compensation has been paid in total to all other property owners in the city of Newcastle affected by the scheme.

  Mr. Watts
  As these are operational matters for the Highways Agency, I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 17 October 1994:
  You tabled a number of questions about noise insulation protection and compensation for properties affected by the Newcastle Western Bypass and Woolsington Bypass schemes.
  As this is an operational matter relating to the Highways Agency I have been asked to reply.
  I will answer your questions in the order raised:—
  On the Newcastle Western Bypass 1,105 properties were granted noise insulation protection, 525 of which were local authority owned

  93
  at a total cost of £547,000. No properties were granted noise insulation costs on the Woolsington Bypass.
  No compensation was paid to Newcastle Council for properties affected by Woolsington bypass scheme. The total sum paid to other property owners is £370,000.
  On the Newcastle Western Bypass scheme 80 appeals were received from owner/occupiers of which 20 were successful. No appeals were received for the Woolsington Bypass scheme.
  Newcastle City Council were paid £520,000 in compensation for its properties affected by the Newcastle Western Bypass. Payments to other property owners amounts to £4.93 million.

  Taxe Uniforme
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the French Minister of Transport the desirability of abolishing the taxe uniforme imposed on British ferry passengers landing in France.

  Mr. Norris
  I understand that the taxe uniforme is charged on all ferry companies using certain French ports. We are seeking further information to see whether this tax breaches Community law and will then consider whether to raise the matter with the French authorities.

  Street Vendors (Licences)
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will institute a licensing regime to legitimise street vendors of cold drinks, flowers, newspapers and other items for(a) 400 yd of the Westway to the east and west of its junction with Old Oak Common lane and (b) at other selected junctions on the, A40 Westway.

  Mr. Norris
  This question raises an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. John Butcher, dated 17 October 1994:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your question about instituting a licensing regime to legitimise street vendors on the A40 Westway at the junction with Old Oak Common Lane and other selected junctions.
  The Highways Agency as the responsible highway authority for trunk roads such as the A40 does not have the powers to institute a licensing regime. These rest with the local authorities in London who have powers under section 24(1) of the London Local Authorities Act 1990 to designate a street as a licence street where vendors may apply for street trading licences. However the local authority must obtain the consent of my Agency before designating any part of a trunk road or issuing an individual licence under section 25(5) of the 1990 Act.
  My Agency would not normally consider giving consent for the types of trading activities described which take place on the carriageway of the A40 to the east of Old Oak Common Lane, or at other locations because these unlicenced street vendors can be a distraction and potential safety hazard to motorists. They also might encourage motorists to park in unsafe positions on the trunk road whilst purchasing their products.
  We monitor all such situations and where problems are identified we ask the Metropolitan Police to take action to have street traders removed and the local authorities to use their powers under section 34 of the 1990 Act to prosecute them.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the extent of non-compliance with vehicle construction and use regulations in respect of motor vehicle emissions.
  94
  Mr. Norris
  An assessment to the year ending 31 March 1994 of the vehicles failing to comply with the in-use emissions requirements of the construction and use regulations is given in the table. For light duty vehicles, the assessment is based on returns from MOT test stations–2 per cent. sample—and for public service and heavy goods vehicles, from annual test statistics.

  Vehicle

  Number tested

  Number failing emissions test

  Cars, other passenger vehicles up to 12 seats and light goods vehicle up to 3T

  21,244,344

  1,636,739(7·7 per cent.)

  Private passenger vehicles over 12 seats

  23,510

  531 (2·26 per cent.)

  Light goods vehicles over 3T and up to 3·5T

  214,255

  13,989 (6·53 per cent.)

  Public Service Vehicles

  86,254

  2,328 (2·7 per cent.) 13,827

  Heavy Goods Vehicles

  576,121

  13,827 (2·4 per cent.)

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints about excessively smokey vehicles have been referred to the vehicle inspectorate in the last five years.

  Mr. Norris
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Vehicle Inspectorate under its chief executive, Ron Oliver. He has written to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Ms Joan Walley, dated 20 July 1994:

  SMOKEY VEHICLES
  You recently asked a parliamentary question about the number of complaints the Department of Transport had received concerning smoky vehicles. Because the Vehicle Inspectorate (VI) has operational responsibility for this matter I have been asked to reply.
  VI coordinate the Smokey Vehicle Hotline. This service allows members of the public, and other interested bodies, to report vehicles seen producing excessive smoke. The scheme was set up in 1991 and since then 8,259 complaints have been received. A breakdown of the total is given below:

  Year

  Number

  1991–92

  1,484

  1992–93

  2,481

  1993–94

  2,888

  1994–951

  1,407

  Total

  8,249

  1To date

  I hope this answers your question but if you have any further queries about this, or other operational matters relating to VI, please write to me.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in how many cases operator licences have been (i) raised or (ii) withdrawn because of complaints about excessive smoke in the last five years.

  Mr. Norris
  Such information is not available.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for legislation to require local authorities to carry out spot checks of polluting vehicles; and if he will make a statement.
  95
  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have no such plans. We are concentrating our efforts on improving current enforcement techniques through better targeting and publicity, and through increased public awareness. I made an announcement about this on 11 October and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Nitric Acid
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what safety criteria have been adopted by his Department to cover the international transport to and from the United Kingdom of radioactively contaminated nitric acid; what prohibitions exist on the transport of such materials by air; and what information has been received by his Department in regard to the import of nitric acid into the United Kingdom by(a) air and (b) sea transportation, respectively.

  Mr. Norris
  The international rules for the safe transport of dangerous goods by sea and air are set out in the international maritime dangerous goods code and the convention of international civil aviation respectively. In addition, the transport of radioactive materials within, to and from the United Kingdom must comply with the International Atomic Energy Agency standards. These international codes and conventions, plus the multi-modal provisions of the UN recommendations on the transport of dangerous goods, are reflected in the appropriate United Kingdom domestic legislation. My Department is not aware of any recent radioactive nitric acid imports by sea or air.

  Vehicle Tax and Insurance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average percentage increase in(a) vehicle tax and (b) vehicle insurance between August 1992 and May 1994.

  Mr. Norris
  The average percentage increase in vehicle excise duty, also known as vehicle tax, between August 1992 and May 1994 was 18 per cent.

  Although the Government do not monitor particular motor insurance premium levels there is an element in the RPI which accounts for vehicle insurance. That shows that the average percentage increase in vehicle insurance between August 1992 and May 1994 was 17 per cent.

  Road Surfaces
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research is currently being carried out into whisper concrete.

  Vehicles

  Year of first registration

  Other buses/coaches

  Minibuses

  Total

  Pre 1978

  11,608

  2,192

  13,800

  1978

  3,357

  521

  3,878

  1979

  3,970

  1,271

  5,241

  1980

  4,592

  2,113

  6,705

  1981

  3,606

  1,839

  5,445

  1982

  3,224

  2,546

  5,770

  1983

  3,444

  4,326

  7,770

  1984

  3,274

  5,021

  8,295

  1985

  2,502

  6,037

  8,539

  1986

  2,631

  7,527

  10,158

  1987

  2,618

  8,464

  11,082

  96
  Mr. Watts
  This question relates to operational matters of the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Laurie Haynes to Mr. Richard Page, dated 17 October 1994:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning research into "whisper concrete".
  Whisper concrete is a new method for applying the texture to concrete roads. It was developed in Europe and involves exposing the aggregate in the surface to create a random texture capable of providing adequate skid resistance. Trials are underway on the M18 near Thorne and the A564 Foston Hatton Hilton Bypass. These are necessary because of the need to establish the practicality of constructing whisper concrete capable of meeting our skid resistance requirements which are higher than those in countries using whisper concrete.
  The Transport Research Laboratory is involved in research to monitor trials and to advise the Highways Agency on the construction and performance of this new surface.

  Buses
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he is taking to reduce the pollution caused by old and badly-serviced buses and coaches;

  (2) how many of the buses currently operating on British roads reach acceptable levels in terms of exhaust emissions.

  Mr. Norris
  All public service vehicles are subject to annual roadworthiness tests which, since September 1992, have included metered checks for diesel smoke. The number of PSVs failing the annual test in 1993–94 was 2,328 out of 86,254 or 2.7 per cent. of the total.

  PSVs are also subject to regular roadside checks for both emissions and safety purposes. During 1993–94, 24,521 PSVs were inspected at the roadside in addition to checks at operators' premises. The overall failure rate for the two types of checks was 1.05 per cent. A further 5,165 emissions—only roadside checks resulted in a failure rate of 2.8 per cent.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage bus operators to introduce modern, less polluting buses.

  Mr. Norris
  We have allocated over £20 million since 1992 for specific local authority bus priority measures. These include a low floor bus demonstration project and the conversion of buses to run on compressed natural gas and liquid petroleum gas.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the age profile of the buses on British roads.

  Mr. Norris
  The requested information is given in the following table:
  97

  Vehicles

  Year of first registration

  Other buses/coaches

  Minibuses

  Total

  1988

  3,189

  9,267

  12,456

  1989

  3,242

  10,230

  13,472

  1990

  2,897

  8,702

  11,599

  1991

  2,124

  6,675

  8,799

  1992

  2,324

  6,221

  8,545

  1993

  2,656

  6,023

  8,679

  1994 (January, February, March)

  688

  1,734

  2,422

  All

  61,946

  90,709

  152,655

  The table shows vehicles licensed at the end of March 1994, and recorded by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency as having bus or coach body type, regardless of taxation group.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the transport supplementary grant bid for authorities within each English region for each of the past five years against the final transport supplementary grant settlement agreed for each region; and if he will express the settlement as a percentage of the bid for each year and for each region.

  Mr. Norris
  The figures in the following table represent gross expenditure accepted for transport

  1990–91

  1992–92

  1992–93

  Region

  TSG £100

  Per capita £

  Per/km of road £

  TSG £000

  Per capita £

  Per/km of road £

  TSG £

  Per capita £

  Per/km of road £

  South East

  40,033

  5·19

  0·98

  72,397

  9·39

  1·77

  70,921

  9·20

  1·73

  South West

  23,845

  5·03

  0·51

  28,437

  3·69

  0·69

  27,866

  3·61

  0·68

  West Midlands

  23,026

  4·36

  0·79

  35,175

  4·56

  0·86

  46,108

  5·98

  1·13

  North West

  31,833

  5·85

  1·13

  39,532

  5·13

  0·97

  50,005

  6·48

  1·22

  Merseyside

  5,406

  3·74

  1·28

  10,070

  1·31

  0·25

  15,766

  2·04

  0·38

  North East

  12,067

  4·63

  0·79

  15,425

  2·00

  0·38

  17,210

  2·23

  0·42

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  23,238

  4·65

  0·82

  29,179

  3·78

  0·71

  42,060

  5·45

  1·03

  East Midlands

  9,966

  2·45

  0·36

  18,060

  2·34

  0·44

  19,779

  2·56

  0·48

  Eastern

  23,094

  4·46

  0·65

  28,829

  3·74

  0·70

  29,352

  3·81

  0·72

  London

  40,617

  5·88

  3·13

  40,686

  5·28

  0·99

  50,933

  6·60

  1·24

  ENGLAND

  233,125

  4·82

  0·87

  317,790

  41·21

  7·76

  370,000

  47·98

  9·03

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Region

  TSG £000

  Per capita £

  Per/km of road £

  TSG £000

  Per capita £

  Per/km of road £

  South East

  77,718

  10·08

  1·90

  74,184

  9·62

  1·81

  South West

  32,278

  4·19

  0·79

  25,251

  3·27

  0·62

  West Midlands

  61,856

  8·02

  1·51

  52,958

  6·87

  1·29

  North West

  49,858

  6·46

  1·22

  42,367

  5·49

  1·03

  Merseyside

  15,098

  1·96

  0·37

  7,782

  1·01

  0·19

  North East

  24,347

  3·16

  0·59

  17,282

  2·24

  0·42

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  54,584

  7·08

  1·33

  36,571

  4·74

  0·89

  East Midlands

  21,509

  2·79

  0·53

  12,462

  1·62

  0·30

  Eastern

  35,283

  4·58

  0·86

  25·411

  3·29

  0·62

  London

  58,310

  7·56

  1·42

  35·165

  4·56

  0·86

  ENGLAND

  430,841

  55·87

  10·52

  329,433

  42·72

  8·04

  Rail Electrification
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what date has been set for the completion of
  98
  supplementary grant in the years specified for local authorities in each region. Resources are distributed to individual local authorities on the basis of the bids contained in their annual transport policies and programme submissions. TSG is paid at a rate of 50 per cent. of accepted expenditure, after adjustment for underspending in previous years.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much transport supplementary grant was paid out in total to each English region for each of the past five years; and if he will express this for each year in total and for each region in terms of transport supplementary grant per capita and transport supplementary grant per kilometre of road.

  Mr. Norris
  The figures are shown in the following table.

  electrification of the West London line between Clapham and Willesden Junction; and if he will now initiate a study of the benefits arising from running a frequent urban electric ring-rail service from North Woolwich to Woolwich Arsenal via these junctions.
  99
  Mr. Norris
  The West London line electrification scheme was completed in July 1993. However, this scheme did not include one short stretch of line between Mitre Bridge and Willesden Junction which will form part of the north London works, due to be electrified late next year.

  Studies into the feasibility of new rail services, such as a ring-rail service, are a commercial matter for British Rail train operating units and Rai1track.

  Motor Cars
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the number of(a) driven-miles and (b) passenger miles, respectively, travelled in motor cars in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Norris
  A table follows.

  Vehicle- and passenger-miles: cars and taxis1: 1983–1993

  billions

  Year

  1Vehicle-miles

  2Passenger-miles

  1983

  144

  242

  1984

  152

  255

  1985

  156

  260

  1986

  164

  274

  1987

  177

  295

  1988

  190

  316

  1989

  206

  343

  1990

  209

  347

  1991

  208

  346

  1992

  209

  347

  1993

  209

  347

  1Vehicle-miles derived from the national road traffic survey. Data for cars only cannot be separated from the series for cars and taxis.

  2 Passenger-miles derived from vehicle-miles and occupancy rates (persons per vehicle) from the national travel survey. In 1993 the occupancy rate for cars and taxis was 1·66.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport with reference to paragraph 5.7.1. of his publication "Channel Tunnel Rail Links" and European Passenger Services in Competition Overview publish on 31 August, if he will state the likely planned line speed between any stations of non-international passenger trains.

  Mr. Watts
  Neither the acceleration rate not the speed of non-international passenger trains on the channel tunnel rail link has yet been determined.

  M25
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the report the Highways Agency on the options for increasing the capacity of the M25 between junctions 10 and 12.

  Mr. Watts
  I understand from the Highways Agency that it needs more time to complete its work on the possible options for the scheme. A further announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Sir George Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated time before the brushed concrete surface between junctions 8 and 10 of the M25 is in need of major maintenance or replacement.
  100
  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]This question relates to operational matters of the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Sir George Gardiner, dated 17 October 1994:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to write to you in reply to your Parliamentary Question about the estimated time before the brushed concrete surface between Junctions 8 and 10 of the M25 is in need of major maintenance or of replacement.
  The existing concrete surface is in good condition. We do not expect it to require resurfacing for at least 10 years or strengthening for at least 20 years.

  Sustainable Development Strategy
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken to implement the programme announced by the Prime Minister in January for a sustainable development strategy in respect of the relative costs and benefits of various modes of transport within a free or a managed market.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Since the launch of the sustainable development strategy in January we have made good progress in developing a framework within which people can exercise their transport choices in ways that are consistent with our overall environmental goals. A number of measures have been taken which will contribute to such a framework including:publishing jointly with the Department of the Environment a new planning policy guidance note on transport (PPG 13),
  agreeing a new set of standards for emissions from new passenger cars for introduction in January 1997,
  publishing guidance to encourage local authorities to devise balanced and coherent transport strategies for their areas,
  establishing the Highways Agency,
  conducting a review of the roads programme,
  recently announced initiatives on vehicle emissions covering roadside checks and tighter MOT limits from January 1996.

  In determining each of these measures we have put particular weight on the need to take account of relevant costs and benefits.

  IRA Bomb
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport where was the British Transport police officer who located in London an IRA bomb device on 22 August; and how far from a London Underground or British Rail property he was.

  Mr. Watts
  The British Transport police officer was checking litter bins in Regent street, approximately 25 m from the nearest entrance to Oxford Circus underground station.

  Trunk Telephone Lines
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with the chief executive of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency concerning the sub-contracting of the sale of M prefix personalised number plates to a telephone-sales company and the consequent blocking of trunk telephone lines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I have discussed this issue with the DVLA's chief executive. The agency is working closely
  101
  with the telesales company to ensure the delivery of a satisfactory and efficient service for customers. It will be reviewing the provision of services for the release of N registrations next year. Over 28,000 calls were dealt with in the first week of this year's launch resulting in the sale of 7,600 numbers. No trunk telephone lines were blocked during this period.

  Birmingham Relief Road
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the net present value of the Birmingham northern relief road according top the cost benefit analysis evaluation of the scheme.

  Mr. Watts
  This question relates to matters which are the responsibility of the Highways Agency; the chief executive is writing to the hon. Member.

  Letter form Lawrie Haynes to Dr. Tony Wright, dated 17 October 1994:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the net present value of the Birmingham Northern Relief Road according to the COBA evaluation of the scheme.
  As part of the evidence to the current public inquiry, the Department has indicated that the scheme has a net present value of £195 million.

  Scottish Air Traffic Control Centre
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress towards financing and construction of the Scottish air traffic control centre II.

  Mr. Norris
  Within the next few months, the Civil Aviation Authority expects to be in a position to invite tenders from the private sector for the design, building, maintenance and financing of the centre. The target date for completion of the centre is 2000.

  Landscape Advisory Committee
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to restore the Landscape Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Watts
  No.

  Bull Bars
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the results of research into the effects on pedestrians of bull bars fixed to the fronts of vehicles.

  Mr. Norris
  Current research is concentrating on identifying accidents involving vehicles with bull bars to determine whether they are causing increased injuries. The results of this exercise are not expected until early next year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange for television recordings of tests of vehicle injury bars striking models of child pedestrians.

  Mr. Norris
  A video of impact tests on a bull bar using an instrumented child-size headform was made by the Transport Research Laboratory and shown on BBC breakfast television on 16 June 1994.
  102
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to fund Transport Research Laboratory research into the dangers of bull bars.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: The Department has already funded impact tests at the Transport Research Laboratory using an instrumented child-size headform and other instrumented impactors on a bull bar. Some have shown that the severity of an impact on a bull bar appears significantly more severe than on a flexible bonnet. The Department has also taken steps to identify accidents where a pedestrian has been struck by a vehicle fitted with a bull bar. We shall be letting a contract to determine, on the basis of this data, whether bull bars are causing increased injuries.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times during the 1993–94 Session information requested in parliamentary questions has been refused on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Norris
  Nine.

  Highways
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will initiate a study of the extent to which all county, borough and district highway authorities are able to co-ordinate and control highway excavations for purposes other than emergencies; and if he will list those bodies authorised to do so without local authorities1 prior consent.

  Mr. Norris
  I see no need for a specific study of this kind. The Department keeps in close touch with the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities about the operation of the street works provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, and we stand ready to strengthen any of the regulations and codes of practice issued under the Act where there is a case for doing so. Undertakers execute street works by virtue either of a statutory right or of a licence granted under the Act and do not need prior consent from the street authority. For most non-emergency street works there is, however, a requirement for undertakers to give the street authority a specified period of notice.

  Public Information
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent by his Department in each of the last three years to(a) produce public information in alternative formats for visually impaired people and (b) publicise the availability of accessible information amongst visually impaired people.

  Mr. Norris
  The cost of providing public information in separate audio tape, Braille and other formats for visually impaired people is not readily available. The budgets for certain departmental publications and for mobility unit information cover the cost of producing these materials.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will indicate which departmental publications are currently available(a) in Braille, (b) in large print and (c) on tape; and if he will indicate what efforts have been made by his Department to inform

  103
  visually impaired people about the availability of publications in alternative formats to normal print.

  Mr. Norris
  The following departmental publications are currently available on audiotape:Door To Door—A Guide to Transport for People with Disabilities

  How to Use a Puffin Crossing

  The Mobility Unit Annual Review

  One departmental publication is available in Braille:
  The Use of Tactile Surface and Dropped Kerbs at Pedestrian Crossing Points—DU Circular 1/91.
  In addition, the Department's mobility unit can make available on request some printed material on audiotape or in braille.

  The availability of these publications in special format is made known, directly and via the media, to organisations representing visually impaired people and to inquirers.

  Coaches
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses to the consultation paper on the proposal to ban coaches from the third lane of motorways have been received by his Department(a) in favour and (b) against the proposal; and when a decision will be made.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department received 74 responses to this consultation paper. Of these, 13 were in favour and 61 against the proposal. Of those opposed to the proposal, 40 were coach operators or representative organisations. A decision will be taken in the near future.

  Freight Terminal
  Ms. Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a detailed statement on the future use of Ripple lane sidings and freight terminal both in terms of existing networks serving the channel tunnel and in respect of the proposed channel tunnel rail link; if he will make it his policy that no intermodal freight facilities will be located in the Barking areas; and if he will conduct a study of the traffic congestion, noise and pollution already experienced in the area.

  Mr. Watts
  It is the Government's intention to encourage freight to use rail haulage for as much of its journey as possible. We are concerned about the potential problems which would result from railheading intermodal freight in east London. Therefore, we shall not authorise works which would allow large-gauge intermodal traffic to transfer to road here, unless there is infrastructure in place to allow such traffic to travel beyond the London area by rail. It is a commercial matter for the railway operators involved what use to make of the existing facility at Ripple lane.

  Through its work on developing the A13 improvement schemes, my Department fully appreciates traffic conditions in the area. The full environmental effects of the major improvement scheme at the Movers lane junction have already been studied, including noise, air and water quality, landscape and natural habitats. The environmental impact of the schemes east of Heathway were studied in a similar manner. No additional studies are planned.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the present salary and grade of the directing board members of the. Vehicle Inspectorate.

  Mr. Norris
  The current directing board, excluding non-executive members is the chief executive, grade 4, a grade 5 director and a grade 6 director. Their salaries, exclusive of bonuses, are respectively £52,286, £45,981, and £39,949.

  Tanker (Shetland)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has received a response to its request to the Singapore authorities to investigate the circumstances whereby a Singapore-registered tanker entered the area to be avoided off Shetland on 30 January and was observed approximately 1 km south off Sumburgh Head; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: The Singapore authorities have now concluded their investigations. The Master of the North Pacific has been given a serious warning for his actions.

  Ship Reporting
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the present working arrangements for surveyors in respect of the ship reporting system; what assessments he has made of the effect of these arrangements on his proposed mandatory ship reporting system; and if he will make arrangements for there to be surveyors at work 24 hours per day and seven days per week when the mandatory system is introduced.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: Reports from the Coastguard Agency and other sources forwarded to the Marine Safety Agency are investigated during normal working hours.

  These arrangements are under review in the light of developments on mandatory ship-reporting systems, both internationally at IMO and within the European Union, and also recommendations made in Lord Donaldson's report, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas".

  Viaduct Replacement Contract
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what country the company was based which was awarded the A38 Marsh Mills viaducts replacement contract; what were the circumstances which resulted in this company being awarded the contract; what was the cost of the contract; if the competition was open to companies from all European countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: Since April, responsibility for managing, maintaining and improving the national road network in England now lies with the Highways Agency. As the information requested by my hon. Friend relates to these responsibilities, I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 17 October 1994:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question on the contract for the A38 Marsh Mills replacement viaducts.
  This design and build contract was won by Hochtief UK Ltd of Melksham, Wiltshire, it is a subsidiary company of Hochtief AG

  105
  whose head office is in Essen, Germany. The contract was awarded in March this year in the sum of £12,229,225 on the basis of the most economically advantageous bid received. The competition involved four contractors which were selected from 22 firms and joint ventures which responded to an advertisement placed in the Office Journal of the European Communities. All highways contracts with an estimated value of £1 million or more are so advertised and all contractors, whether based in the EU or beyond, are welcome to apply to be selected to tender.

  Airports
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies have been undertaken to estimate the impact on the local motorway and road networks of the development of Redhill aerodrome into an international airport.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: At the Redhill aerodrome planning inquiry, the Department's traffic evidence was based on traffic assessments it had commissioned for the proposed M23 widening, supplemented by traffic survey data supplied by the applicant in support of his proposals. The assessments, which were checked by independent consultants employed specifically for the purpose, showed that the impact on the M23 would not be significant. Surrey county council made an assessment of the likely impact on local roads which revealed a potential problem on the A22 at M25 junction 6.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the impact of air traffic movements at Gatwick airport if similar movements at Redhill aerodrome rise above six per hour.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: The impact on Gatwick air traffic movements as a consequence of development of use of Redhill arose in evidence from a number of parties at the recent public inquiry into development of Redhill aerodrome. I have no other information than that put forward at the inquiry and contained in the RUCATSE report.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many special advisers have(a) joined and (b) left his Department in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 20 July 1994]: Successive Secretaries of State for Transport have each appointed a political adviser who has left the Department at the same time as the Secretary of State who appointed him or her. Over the last five years, appointments and departures have been as follows:

  Joined

  Left

  1990

  —

  1

  1991

  1

  —

  1992

  1

  1

  1993

  —

  —

  1994 (to date)

  —

  1

  Road Surfaces
  Sir George Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the oral statement of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr Key) of 4 July,Official Report, column 1269, and his answer of 7 March, Official Report, column 1, what is the cost per mile for the total
  106
  reconstruction using (a) porous asphalt road surface material, (b) a hot rolled asphalt surface and (c) a typical concrete surface for (i) single carriageway roads, (ii) two-lane dual carriageway roads, (iii) three-lane dual carriageway roads and (iv) four-lane dual carriageway roads.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 21 July 94]: This question relates to operational matters of the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Sir George Gardiner, dated 17 October 1994:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts MP, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the cost per mile of reconstructing roads.
  The earlier statement as recorded within Hansard, for 7 March column 1 reflected the cost of providing porous asphalt surface or a concrete surface. Because the concrete surface also forms the main road structure, the two costs are not directly comparable. This ws confirmed by the Minister for Roads and Traffic during the 14 July Adjourment Debate on M25 (Noise Pollution).
  Costs of reconstructing roads vary enormously between contracts and are influenced by geographical location, depth of reconstruction, complexity of traffic management and associated works such as drainage. There are also differences which reflect market conditions. It is our experience that these factors are such that the costs of flexible construction with conventional rolled asphalt and concrete are comparable. The costs given within the table below are broadly indicative bearing in mind the limited experience in the use of porous asphalt.
  To avoid confusion and for comparative purposes, the costs have been calculated on the basis of the road pavement structure only.
  Other costs are broadly similar between options.

  Approximate £ thousand cost/mile

  Flexible pavement with porous asphalt

  Flexible pavement with hot rolle dasphalt/Typical concrete

  Single carriageway

  520

  450

  2-lane dua carriageway all purpose

  1,050

  900

  motorway

  1,280

  1,100

  3-lane dual carriageway all purpose

  1,470

  1,260

  motorway

  1,600

  1,380

  4-lane dual carriageway all purpose

  —

  —

  motorway

  2,040

  1,750

  Batheaston Bypass
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (i) if tree surgery and felling, carried out on the site of the Swainswick/Batheaston bypass, has been carried out within regulations and guidelines issued by his Department; and if he will publish the regulations together with details of action taken to enforce them;

  (2) if he will order an inquiry into the circumstances relating to the injuries sustained by Mr. Martin Ellis on Thursday 5 July at the site of the Batheaston bypass.
  107
  Mr. Watts
  [holding answers 21 July 1994]: These questions are operational matters for the Highways Agency. The chief executive is writing to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Don Foster, dated 17 October 1994:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads Mr. John Watts has asked me to write to you in reply to your two Parliamentary Questions about an accident and the work of the tree surgeons at the Batheaston/Swainswick Bypass construction site.
  I do not consider that an enquiry into the accident is necessary. It is clear that the injuries sustained by the trespasser were a direct result of his own actions. We have made statements to the Avon and Somerset Constabulary and if they consider further investigation to be necessary, we shall assist in whatever way we can.
  The specialist tree surgeons working at the construction site are employed not by the Highways Agency but by our contractors, Amey Construction Limited. The tree surgeons work to their own code of conduct within the Health and Safety Regulations. Like all our other contractors and sub-contractors, the tree surgeons carry their own insurance and are required to indemnify the Highways Agency claims for compensation by third parties.

  In addition, special advisers with expert knowledge in particular sectors have been appointed from time to time. Over the last five years, appointments and departures have been as follows:

  Joined

  Left

  1990

  1

  1

  1991

  —

  —

  1992

  2

  —

  1993

  2

  3

  1994 (to date)

  —

  1

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years became(a) management consultants and (b) joined a firm of consultants;

  (2) if he will publish the names of the employers joined by special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answers 20 July 1994]: There is no requirement for special advisers to provide details of their employers after leaving Government service.

  Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures have now been implemented by(a) the Driving Standards Agency, (b) the Vehicle Inspectorate, (c) the Transport Research Laboratory, (d) the Coastguard Agency and (e) the Marine Safety Agency to comply with his request of 9 May for increased productivity;

  (2) how many jobs he expects will be lost within (a) the Driving Standards Agency, (b) the Vehicle Inspectorate, (c) the Transport Research Laboratory, (d) the Coastguard Agency and (e) the Marine Safety Agency as a result of his policy announcement of 9 May for these bodies to achieve increases in their productivity over the next two years;

  (3) whether (a) the Driving Standards Agency, (b) the Vehicle Inspectorate, (c) the Transport Research Laboratory, (d) the Coastguard Agency and (e) the Marine Safety Agency are currently planning or considering further job losses amongst their staff.
  108
  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answers 20 July 1994]: Consultations about the proposals prepared in response to my announcement of 9 May have started. In most cases it is too early to judge the implications for jobs. However, the Vehicle Inspectorate announced proposals on 19 July which would save some 470 posts. In addition, the Transport Research Laboratory announced on 16 June that, in the light of an expected decline in demand for its services, it was initiating a programme of job reductions in 1994–95 which would reduce its staffing by 140.

  Productivity Increases
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which bodies under the operational control of his Department are expected to implement the productivity increases announced by him on 9 May.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 20 July 1994]: My 9 May announcement applied to the Department of Transport, including its executive agencies. It did not apply to any nationalised industry, non-departmental public body or other body funded or supported by the Department.

  Dr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the size of the operational budgets of(a) the Driving Standards Agency, (b) the Vehicle Inspectorate, (c) the Transport Research Laboratory, (d) the Coastguard Agency and (e) the Marine Safety Agency over the last two years; and if he will give figures for the size of these agencies' budgets in each of the next two financial years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 20 July 1994]: Figures for 1993–94, where applicable, and for 1994–95 are below. Budgets have not yet been set for the next two financial years.

  1993–94 £ million

  1994–95 £ million

  Driving Standards Agency

  51

  50

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  51

  50

  Transport Research Laboratory

  34

  29

  Coastguard Agency

  (a)

  50

  Marine Safety Agency

  (a)

  31

  (a) Agency formed on 1 April 1994

  Railtrack
  Mr.Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the powers and duties of Railtrack; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 20 July 1994]: Railtrack is bound by the terms of its network operator's licence, which is available for inspection on the register maintained by the Rail Regulator under section 72 of the Railways Act, and by the memorandum and articles of association of the company as well as by the objectives set for its chairman by the Secretary of State. These documents have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list each meeting he has had with the chairman of Railtrack since 15 June, giving its date, time and location.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Since 15 June, my predecessor had meetings with the chairman of Railtrack on 20,27 and 30 June and on 7 July and I have had meetings on 25 July, 4 August and 6 September at various times either at the Department of Transport or elsewhere.

  Cones Hotline
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many road signs advertising the cones hotline have been distributed(a) nationally and (b) in the east midlands;

  (2) what is the cost of producing and distributing the signs advertising the cones hotline number (a) nationally and (b) in the east midlands.

  (3) what is the total cost of the cones hotline since its inception (a) in the east midlands and (b) nationally.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 July 1994]: As these are now operating matters for the Highways Agency, the chief executive has written to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Laurie Haynes to Mr Paddy Tipping, dated 20 July 1994:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Transport for information on the Cones Hotline. As this is now an operational matter for the Highways Agency, I am replying to your questions.
  1. To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many road signs advertising the Cons Hotline have been distributed (a) nationally and (b) in the East Midlands.
  Separately identifiable figures for the total number of road signs installed are not available. Signs are erected by contractors or their traffic management sub-contractors as part of the contract arrangement. Neither the Department nor the Agency are responsible for the day to day management of signs.
  2. To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what is the cost of producing and distributing the signs advertising the Cones Hotline number (a) nationally (b) in the East Midlands.
  Separately identifiable costs of signs are not available. Their provision is included in the overall contract costs.
  3. To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what is the total cost of he Cones Hotline since its inception (a) in the East Midlands and (b) nationally.
  Since the beginning of the current financial year the cost of the dedicated telephone line has been about £450 per month, including call charges. The Hotline previously operated on the Department's general switchboard. There have been no other separately identifiable costs, either in previous years or in the current year, because the Hotline has operated within running cost structures agreed before its inception. No staff are employed exclusively on Hotline activity and there are no budgets allocated specifically to the provision of the Hotline service.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Exhaust Emissions
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange for a traffic survey to be carried out of heavy traffic using Queen's drive, Liverpool, to travel to the north docks and to take samples of exhaust emissions along the route.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 18 July 1994]: Queen's drive, Liverpool is not a trunk road, so responsibility for traffic surveys lies with the local highway authority, Liverpool city council.

  Department of Transport vehicle examiners make a visual assessment of emissions at the roadside as part of wider roadworthiness inspections. There are two locations close to Queen's drive where examiners already carry out spot checks on vehicles, which will include a check of emissions.

  Staff Statistics
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of(a) fixed-term appointment, (b) casual and (c) agency staff employed in each of the offices of his Department and executive agencies in the London travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer to my earlier answer, of 5 July Official Report, columns 150-56, on this subject. We do not retain a central record of agency staff.

  Pregnant Workers Directive
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the Official Report of 14 June, column 511, what is the date by which he expects his Department to have proposals for implementing the health and safety provisions of EC directive 92/85; and if the trade unions will be consulted over these proposals.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department intends to comply fully with EC Directive 92/85 by conducting risk assessment inspections under the Management of Health and Safety at Work (Amendment) Regulations 1994, which come into effect on 19 October 1994.

  The trade unions have been informed of this.

  Hartland MRSC
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total cost of closure of Hartland MRSC including travelling, subsistence and bridging loans.

  Mr. Norris
  The total cost of closure of Hartland MRSC including travelling, subsistence and bridging loans is not available from existing records.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 29 June,Official Report, columns 632-34, if he will list each scheme for which an environmental impact assessment has been started.

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 17 October 1994:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to write to you in reply to your further Parliamentary Question about environmental assessments.
  As I mentioned in my letter of 29 June, an environmental assessment is carried out for each scheme in the national road programme. Assessments have been completed, are under way, or will be undertaken for all the schemes listed on pages 18-21 of the recent Trunk Roads in England 1994 Review. I attach an extract.
  Details of assessment requirements at each stage of a progressive approach as schemes develop can be found in Volume 11 of the Highways Agency's Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.
  111

  Table 4. National trunk road programme schemes in preparation as at 31 January 1994

  Title

  Route

  Standard

  Order of total cost £ million

  Length (miles)

  Last stage

  Priority 1

  Western Orbital Route, Hereford & Worcester, Staffordshire

  D3—d4

  1Privately Financed

  38·0

  PR

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road, Warwickshire, Staffordshire, Walsall MB, Birmingham MB

  —

  1Privately Financed

  30·0

  Lofthouse Interchange Diversion, Leeds MB

  M1—m62

  D2—d4

  31·3

  4·2

  OP

  J31–32 Widening, Rotherham MB

  MI

  D4

  4·7

  1·5

  J25–28 Widening, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire

  M1

  D4

  150·9

  15·0

  J23A–25 Widening, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire

  M1

  D4

  93·9

  7·0

  J21A–23A Widening (Phase 1), Leicestershire

  MI

  D3

  35·0

  14·0

  J10–15 Widening, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire

  M1

  D4

  365·3

  31·0

  PC

  J6A–10 Widening, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire

  M1

  D4

  77·3

  11·0

  PC

  J1–4 Widening, Kent

  M2

  D3—d4

  170·3

  9·0

  PC

  J3–4B Widening, LB's Hillingdon, Hounslow3

  M4

  S—d4

  35·4

  4·0

  PC

  J4B–8–9 Widening, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire

  M4

  D3

  242·0

  14·0

  J8–9–10 Widening, Berkshire

  M4

  D4

  37·5

  7·5

  J16–20 Widening, Cheshire

  M6

  D4

  216·8

  20·5

  PR

  J11–16 Widening, Staffordshire

  M6

  D4

  317·5

  34·4

  PC

  J8–9 Widening, Essex

  M11

  D3

  61·7

  15·0

  J5 North Facing Slip Road Imp, Essex

  M11

  S

  7·4

  0·5

  OP

  J3–5 Widening, Kent

  M20

  D4

  31·2

  6·1

  OP

  J8–9 Widening, Surrey

  M23

  D4

  51·0

  7·0

  OP

  J12–15 Links Roads, Surrey, Berkshire

  M25

  D3

  164·3

  7·5

  PR

  Terminal 5 Spur (Heathrow), Surrey, LB Hillingdon3

  M25

  D2

  23·

  1·0

  PC

  J15–16 Links Roads, Buckinghamshire

  M25

  D2

  66·7

  4·7

  PC

  Controlled Motorway M25 Pilot Scheme3

  M25

  —

  6·6

  —

  Manchester Outer Ring Road Resigning, Salford MB, Stockport MB, Tameside MB, Bury MB, Manchester MB3

  M60

  —

  4·4

  —

  East—m606 Link Road, Kirklees MB

  M62

  D2

  14·8

  0·4

  J12–14 Widening Westbound, Bury MB

  M62

  D4

  10·0

  2·8

  PC

  J6–9 Widening, MB Salford, MB Trafford

  M63

  D4

  51·7

  4·6

  PR

  Denton—middleton Contracts 1 & 3, Tameside MB, Manchester MB, Oldham MB, Bury MB, Rochdale MB

  M66

  D2—d3—d4

  214·4

  9·4

  OM

  Leeming—scotch Corner· N· Yorkshire

  A1(M)

  D3

  53·9

  11·0

  PR

  Wetherby—walshford· N· Yorkshire. Leeds MB

  A1(M)

  D3

  30·2

  3·3

  OP

  Hook Moor—bramham. Leeds MB, N. Yorkshire

  A1(M)

  D4

  79·4

  4·4

  OP

  Ferrybridge—Hook Moor, Wakefield MB, Leeds MB, N. Yorkshire1

  Al(M)

  D3

  108·6

  10·2

  PR

  Alconbury—peterborough Contract 2. Cambridgeshire

  A1(M)

  D3—d4

  82·7

  7·0

  OM

  Willowburn—denwick Imp. Northumberland3

  A1

  D2

  4·2

  1·9

  PR

  Henlys—waggoners Corner Imp. LB Houndslow

  A4

  —

  9·9

  —

  Kegworth Bypass, Leicestershire

  A6

  D2

  11·2

  1·2

  Rothwell—desborough Bypass, Northamptonshire

  A6

  S

  8·5

  3·6

  PI

  Rushen & Higham Ferrers Bypass, Northamptonshire

  A6

  S—d2

  8·7

  3·5

  OM

  Stetham Bypass, Cambridgeshire

  A10

  S

  2·8

  2·3

  Landbeach Bypass, Cambridgeshire

  A10

  S

  6·8

  3·8

  Hackney Wick—m1l Link Contract I, LB's Hackney, Redbridge, Waltham Forest, Newham

  Al2

  D2—s3

  29·0

  0·9

  OM

  Movers Lane Junction Imp. LB Barking & Dagenham

  Al3

  D3

  36·8

  0·8

  PR

  Junction Imp. LB Newham

  A13—a117

  D3

  26·3

  1·2

  OP

  Prince Regent Lane Junction Imp. LB Newham

  A13—a112

  D3

  37·0

  1·1

  OP

  Ironbridge—canning Town Imp. LB Newham

  Al3

  D3

  55·5

  0·7

  OP

  Coulsdon Inner Relief Road, LB Croydon

  A23

  D2

  32·8

  1·0

  OP

  Salisbury Bypass, Wiltshire

  A36

  D2

  62·3

  11·3

  OP

  Derby Ring Road A61 GSJ, Derbyshire4

  A38

  D2

  9·2

  0·8

  Derby Ring Road A52—a5111 GSJ, Derbyshire4

  A38

  D2

  16·7

  1·6

  Gypsy Corner Imp. LB Hounslow

  A40

  D2—d3

  32·4

  0·9

  OM

  Moulton—broughton Imp. Northamptonshire

  A43

  D2

  13.3

  7·2

  PR

  Silverstone Bypass, Northamptonshire

  A43

  D2

  15·5

  4·9

  OM

  M40—b4031 Imp. Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire

  A43

  D2

  12·0

  3·8

  OP

  Oak Lane Junction Imp. Coventry MB4

  A45

  —

  3·0

  —

  Tollbar End Imp. Coventry MB4

  A45–0A46

  D2

  11·4

  0·4

  Newark—widmerpool Imp. Nottinghamshire

  A46

  D2

  50·7

  17·3

  PR

  Alcester—stratford Imp. Warwickshire

  A46

  D2

  11·9

  3·8

  PR

  A41—a54 Imp. Cheshire

  A51

  D2

  9·2

  5·0

  Mottram—tintwistle Bypass, Tameside MB, Derbyshire

  A57—a628

  S—d2

  23·0

  3·8

  PR

  Castle Street Hull Imp, Humberside

  A63

  D2

  18·2

  1·0

  PR

  Melton GSJ Humberside

  A63

  D2

  5·0

  0·6

  PR

  Stainburn & Great Clifton Bypass, Cumbria

  A66

  S

  6·6

  2·5

  OP

  Catford Town Cenre Imp, LB Lewisham

  A205

  D2

  12·6

  0·4

  OM

  112 113

  Title

  Route

  Standard

  Order of total cost £ million

  Length (miles)

  Last stage

  New Romney Bypass, Kent

  A259

  S

  8·1

  2·6

  OP

  Sparkford—iIchester Imp, Somerset

  A303

  D2

  8·9

  3·4

  OP

  IIminster Bypass Imp, Somerset3

  A303

  D2

  16·8

  6·4

  PC

  Kingskerswell Bypass, Devon

  A380

  D3

  46·0

  3·9

  PR

  Bounds Green—green Lanes Imp, LB Enfield

  A406

  D2—d3

  131·8

  2·2

  OP

  Golders Green Road Junction Imp, LB Barnet

  A406

  D3

  22·4

  0·6

  OM

  Blunsdon Bypass, Wiltshire

  A419

  D2

  12·4

  1·5

  PC

  Poynton Bypass, Cheshire

  A523

  D2

  35·2

  5·9

  PR

  Ledsham—m53 Imp, Cheshire

  A550

  D2

  16·8

  2·7

  PR

  Deeside Park—ledsham Imp, Cheshire

  A550

  D2

  29·9

  3·6

  OP

  Ormskirk Bypass, Lancashire

  A570

  D2

  21·7

  5·5

  PC

  Parton—Lillyhall Imp, Cumbria

  A595

  D2

  15·0

  4·7

  PC

  Shipley Eastern Bypass, Bradford MB

  A650

  D2—d3

  193

  1·3

  PR

  Hedon Road Imp, Humberside

  A1033

  D2

  35·1

  4·2

  OP

  M56—a550 Imp, Cheshire4

  A5117

  D2

  13·5

  5·0

  PR Signing Project3

  —

  12·5

  —

  M1—Al Link Road, Leeds MB

  D3

  117·1

  10·5

  OP

  Priority 2

  J31–32 Widening D4+ Rotherham MB

  M1

  D2

  20·2

  1·5

  328–31 Widening, Derbyshire, Rotherham MB

  M1

  D4

  176·7

  36·0

  J21–21A Widening Phase 2, Leicestershire

  M1

  D4

  69·6

  2·8

  OP

  J15–19 Widening (Including A45 Weedon, Fiore & Upper Heyford Bypass). Northamptonshire, Leicestershire

  M1

  D4

  227·7

  22·0

  J2–3 Widening, Surrey

  M3

  D4

  52·7

  6·8

  PC

  J3–4 Widening, Surrey

  M3

  D4

  35·2

  4·3

  OP

  J10–12 Widening, Berkshire

  M4

  D4

  122·9

  10·5

  J1 & 2 Imp. Sandwell MB

  M5

  —

  6·1

  —

  J17–21 Widening Stage 1, Avon

  M5

  D3

  17·7

  5·7

  J29–30 Imp. Devon3

  M5

  D3

  23·9

  1·4

  J9 & 10 Imp, Walsall MB

  M6

  —

  12·0

  —

  J14 Imp. Cambridgeshire3

  M11

  S—d4

  28·2

  3·4

  J5–7 Widening, Kent, Surrey

  M25

  D4

  101·1

  11·0

  JI0–12 Widening D4+, Surrey

  M25

  D3

  123·9

  7·5

  J19–23 Widening, Hertfordshire

  M25

  D4

  86·5

  12·5

  PR

  J23–26 Widening, Essex, Hertfordshire

  M25

  D4

  81·1

  11·0

  J26–28 Widening, Essex

  M25

  D4

  104·0

  12·0

  J30–31 Imp, Essex

  M25

  —

  43·5

  —

  J11–12 Widening, Hampshire3

  M27

  D4

  44·6

  3·3

  J3–4 Widening & J4 Imp, Buckinghamshire

  M40

  D4

  77·6

  6·3

  PC

  J1–7 Widening, Warwickshire, Hereford & Worcester

  M42

  D4

  221·6

  31·3

  J18–21 Widening, Rochdale MB

  M62

  D4

  116·4

  8·0

  PC

  J12–18 Relief Road, Salford MB, Bury MB3

  M62

  D3

  301·1

  11·0

  PC

  J6–7 Widening Knowsley MB

  M62

  D3—d4

  4·7

  3·3

  J6 Imp, Knowsley MB

  M62

  —

  13·4

  —

  M4—a4 Link Houslow, LB Ealing, LB Hounslow4

  M62

  S—d4

  24·0

  1·4

  Dishforth—lemming, N. Yorkshire

  A1(M)

  D3

  68·8

  14·0

  PR

  Wetherby Bypass, Leeds MB3

  A1(M)

  D3

  20·1

  2·5

  Bramham—wetherby, Leeds MB3

  A1(M)

  D3

  5·5

  4·0

  PC

  Redhouse—ferrybridge, Doncaster MB, Wakefield MB, N. Yorkshire

  Al(M)

  D3

  54·0

  9·1

  PR

  Tuxford—blyth, Nottinghamshire3

  A1(M)

  D3

  94·5

  14·0

  Stamford Bypass, Cambridgeshire, Leicestershire3

  A1(M)

  D3

  38·6

  4·0

  Peterborough—stamford, Cambridgeshire

  A I (M)

  D3

  81·5

  9·9

  Baldock—alconbury, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire

  Al(M)

  D2—d3

  173·0

  27·0

  J6–8 Widening, Hertfordshire

  A1(M)

  D3

  57·6

  9·0

  PC

  J1–4 Widening, Hertfordshire

  Al(M)

  D3—D4

  134·0

  7·9

  Stockport North/South Bypass, Stockport MB

  A6(M)

  D3

  109·8

  5·6

  OM

  Manchester Airport Link West, Trafford MB

  A6(M)—m56

  D2

  34·6

  3·2

  PC

  Bar Hill—m1—a1 Link, Cambridgeshire

  A14(M)

  D2—d3

  120·5

  18·0

  M6—m56 Imp, Cheshire

  A556(M)

  D3

  64·5

  6·5

  Morpeth—lanehead Imp, Northumberland3

  Al

  D2

  16·8

  7·1

  Gateshead Western Bypass, Gateshead MB

  Al

  D3

  94·8

  6·7

  PR

  Kidbrooke Park Road Interchange Imp, LB Greenwich

  A2

  D2

  14·1

  0·7

  PC

  Dartford Imp, Kent

  A2—a282

  D4—d2

  26·1

  3·0

  PR

  Lydden—dover Imp, Kent

  A2

  D2

  16·6

  6·0

  Hindhead Imp, Surrey

  A3

  D2

  62·0

  4·1

  PR

  Wolfshead—weirbrook Imp, Shropshire

  A5

  D2

  8·2

  2·4

  Nesscliffe Bypass, Shropshire

  A5

  D2

  10·6

  2·6

  PC

  Weeford Fazeley Imp, Staffordshire

  A5

  D2

  14·2

  3·1

  PC

  Dunstable Eastern Bypass, Befordshire

  A5

  D2

  45·5

  5·6

  PR

  114 115

  Title

  Route

  Standard

  Order of total cost £ million

  Length(miles)

  Last stage

  Great Glen Bypass, Leicestershire

  A6

  D2

  14·3

  3·6

  OM

  Kibworth Bypass, Leicestershire

  A6

  D2

  11·6

  2·8

  PC

  Clapham Bypass, Bedfordshire

  A6

  D2

  21·1

  3·1

  OM

  Bedford Western Bypass A6—a428 Link, Bedfordshire

  A6

  D2

  4·2

  0·5

  PC

  Wadesmill High Cross—colliers End Bypass, Hertfordshire

  A10

  D2

  17·7

  6·7

  OM

  M25—hoddesdon Imp, Hertfordshire

  A10

  D3

  86·4

  2·9

  Attleborough Bypass, Norfolk

  A11

  D2

  9·7

  3·0

  PR

  Fiveways—thetford Imp, Norfolk, Suffolk

  All

  D2

  52·1

  9·0

  Wrentham Bypass, Suffolk

  Al2

  S

  3·0

  2·2

  Blythburgh Bypass, Suffolk

  Al2

  S

  4·4

  1·9

  Yoxford Bypass, Suffolk

  Al2

  S

  4·3

  3·4

  Wickham Market—saxmundham Imp, Suffolk

  Al2

  D2

  17·7

  5·3

  PR

  Martlesham—wickham Market Imp, Suffolk

  Al2

  D2

  11·3

  3·8

  Hatfield Peverel—marks Tey Imp, Essex

  Al2

  D3

  67·9

  10·9

  Chelmsford Bypass Widening, Essex

  Al2

  D2

  54·5

  8·5

  M25 J28—chelmsford Imp, Essex4

  Al2

  D3

  50·9

  9·3

  M25—lakeside Widening (S278), Essex3

  A13

  S

  4·9

  0·8

  M11—a10 Widening, Cambridgeshire

  A14

  D3

  25·0

  3·3

  Thrapston—brampton Grade Separation, Cambridgeshire4

  A14

  D2

  7·4

  12·7

  Tonbridge Bypass—pembury Bypass Dualling, Kent

  A21

  D3

  15·8

  2·2

  OP

  Kippings Cross—lamberhurst Imp, Kent

  A21

  D2

  21·1

  3·0

  PR

  Lamberhurst Bypass, Kent

  A21

  D2

  8·3

  1·9

  OP

  Handcross—warninglid Imp, W. Sussex

  A23

  D3

  8·2

  2·0

  PR

  Lewes—polegate Imp, E. Sussex

  A27

  D2

  63·5

  10·6

  PR

  Worthing—lancing Imp, W. Sussex

  A27

  D2—d3

  106·9

  6·0

  OP

  Arundel Bypass, W. Sussex

  A27

  D2

  17·9

  3·4

  PR

  Marsh Honiton & A35 Honiton Eastern Bypass, Devon

  A30—a303

  D2

  36·6

  8·1

  OP

  Bodmin—indian Queens Imp, Cornwall

  A30

  D2

  27·4

  6·8

  Temple—Higher Carblake Imp, Cornwall

  A30

  D2

  7·5

  2·7

  Zelah—chiverton Imp, Cornwall

  A30

  D2

  13·5

  4·0

  St Erth—newtown Imp, Cornwall

  A30

  D2

  13·9

  3·8

  PC

  Ringwood—ashley Heath Imp, Hampshire, Dorset

  A31

  D3

  22·7

  1·2

  Stun Lane, Red Post Imp, Dorset3

  A31

  D2

  3·0

  1·4

  PR

  Stinsford—cockoo Lane Imp, Dorset

  A35

  D2

  3·5

  1·2

  PC

  Winterbourne Abbas Bypass, Dorset

  A35

  D2

  11·0

  2·8

  Chideock.Morcombelake Bypass, Dorset

  A35

  D2

  22·5

  5·1

  OP

  Beckington—east Of Bath Imp, Avon

  A36

  D2

  88·4

  11·8

  PC

  Codford—heytesbury Imp, Wiltshire

  A36

  D2

  8·4

  2·3

  OP

  Wylye—codford Imp, Wiltshire

  A36

  D2

  5·4

  2·0

  Saltash—trerulefoot Imp, Cornwall

  A38

  D2

  50·5

  7·3

  PC

  Liskeard—bodmin Imp, Cornwall

  A38

  D2

  38·3

  10·0

  PR

  Witney Bypass—sturt Farm Imp, Oxfordshire

  A40

  D2

  4·6

  1·5

  OP

  Witney Bypass—cassington Dualling, Oxfordshire

  A40

  D2

  23·6

  5·3

  OP

  Western Circus Junction Imp, LB Ealing

  A40

  D2

  38·2

  0·9

  OM

  Aston Clinton Bypass, Buckinghamshire

  A41

  D2

  15·2

  4·0

  OM

  Geddington Bypass, Northamptonshire

  A43

  D2

  18·9

  5·9

  PR

  Whitfield Turn—brackley Hatch Imp, Northamptonshire

  A43

  D2

  9·3

  2·7

  OP

  Quarries Cross GSJ, Suffolk

  A45

  D2

  3·5

  2·5

  Rookery Crossroads GSJ, Suffolk

  A45

  D2

  3·4

  2·2

  Leamington Turn Junction Imp, Warwickshire

  A45—a445

  D2

  4·1

  0·8

  OP

  Newark—lincoln Imp, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire

  A46

  D2

  21·6

  8·0

  PI

  Pennsylvania—m4 Tormarton Imp, Avon

  A46

  D2

  11·8

  2·5

  OP

  Upper Swainswick—pennsylvania Imp, Avon

  A46

  D2

  13·6

  4·0

  OP

  Acle Straight Imp, Norfolk

  A47

  D2

  17·6

  7·0

  Blofield—acle Imp, Norfolk

  A47

  D2

  5·0

  2·1

  PR

  North Tuddenham—easton Imp, Norfolk

  A47

  D2

  14·6

  5·0

  Little Fransham Bypass, Norfolk

  A47

  S

  7·7

  3·0

  Middleton & East Winch Bypass, Norfolk

  A47

  S

  14·7

  5·3

  Wisbech Bypass A1101 Junction Imp, Norfolk

  A47

  D2

  4·0

  2·5

  Hardwick Roundabout Flyover, Norfolk

  A47

  D2

  7·2

  0·8

  Tilney—kings Lynn Imp, & A47—a17 GSJ, Norfolk

  A47

  D2

  8·2

  2·5

  Thorney Bypass, Cambridgeshire

  A47

  S—d2

  11·1

  2·7

  PR

  Calveley—tiverton Bypass, Cheshire

  A49—a51

  D2

  20·1

  5·0

  Woofferton Bypass, Shropshire

  A49

  D2

  9·5

  2·3

  PC

  Hereford Bypass, Hereford & Worcester

  A49

  S·D2

  40·1

  8·5

  CONF

  Duddon & Clotton Bypass, Cheshire

  A51

  S

  7·3

  3·4

  PC

  Saxondale—grantham Imp, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire

  A52

  D2

  41·3

  12·6

  PR

  Radcliffe-on-Trent Bypass, Nottinghamshire

  A52

  D2

  18·0

  4·3

  PC

  Bank Hall Diversion, Lancashire

  A59

  D2

  7·6

  1·2

  PC

  Selby Bypass, N· Yorkshire

  A63

  S

  21·1

  6·1

  OM

  Hellifield & Long Preston Bypass, N· Yorkshire

  A65

  S

  15·5

  4·4

  OM

  116 117

  Title

  Route

  Standard

  Order of total cost £million

  Length (miles)

  Last stage

  Coniston Cold Bypass, N. Yorkshire

  A65

  S

  5·1

  2·3

  PC

  Gargrave Bypass, N. Yorkshire

  A65

  S

  11·0

  3·4

  OM

  Manor Park Bends Imp, Bradford MB

  A65

  D2

  8·1

  1·6

  OM

  Temple Sowerby Bypass & Imp at Winderwath, Cumbria

  A66

  D2

  11·7

  2·9

  PC

  Warwick Bridge Bypass, Cumbria

  A69

  D2

  12·6

  2·5

  Blackwall 3rd Crossing, LB Tower Hamlets, LB Greenwich

  A102

  D2

  137·4

  2·6

  PR

  Braintree—marks Tey Imp, Essex

  Al20

  D2—d3

  44·7

  9·6

  M25—rayleigh Weir Imp, Essex

  Al27

  D3

  105·9

  14·0

  Long Stratton Bypass, Norfolk

  A140

  S

  7·0

  3·4

  Stonham Bypass, Suffolk

  A140

  S

  7·4

  4·0

  Burnt Ash Hill Junction Imp, LB Lewisham3

  A205—a2212

  S

  4·0

  0·6

  Iwade—queenborough Imp, Kent

  A249

  D2

  76·2

  2·5

  Dymchurch—m20 J 11 Imp. Kent

  A259

  D2

  15·7

  3·5

  OP

  St. Mary's Bay & Dymchurch Bypass, Kent

  A259

  D2

  21·6

  5·2

  OP

  Rye Bypass, E. Sussex

  A259

  S—d2

  30·2

  3·8

  PR

  Winchelsea Bypass, E. Sussex

  A259

  D2

  13·3

  3·1

  PR

  Guestling Thorn & Icklesham Bypass, E. Sussex

  A259

  D2

  14·3

  3·4

  PC

  Hastings Eastern Bypass, E. Sussex

  A259

  S

  21·8

  3·8

  PR

  Bexhill & Hastings Western Bypass, E. Sussex

  A259

  D2

  61·7

  9·4

  PR

  Pevensey—bexhill Imp, E. Sussex

  A259

  D2

  8·3

  2·5

  PR

  Amesbury—berwick Down Imp, Wiltshire

  A303

  D2

  40·0

  6·5

  PC

  Wylye—stockton Wood Imp, Wiltshire

  A303

  D2

  4·4

  2·5

  PR

  Chicklade Bottom—mere Imp, Wiltshire

  A303

  D2

  15·4

  8·0

  PC

  Ilminster—marsh Imp, Somerset

  A303

  D2

  20·1

  6·3

  PR

  Black Dam GSJ, Hampshire

  A339

  D2

  7·6

  1·0

  Popes Lane—western Avenue Imp, LB Ealing

  A406

  D2—d3

  82·4

  2·2

  OP

  Nettleton—crickley Hill Imp, Gloucestershire

  A417

  D2

  19·1

  4·0

  North Of Stratton—nettleton Imp, Gloucestershire

  A417

  D2

  12·7

  5·7

  OP

  Cirencester & Stratton Bypass, Gloucestershire

  A419—a417

  D2

  24·1

  6·2

  OP

  Latton Bypass, Wiltshire

  A419

  D2

  15·6

  3·4

  OP

  Bedford—m1 J13 Imp, Bedfordshire3

  A421

  D2

  24·0

  6·6

  Caxton Common—hardwick (S278), Cambridgeshire3

  A428

  D2

  5·0

  14·4

  Great Barford Bypass, Bedfordshire

  A428

  D2

  18·5

  4·7

  PR

  Norse Road Link, Bedfordshire

  A428

  D2

  12·2

  1·0

  OP

  Studley Bypass, Warwickshire, Hereford & Worcester

  A435

  D2

  43·5

  7·9

  OM

  Clifton Lane Imp, Nottinghamshire

  A453

  D2

  34·6

  3·4

  PR

  Clifton—m1 Imp, Nottinghamshire

  A453

  D2

  15·0

  4·2

  OP

  City Road & Stoke Road Junctions Imp, Staffordshire

  A500

  D2

  16·4

  1·0

  PC

  Basford—hough—shavington Bypass, Cheshire

  A500

  D2

  18·6

  4·7

  OM

  Poynton—macclesfield Imp, Cheshire

  A523

  D2

  7·1

  2·7

  PR

  High & Low Newton Bypass, Cumbria

  A590

  D2

  9·4

  2·4

  OP

  Carlisle Southern Bypass, Cumbria

  A595

  S

  13·4

  5·9

  PC

  Duddon Bridge Imp, Cumbria

  A595

  S

  7·6

  1·9

  Salters Brook—stockbridge Imp, Barnsley MB, Sheffield MB

  A616—a628

  S

  11·2

  6·9

  PC

  Tintwistle—salters Brook Imp, Derbyshire

  A628

  S

  4·4

  8·0

  Skipton—kildwick Imp, N. Yorkshire

  A629

  D2

  8·8

  2·6

  OP

  Hard logs Road Imp, Bradford MB

  A650

  D2

  2·9

  0·4

  PR

  Bingley Relief Road, Bradford MB

  A650

  D2

  44·2

  3·0

  OM

  Saltaire Relief Road, Bradford MB3

  A650

  D2

  170·8

  1·9

  Shiptonthorpe Bypass, Humberside

  A1079

  D2

  7·3

  1·9

  PR

  Wigan—westhoughton Bypass, Bolton MB, Wigan MB

  A5225

  D2

  117·1

  10·0

  OP

  A31—poole Link Road, Dorset

  D2

  66·0

  6·0

  PC

  Poole Harbour Crossing, Dorset

  S

  31·5

  1·4

  PC

  1Department Preparation and Supervision costs will be incurred.

  2Estimated costs excluding VAT and scheme specific risk assessment.

  3Scheme added to the National Trunk Road Programme since 1 January 1990.

  4Scheme added to the National Trunk Road Programme during the Review.

  Stage Codes

  CONF=Trial Planning Conference. PC=Public Consultation Held. PR=Preferred Route Announced. OP=Draft Orders Published.

  OM=Orders Made.

  Highways Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of the recent meeting of the Highways Agency management board in Tewkesbury; and if he will list the reasons for the meeting.
  118
  Mr. Watts
  The chief executive and a number of senior agency managers held an off-site conference over three days at the beginning of May. Its purpose was to consider, in depth, strategic options for the future and how the agency could best organise itself to deliver the targets which it had been set. The cost was £2,926, including the cost of accommodating management consultants and others who attended for all or part of the discussions.

  Tracking Systems
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment the Government have made of the reduction in insurance policy premiums available to those owners of cars fitted with tracking systems.

  Mr. Norris
  No assessment has been made at this stage.

  Dangerous Loads
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents involving heavy goods vehicles with insecure loads were reported to police in the last 12 months for which figures are available; how many charges have been preferred; and how many of these resulted in conviction.

  Mr. Norris
  Information on accidents involving HGVs with insecure loads is not available.

SCOTLAND

  Home Improvements
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times central Government capital spending consent has been refused to Scottish local authorities wishing to carry out home improvement works since November 1993.

  Mr. Lang
  Local authorities must meet the cost of home improvement works on their own stock and grants to private sector owners from within capital allocations made by the Secretary of State each year. Individual private sector improvement grants are governed by expense limits and if local authorities need to exceed these they must request approval from the Scottish Office Environment Department, explaining the justification for the exception. No requests have been refused since November 1993.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will amend the building regulations to bring buildings classed as dwellings into line with all other buildings to enable people with disabilities to have easy access to all new dwellings.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend is currently considering amendment of the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations to extend access for disabled people to new dwellings and a number of options will be set out in a public consultation paper to be issued in the new year.

  Housing
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what communication he has had from Mr. Jim Watt of Horizon Housing Association Ltd. about easier access to dwellings for disabled people; and what reply he has sent.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Mr. Watt wrote to me on 8 September 1994 and I replied on 6 October. I am arranging for this correspondence to be copied to the hon. Member and placed in the Library of the House.

  Pre-School Play Association
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the follow-up measures he has taken as a result of his officials' meeting on 18 August with the representation of the Scottish Pre-School Play Association.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Following the meeting on 18 August between the Scottish Pre-School Play Association and Scottish Office officials, the Secretary of State was able to offer in principle a grant under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 towards the cost of an organisation review. The offer is conditional on Scottish Office approval for the specification for the proposals from consultants to carry it out. These proposals have now been submitted and are being studied closely.

  Incentive Prescribing Scheme
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many incentive prescribing schemes he has set up; if he will give the start date and duration of each scheme; how many general practitioners are involved; and what procedure he has set up for an independent evaluation of the schemes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In April 1992, the Secretary of State introduced the indicative prescribing scheme, which allows for incentive prescribing schemes to operate at health board level. To date there have been no successful applications to set up incentive prescribing schemes in Scotland under the terms of the indicative prescribing scheme.

  Sight Tests
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many NHS sight tests have been performed in Scotland in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Stewart
  The number of national health service sight tests paid for by health boards in each of the financial years since 1987 is shown in the table.

  NHS sight tests in Scotland

  Year

  1Number of NHS Sight Tests

  1987–88

  1,098,145

  1988–89

  1,169,610

  1989–90

  2475,479

  1990–91

  432,885

  1991–92

  496,598

  1992–93

  538,684

  1993–94

  579,682

  1One person may have more than one sight test in the period.

  2Since 1 April 1989 free National Health Service sight tests have only been available to children, full time students under 19, those in receipt of Income Support or Family Credit, the registered blind or partially sighted, complex lens users, those who hold an AG2 exemption certificate form the Health Benefits Unit, diagnosed diabetic or glaucoma sufferers, and close relatives aged 40 or over of glaucoma sufferers.

HEALTH

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made as to the extent to which the system of a fee per item for general practitioner dispensings is conducive to cost-effective prescribing.

  Mr. Malone
  There is no ready measure of the cost-effectiveness of prescribing. I am aware of evidence that the costs of prescribing by dispensing doctors tend to be higher than those of non-dispensing doctors. I am keeping this matter under review.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what percentage difference generic drugs are more or less likely to be prescribed, based on the ratio of the number of prescriptions for one drug to another comparing prescribing patients to those on dispensing lists.

  Mr. Malone
  In 1993 the proportions of prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacist and dispensing doctors which were prescribed generically were 49·6 per cent. and 21·6 per cent. respectively.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what would be the impact on the NHS budget if all prescriptions were to be dispensed by pharmacists;

  (2) what is the average total cost and the cost of drugs of a general practitioner-dispensed prescription compared to a pharmacist and what is the percentage change of each category over the last two years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Malone
  Information, published by the Prescription Pricing Authority, on comparative drug costs for 1992–93 is as follows:

  Dispensing Doctors£

  Pharmacists£

  Average total cost (excluding Value Added Tax)

  7·48

  7·68

  Net ingredient cost

  6·35

  6·77

  The percentage changes over the previous two years were:

  Year-on-year increase percentage pharmacists

  Percentage

  1992–93 over 1992–92

  1991–92 1990–91

  Average total cost (excluding Value Added Tax)

  5·6

  8·0

  Net ingredient cost

  7·3

  7·5

  Year-on-year increase percentage dispensing doctors

  Percentage

  1992–93 over 1991–92

  1991–92 over 1990–91

  Average total cost (excluding Value Added Tax)

  7·0

  6·9

  Net ingredient cost

  8·6

  8·1

  122
  It is difficult, however, to draw any meaningful inferences from these figures about the relative costs to the national health service of dispensing by community pharmacists and dispensing doctors. There are significant differences between the two systems of payment. Pharmacists only receive payments for their NHS dispensing whereas, in the case of dispensing doctors, such dispensing payments form an integral part of the system whereby the profession as a whole is reimbursed for the actual costs of providing general medical services, including any practice expenses relating to the dispensing function.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the procedures for the appointment of members of community health councils under the proposed change of remit for regional health authorities announced on 21 October 1993.

  Mr. Malone
  The national health service executive working group, which is examining the detailed implications of the decision to transfer the establishment function for community health councils to the executive, will consider what changes may be required to the Community Health Council Regulations 1985 which govern appointment of members.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the mechanisms for the transfer of land property from regions to health authorities and trusts under the proposed change of remit for the regional health authorities announced on 21 October 1993.

  Mr. Sackville
  Proposed trusts agree schedules of property required for their operational purposes with district health authorities, facilitated by regional health authorities. When agreement has been reached, the RHA manages the legal process of transferring the property.

  The legislation anticipated in "Managing the New NHS" announced in October 1993 is subject to the consent of Parliament, and has not yet been finalised.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the procedures for the advertising and appointment of chief officers of community health councils; and what will be the procedures under the proposed change of remit for regional health authorities announced on 21 October 1993.

  Mr. Malone
  It is for the regional health authority as the establishing authority to appoint the chief officer of a community health council subject to that person being acceptable to the council. The national health service executive, through its regional offices, will, subject to the agreement of Parliament, take over the establishing function from 1 April 1996. The detailed implications of this change including the future arrangements for appointment of CHCs are being considered by an NHS executive working group which includes members from both the Association of Community Health Councils and the Society of Community Health Councils Staff.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the status of regional general managers of public health under the proposed change of remit of regional health authorities announced on 21 October 1993; if they will be employed as civil servants; and what will be the status of the annual report on public health.
  123
  Mr. Malone
  It is proposed that, subject to parliamentary approval of changes at regional level, each regional office will include a director of public health, who, as now, will be a doctor qualified in public health medicine. In future, they will be employed as civil servants. Information on the role of these staff is set out in paragraph seven of "Public Health in England", copies of which are available in the Library. As part of the Department of Health, the regional directors of public health will contribute to the Chief Medical Officer's annual report. Copies of the report are also available in the Library.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) to whom the responsibilities of(a) the North and (b) the South Thames regional health authorities will be transferred in the event of their dissolution;

  (2) what plans she has for the future of (a) the North and (b) the South Thames regional health authorities.

  Mr. Malone
  The Government's intention to abolish regional health authorities was announced on 21 October 1993. Subject to parliamentary approval, RHAs' functions will be transferred to local health service bodies or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Legislation to implement these changes will be introduced as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.

  Office of Population Census and Surveys
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 15 July,Official Report, columns 812-13, what measures she will introduce to ensure that central Government Departments and agencies cannot access data which are not normally provided to them by the OPCS under the present arrangements; and if she will make it her policy that access to the OPCS mainframe will not be extended in the future to include those users currently allowed restricted access.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys operates under strict codes of confidentiality, details of which are given in its public "Statement of Policies on Confidentiality and Security of Personal Data", a copy of which is available in the Library. These policies will not change.

  The security mechanisms employed to implement these policies will prevent users from accessing data which they are not authorised to access.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 15 July,Official Report, columns 812-13, what specific measures are being implemented in order to prevent unauthorised access to personal information held on OPCS computers by (a) Government Departments and agencies, (b) authorised users without access to the OPCS mainframe and (c) unauthorised users.

  Mr. Sackville
  As stated in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' "Statement of Policies on Confidentiality and Security of Personal Data", a copy of which is available in the Library, OPCS will not publish details of information technology systems and security measures as this might compromise the confidentiality or security of personal data held by the office.

  Independent advice has been sought from security consultants. Security measures are being enhanced
  124
  following changes in the access arrangements. I am satisfied that this will provide the necessary safeguards against unauthorised access.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 15 July,Official Report, columns 812-13, what steps she will take to ensure that private companies are not granted access to personal information currently held on OPCS computers; and what estimates have been made of the potential effects of these proposals on the integrity of data collected from individual households.

  Mr. Sackville
  Authorised private companies, requesting access will be granted access to only aggregated data. The security mechanisms being employed will prevent access to other data.

  The new proposals will have no effect on the integrity of data collected from individual households.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the survey of English mental hospitals initiated by the mental health task force in 1993, and repeated in 1994, will be published to give the latest figures.

  Mr. Bowis
  The report of the 1994 survey has not yet been submitted to Ministers.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she proposes to improve the planning of mental health services and to develop standards for community mental health care.

  Mr. Bowls
  District health authorities are responsible for planning mental health services in the light of their assessment of local need. They are also responsible for developing appropriate quality standards for the mental health services which they purchase, and for monitoring compliance with those standards. I issued the revised edition of the mental illness key area handbook on 29 September and tomorrow I shall be issuing the Mental Health Task Force's guide on "Local Systems of Support". My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week published guidance on inter-agency co-operation.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the statistics about admissions and discharges for mentally ill people to and from psychiatric hospitals can identify how often an individual patient is admitted and discharged; and whether further information can be provided in future to assist in identifying those who need particular care.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information available centrally does not identify how often an individual patient is admitted and discharged. The introduction of the care programme approach, supervision registers and a new minimum data set for mental health services will help identify those in need of particular care.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give in respect of each of the persons killed since 1990 by those receiving mental care in the community(a) the names, status and age of those killed and killing, (b) an outline of the medical and statutory listing of the latter, (c) the names of relevant health and local authorities responsible for the offending patient from the time of their initial treatment and (d) the bodies producing official reports on each incident, including coroners' or other courts.
  125
  Mr. Bowis
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she has considered making available incentives for health and local authorities and the voluntary sector to set up specialist supported after-care facilities for difficult-to-place patients coming out of hospitals.

  Mr. Bowis
  Yes, we have not only considered it but we have taken action by the introduction of the mental illness specific grant, which is available to support the development of a range of innovative projects and has been warmly welcomed by both local and health authorities and by the voluntary sector. In 1994–95 the central grant is £36 million supporting total expenditure of £50.5 million. We have recently announced that the grant will continue for at least another three years.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many district health authorities do not provide long-stay, intensive care units for chronically ill patients with long term behavioural problems;

  (2) if she will list those district health authorities which use private intensive care facilities for both (a) chronically ill patients with long-term behavioural problems and (b) acutely ill patients with temporary behavioural problems;

  (3) how many district health authorities do not provide psychiatric intensive care units or wards for acutely ill patients with temporary behavioural problems.

  Mr. Bowls
  Provision for patients with behavioural problems can either be provided as part of district mental health services, or via access to highly specialised units. The precise configuration of services, including, where appropriate, use of private sector facilities, is a matter for determination locally.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received concerning the lack of medium secure beds, and what plans she has to resolve the problem of transfer delay of patients from special hospitals to medium secure units.

  Mr. Bowis
  Various people have pointed out that the recommendation for medium secure places made by the Glancy working party in 1974 resulted in not one single purpose-built unit being provided by 1979. By contrast this Government recognise the need to expand medium secure psychiatric services and have made available capital funding of over £45 million for this purpose between 1991–95 to raise the number of such beds from the 600 places which were created between 1979 and 1991 to over 1,150 by 1996. In addition I announced on 7 September that we were allocating an extra £4.4 million revenue funding in the current year to help meet immediate pressures on these services.

  Health authorities have been required, since April 1994, to ensure that patients who are ready to leave the special hospitals are placed within six months. The implementation of this is being monitored by the national health service executive and we shall shortly be issuing further guidance on the practical steps needed to minimise delays.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will provide details of the number of people in special hospitals who require long-term medium secure unit bed provision;

  (2) what costed and committed plans she has to build long-stay, medium secure units in the NHS; and what
  126
  capital moneys she plans to allocate specifically for this purpose;

  (3) how many people in (a) NHS hospitals and (b) private sector hospitals who have been in medium secure units for more than two years, and are unlikely to be ready to move to low security units in the near future.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Robinson) on 14 July at columns 701-702.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice, guidance or instruction she has made concerning the level of funding by area health authorities of psychiatric medical services within the area of each local authority with responsibility for community cases; what national areas for staffing, beds and secure accommodation apply to such cases; and how are demonstrable variations in need reflected in the relevant funding.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is for individual health authorities to determine the overall level of funding for health services for mentally ill people living in their district based on their assessment of local needs. Health authorities are also responsible for deciding which parts of the mental health service should receive priority for development within the available resources. Health authorities are allocated funds on the basis of a weighted capitation formula which takes account of factors associated with health need.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times during the 1993–94 Session information requested in parliamentary questions has been refused on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Sackville
  There were two answers given to parliamentary questions by the Department, in the 1993–94 Session, as recorded on the POLIS database, including a reference to commercial confidentiality.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many national health service trusts have to date given observer status to representatives of the local community health council so that they are permitted to attend national health service trust board meetings; and if she will list these trusts by health authority and region;

  (2) what instructions or guidance she has given to national health service trusts in respect of requests by community health councils to be given observer status at national health service trust board meetings.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally. It is for individual trusts to negotiate their own arrangements with community health councils in respect of CHC attendance at trust board meetings. Where CHCs are not invited to trust board meetings, trusts should offer alternative regular liaison opportunities.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for each hospital trust in West Yorkshire what will be(a) the numbers of full-time and part-time nursing staff employed at the creation of the trust and (b) the numbers of those staff on temporary contracts at the creation of the trust;

  (2) for each hospital trust in West Yorkshire what are (a) the numbers of full-time and part-time nursing staff

  127
  employed as of 1 April and (b) the numbers of trust staff on temporary contracts as of 1 April.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is shown in the tables.

  Nursing and Midwifery Staff (Excluding Agency) in National Health Service Trusts in West Yorkshire Area at 30 September 1991.

  Full time

  Part time

  Total

  Whole-time equivalents

  United Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust

  1,200

  530

  1,730

  St James University Hospital Trust

  1,080

  420

  1,500

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  910

  500

  1,410

  Notes

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  2. Whole-Time Equivalents are calculated by aggregating the total number of hours staff in grade are contracted to work and dividing by the standard hours for that grade. In this way, part time staff are converted into an equivalent number of "Whole Time" staff.

  Nursing and midwifery staff (excluding agency) in National Health Service Trusts in west Yorkshire area at 30 September 1992.

  Full time

  Part time

  Total

  Whole-Time Equivalents

  United Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust

  1,230

  550

  1,780

  St James University Hospital Trust

  1,100

  420

  1,520

  Bradford Hospital NHS Trust

  870

  460

  1,330

  Bradford Community Health NHS Trust

  630

  190

  820

  Airedale NHS Trust

  740

  290

  1,040

  Notes:

  1Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  2 Whole-Time Equivalents are calculated by aggregating the total number of hours staff in a grade are contracted to work and dividing by the standard hours for that grade. In this way, part time staff are converted into an equivalent number of "Whole Time" Staff

  Information is not centrally available on numbers of trust staff holding temporary contracts.

  Fundholders
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what specific ways general practitioners' fundholding arrangements take into account of the specialist needs of patients with chronic illness, mental health problems or of those requiring expensive treatments.

  Mr. Malone
  General practitioner fundholders are responsible for purchasing out-patient services and community health services on behalf of all their patients, including those with chronic illness and mental health problems. Fundholders' budgets enable them to meet the cost of treatment for a patient up to the first £6,000 in any one year. District health authorities are funded to meet the cost of the remaining patient care.

  General Social Services Council
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the provision of a General Social Services Council.
  128
  Mr. Bowis
  Recently we have sought tenders for a project concerned with the definition of possible standards of conduct and practice for those engaged in social services.

  Nurse Training
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations she has had from University Superannuation Scheme Ltd. regarding the transferral of pension arrangements for nursing training staff from her Department and the increase in employer contributions that will arise as a result of this transferral;

  (2) what arrangements have been made as a result of the changes to pension/retirement arrangements for nursing training staff to safeguard the rights under the former NHS pension arrangements for (a) ill health (b) early retirement on grounds other than that of ill health and (c) for those with over 20 years' service to have their pension calculated at double rate.

  Mr. Malone
  Discussions are being held between the relevant pension scheme providers, with a view to establishing a basis on which broadly comparable pension arrangements can be made available to nurse training staff who transfer from colleges of health into the higher education sector.

  General Practitioners' Lists
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were removed from general practitioners' lists in the west midlands for the last available year.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Mr. Bowis) gave the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) on 20 July at columns 367-68.

  Health Care
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received from the British Medical Association on the environmental and occupational risks of health care; and what response she has made.

  Mr. Malone
  On 30 June, the British Medical Association sent the Department a copy of its report "The Environmental and Occupational Risks of Health Care". Copies of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's reply will be placed in the Library.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received on child labour; and what action she intends to take.

  Mr. Bowis
  The protection of children at work is the statutory responsibility of local authorities.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are in place, following the inquiry into the future performance and administration of the London ambulance service, for a standing procedure for consultation with staff concerning the operation and administration of the London ambulance service.
  129
  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the management of the London ambulance service.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of occasions in each week of each month from January to August when the response time of emergency ambulances of the London ambulance service exceeded(a) 34 minutes and (b) 45 minutes; and what steps have been taken by her appointees to the South Thames regional health authority to monitor the causes.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  South Thames regional health authority has, through its London ambulance service committee, monitored response times of emergency ambulances exceeding 34 minutes and analysed the underlying causes. The committee has found that the primary causes are the current patterns of crew deployed and shifts which lead to a reduced number of vehicles available at times of peak demand. A further study into these problems has been commissioned. In addition, an extra 240 ambulance staff have been recruited and trained and are now being deployed. South Thames regional health authority will continue to monitor the results of the study to ensure progress is made against patients charter's standards.

  Number of calls with response time more than

  Week ending

  34 minutes

  45 minutes

  No of calls responded to

  9 January 1994

  113

  30

  9,691

  16 January 1994

  61

  17

  9,412

  23 January 1994

  62

  12

  9,284

  30 January 1994

  94

  24

  9,277

  6 February 1994

  83

  21

  9,801

  13 February 1994

  70

  17

  9,674

  20 February 1994

  219

  94

  9,767

  27 February 1994

  114

  38

  9,556

  6 March 1994

  134

  34

  9,549

  13 March 1994

  85

  24

  9,635

  20 March 1994

  128

  35

  10,025

  .27 March 1994

  155

  55

  9,920

  3 April 1994

  108

  26

  9,491

  10 April 1994

  165

  68

  9,458

  17 April 1994

  133

  37

  9,585

  24 April 1994

  118

  27

  9,679

  1 May 1994

  164

  51

  10,097

  8 May 1994

  109

  41

  9,669

  15 May 1994

  176

  39

  10,334

  22 May 1994

  113

  22

  9,890

  29 May 1994

  153

  54

  10,297

  5 June 1994

  200

  63

  10,057

  12 June 1994

  118

  31

  10,220

  19 June 1994

  330

  131

  10,721

  26 June 1994

  306

  113

  10,738

  3 July 1994

  278

  94

  10,588

  10 July 1994

  165

  51

  10,066

  17 July 1994

  239

  72

  10,913

  24 July 1994

  123

  32

  10,696

  31 July 1994

  224

  72

  10,838

  7 August 1994

  234

  92

  10,458

  14 August 1994

  94

  22

  9,552

  21 August 1994

  132

  33

  10,162

  28 August 1994

  109

  32

  9,770

  Source:

  London Ambulance Service internal statistics

  Dystonia
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is currently being carried out on dystonia in Britain.

  Mr. Malone
  The Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, is conducting some research which may be of relevance to this condition. No current research into dystonia is being carried out by health departments in Britain.

  Charities are funding two research projects on dystonia on molecular genetics and on aspects of treatments.

  Gastro-enteritis (Malta)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will name the hotel in Malta where occurred the cases of gastro-enteritis, referred to in her answer of 10 December 1992,Official Report, column 773.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are not able to name the hotel in Malta where the cases of gastro-enteritis occurred in December 1991 as this would breach confidentiality.

  We have no information to suggest any risk to travellers since that incident and naming the hotel would therefore serve no useful purpose.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the issuing of updated guidelines on the appropriate level of priority of(a) the across-the-board BCG vaccination against TB for secondary school children and (b) selective vaccination, and on the currency of application of the last previously issued guidelines.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities were advised in a letter from the Department of Health dated 21 August 1990 that, in line with the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, the schools BCG immunisation programme should continue until at least the 1995–96 academic year. The Government are committed to review this policy in that year after consideration of the results of the national survey of notifications of tuberculosis in England and Wales. This survey was conducted by the Public Health Laboratory Service in 1993 and the preliminary results of the survey should be available by the end of this year.

  The importance of the BCG schools immunisation programme has been drawn to the attention of all regional health authorities through the regional review process; regions have been asked to consider carefully whether their arrangements to protect against tuberculosis are adequate. Details of the Department's policy on BCG immunisation are contained in the health departments' memorandum "Immunisation against infectious disease", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what consultations she has had with the Director of the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, at the Public Health Laboratory Service, Colindale, concerning the national survey into the incidence of TB and the impact on it of the withdrawal or continuance of BCG vaccination programme for secondary school children by health authorities in England and Wales;
  131
  (2) when she now expects publication of the national survey into the incidence of TB and the benefits or disbenefits of (a) continuing or (b) withdrawing across-the-board BCG vaccination of secondary school children; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Officials have been in close touch with the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre during the process of the national survey of notifications of tuberculosis. The preliminary results of the survey should be available by the end of this year, although fuller analysis may be necessary before the implications for BCG immunisation can be considered. The Department will receive a copy of the report and will then be advised on any possible necessary action by the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation which advises the health departments on all matters relating to immunisation.

  The Government are committed to review the schools' BCG immunisation programme in 1995, taking into consideration the results of the national survey of notifications of tuberculosis, until which time the present programme will continue.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has had in relation to the proposed removal of the national TB reference laboratory from the University hospital of Wales, Cardiff, to Dulwich; what consultations she has had with the Director of the Public Health Laboratory Service, Colindale, concerning the proposal; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received no representations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has direct responsibility for public health laboratories in Wales.

  Ophthalmic Consultants
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what help is available to NHS hospitals to recruit locum ophthalmic consultants in cases where they are experiencing recruitment difficulties.

  Mr. Malone
  Local managers are responsible for finding solutions to local staffing problems.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received concerning the funding of flexible training schemes for qualification as a general practitioner; how many places are currently funded by grants from her Department; how many people are on the waiting list who have already completed their pre-registration year; how many women returners have entered their names on to the waiting list; what proposals she has to increase funding; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  No such representations have been received. The only scheme for training in general practice is the vocational training scheme, within which there is scope for trainees to work part time. No figures are available centrally on the numbers taking this option or waiting to do so, or for people wishing to return to training after a break. Full-time and part-time trainees' salaries are wholly funded by the family health services authority for the general practice component of vocational training. The postgraduate dean funds 100 per cent. of the basic salary costs of part-time senior house officers in 132
  hospital. There are no proposals to increase funding for part-time trainees.

  Public Information
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent by her Department in each of the last three years to(a) produce public information in alternative formats for visually impaired people and (b) publicise the availability of accessible information among visually impaired people.

  Mr. Sackville
  Costs for printing, distributing and publicising availability of material for visually impaired people cannot be identified separately. Total costs for these alternative publications in each of the three years are:

  Year

  £'000

  1991–92

  40·4

  1992–93

  89·8

  1993–94

  146·6

  Accidents and Emergencies
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many copies of "Changing Perspectives: Quality Initiatives in Accident and Emergency and Day Care Treatments" were printed; and what was the total cost of printing and distributing the booklet.

  Mr. Sackville
  Four thousand copies of the document were produced. The total cost for design, printing and distribution amounted to £21,222.

  Health Care (Birmingham)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what improvements in the physical and mental health of residents in Birmingham have taken place since she become Secretary of State.

  Mr. Sackville
  The 1993 public health common data set figures will not be available until March 1995. "The Health of the Nation" White Paper identified a number of areas nationally that needed improving. In common with other parts of the country, Birmingham has been developing and implementing initiatives with these improvements in mind. Just some of these initiatives include an audit of response times for coronary heart disease; £5 million recently invested in cancer research based at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, South Birmingham; £100,000 committed to the smoke-free Birmingham project; development of a joint accident prevention strategy across Birmingham; an audit of all suicides to identify suicide prevention strategies and a large needle exchange scheme which is also collecting data on the profile of drug users within Birmingham.

  Smog
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the letter POH/3/4368/64 of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Sackville) of 2 August to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, when she hopes to consider in detail the 1991 smog episode; when the report was put to the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants; and if she will make a statement.
  133
  Mr. Sackville
  Professor Ross Anderson's study should help understanding of the relationship between air pollution and health. The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants has been asked to consider the report of this study, which was carried out for the Department, at its meeting on 21 October.

  Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Association
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much grant has been made to the Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Association in the current financial year.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has granted the Association £8,000 in the current financial year.

  Hospital Costs
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the non-clinical costs of each hospital or hospital unit.

  Mr. Sackville
  Data are available on support services expenditure at units, which may include more than one hospital site. It is not possible to identify the non-clinical costs centrally as many of the expenditure categories cover activities which are directly or indirectly in support of clinical activities.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are her plans for international visits over the next six months.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I plan to speak at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris in November following its warm endorsement of the achievements of the national health service reforms earlier this year, and to attend the European Union Health Council in December.

  Urology Training
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the national health service executive has stopped the development of continuum trainees in urology pending the establishment of a unified training grade.

  Mr. Malone
  There are already a number of established pilot projects looking at how individual specialties, including urology, might organise a continuum of training. There are no plans to develop more in advance of the introduction of the new unified training grade for junior doctors. The current urology scheme in Northern and Yorkshire region will continue.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many continuum trainees in urology have been appointed.

  Mr. Malone
  None. All higher specialist trainees, regardless of specialty or participation in regional pilot projects associated with 'continuum' training, are still appointed to the registrar or senior registrar grades in accordance with existing terms and conditions of service.

  Embryo Research
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (i) on what date she received the letter issued with the report on the consultation on donated ovarian tissue in embryo 134
  research and assisted conception at its launching on 20 July;

  (2) on what date she received the report on the consultation on donated ovarian tissue in embryo research and assisted conception from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  The final version of the report was received on 19 July together with a covering letter from the chairman of the authority.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what date the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority met to discuss its recommendations and conclusions regarding the report on the consultation on donated ovarian tissue in embryo research and assisted conception;

  (2) what was the number of days it took the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to draft, proof read, correct, set and print the report on the consultation on donated ovarian tissue in embryo research and assisted conception; and on which date the report was printed.

  Mr. Sackville
  These are matters for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

  Insulin Pen Needles
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received in relation to the ability of(a) general practitioners and (b) consultants to prescribe insulin pen needles.

  Mr. Malone
  Representations asking that general practitioners should be able to prescribe insulin pen needles have recently been received from people with diabetes and their relatives, the British Diabetic Association, manufacturers of insulin and pen needles and from hon. Members. No representations have been made about prescribing by consultants.

  Blood Donations
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations she has had with the director of the National Blood Authority in relation to stocks of blood held; what statistics she has on the average number of days' supply of blood available during each of the past five years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is in regular contact with the National Blood Authority, which is responsible for monitoring and managing the blood supply. From figures available centrally for the last 12 months the average stock figure nationally has been 19,871 units. Based on the experience of nationally held blood stock figures since 1988 the NBA regards 18,000 units as the stock which enables them to comfortably manage demand from hospitals. Blood stock figures for previous years are not available centrally.

  Ethnic Health Unit
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give details of the geographical coverage of the work of the NHS Ethnic Health Unit; and what provisions she has made to allocate its efforts and resources as between the English regions, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Sackville
  The work of the national health service ethnic health unit covers the eight regions of the English
  135
  NHS only. Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Disabled People
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many registered disabled are registered as(a) visually impaired, (b) having impaired hearing and (c) needing a wheelchair.

  Mr. Bowis
  At 31 March 1991 there were 230,000 people on the registers of blind or partially sighted people. At 31 March 1992 there were 137,000 people on the registers of deaf or hard of hearing.

  Information on the number of persons on the registers of physically disabled people in England by category of disability at 31 March 1993 was published in "Registers of physically disabled persons (General Classes) (A/F/93/19)", copies of which are available in the Library. The use of a wheelchair in meeting a person's individual needs is a matter for assessment locally.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has for changing her policy with regard to bovine somatotropin.

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government's position on the future of bovine somatotropin was set out in the consultation letter of 28 April which was deposited in the Library of the House on 9 June. I am now carefully considering the responses which will be taken into account in coming to a United Kingdom view on the future of the EC moratorium later this year.

  Borage
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which other EC countries allow borage to be grown on set-aside land; and if she will make a statement about growing borage in similar circumstances in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jack
  Borage can be grown on set-aside land in all member states, provided that it is processed into one of the non-food products defined in the relevant Commission regulation.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the rules concerning the presence of veterinary surgeons acting on behalf of her Ministry attending cattle markets to prevent BSE-infected cattle from being(a) sold and (b) slaughtered for human consumption; and how these rules have changed since 1988.

  Mrs. Browning
  Local veterinary inspectors acting on behalf of the Ministry attend a proportion of market days for a variety of reasons, including animal welfare. Where they suspect animals at market of being affected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy they will inform the Ministry's divisional veterinary officer, who will arrange 136
  for a visit by a ministry veterinary inspector. Owners and/or auctioneers are required by law to detain such animals for inspection. If after clinical inspection by the ministry veterinary inspector such cattle are suspected of being affected by BSE they will be transported under licence to the farm of origin for further surveillance, and movement restrictions will be served. Alternatively, where the veterinary inspector believes the diagnosis of BSE to be correct, slaughter will take place at the market. Suspect animals unfit to travel back to the farm of origin will also be slaughtered at the market on welfare grounds by the veterinary inspector. He/she will arrange for transportation and disposal of the carcase and submission of the head to a ministry laboratory for examination of brain tissue. All suspects placed under restrictions at the market will be traced to the vendor's premises for the purpose of epidemiological investigation and confirmation of disease.

  All cattle going for slaughter are subject to ante mortem inspection by the official veterinary surgeon employed by the local authority at the slaughterhouse where provisions apply in respect of BSE suspects parallel to those in markets.

  Under either of these procedures the sale or slaughter for human consumption of BSE suspect animals is prevented. These rules have not changed since 1988.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy have been confirmed in the United Kingdom, since November 1986.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: Since the disease was first identified there have been 133,102 confirmed cases of BSE in the United Kingdom to 15 July 1994.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many United Kingdom farms have had at least one confirmed case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, since November 1986.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: Up to 15 July 1994, 31,948 farms in the United Kingdom have had at least one case of BSE since the disease was first identified.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the level of compensation paid to a farmer for the destruction of(a) cattle with confirmed cases of BSE and (b) cattle with suspected BSE which subsequently prove not be infected; and how this has changed since 1988.

  Mrs. Browning
  From 8 August 1988 to 14 February 1990 compensation paid to farmers for confirmed cases of BSE was an amount equal to 50 per cent. of either the actual market value of the animal or of 125 per cent. of the average market price for commercial grade Friesian dairy cows and heifers in milk and in calf, whichever was the lower figure. Compensation for unconfirmed cases was an amount equal to 100 per cent. of the actual market value or 125 per cent. of the AMP, whichever was the lower figure.

  From 14 February 1990 until 1 April 1994, compensation paid for confirmed cases was an amount equal to 100 per cent. of either the actual market value of the animal or the AMP, whichever was the lower figure. Compensation for unconfirmed cases remained unchanged.

  From 1 April 1994, the method of determining the ceiling for compensation was modified to reflect the

  137
  increasing proportion of older cattle being slaughtered as BSE suspects. The monthly AMP was replaced by the indicative market price, a weighted average of prices of Friesian and Holstein cows, heifers in milk and in calf, and barren dairy cattle, also taking into account the age distribution of cattle slaughtered as BSE suspects in the month. The compensation paid out for confirmed cases is an amount equal to 100 per cent. of either the market value of the animal or the IMP, whichever is the lower figure. Compensation for unconfirmed cases is an amount equal to 100 per cent. of the market value or 125 per cent. of the IMP, whichever is the lower figure.

  Source:

  BSE compensation order 1994, S.I. 1994 No.673

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which countries have banned imports of British beef and/or beef products as a result of concerns arising from BSE; and on which dates.

  Mrs. Browning
  The information is as follows:

  Country

  Beef Yes/No

  Beef/Products Yes/No

  Month/Year

  Algeria

  Yes

  Yes

  January 1990

  Argentina

  Yes

  Yes

  August 1991

  Bulgaria

  Yes

  Yes

  September 1994

  China

  Yes

  Yes

  October 1990

  Iran

  Yes

  Yes

  June 1990

  Jamaica

  Yes

  Yes

  September 1991

  Japan

  Yes

  Yes

  July 1990

  Jordan

  Yes

  Yes

  September 1990

  Kazakstan

  Yes

  Yes

  August 1993

  Libya

  Yes

  Yes

  November 1990

  Poland

  Yes

  Yes

  February 1990

  Qatar

  No

  Yes

  June 1991

  Russia

  Yes

  Yes

  September 1993

  Saudi Arabia

  Yes

  Yes

  February 1990

  Slovak Republic

  Yes

  Yes

  January 1994

  Syria

  Yes

  Yes

  August 1990

  Taiwan

  Yes

  Yes

  February 1990

  Uae

  Yes

  Yes

  August 1990

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the United Kingdom at the latest available date, in animals born after the ruminant feed ban.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: Up to 19 July 1994 there have been 11,648 confirmed cases of BSE in the United Kingdom in cattle born after the ruminant feed bans.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of(a) United Kingdom dairy herds, (b) United Kingdom beef suckler herds and (c) total United Kingdom herds have experienced at least one case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, from November 1986.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: The percentage incidence of BSE as requested is as follows:

  Dairy Herds

  Beef Suckler Herds

  Total Herds1

  GB

  51·73 per cent.

  13·57 per cent.

  32·42 per cent.

  Northern Ireland

  10·57 per cent.

  1·53 per cent.

  3·12 per cent.

  1 Total herds includes mixed herds and herds of unknown type.

  138
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken to ensure that the beef industry in Northern Ireland is exempt from the controls concerning BSE in the European Union.

  Mr. Ancram
  I have been asked to reply.

  The incidence of BSE in Northern Ireland is such that it is not possible at present to argue that Northern Ireland should be exempt from the European Community controls concerning BSE.

  There is evidence in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland of fewer suspect cases of BSE being reported compared with the same time last year and a decline in the number of younger animals in which BSE is confirmed. Any amendment of the existing restrictions on the export of live animals and beef would be a matter for consideration initially by the European Commission, which has been made aware of the improving BSE position throughout the United Kingdom.

  Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when she was first made aware of the incidence of Venezuelan equine encephalitis in Mexico; and what evidence she has as to the regional incidence of Venezuelan equine encephalitis in Mexico:.

  (2) from what date the ban on the importation of horses from Mexico to the United Kingdom and the EU was introduced; what reasons were given for the introduction of the ban; what consideration was given to the implementation of the ban on a regional basis; and when she expects the ban to be reconsidered.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My Department first learned of the outbreak of Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis in Mexico on 3 August 1993 on receipt of the OIE Disease Information Bulletin, volume 6, No. 29 of 30 July 1993. According to the OIE Bulletin, the geographical areas affected by the outbreaks were several districts in the state of Chiapas.

  EC animal health rules regarding the importation into the Community of equine animals from third countries, directive 90/426/EC, prohibit the importation of animals from countries or parts thereof which have not been free of Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis for at least two years. As from the date the outbreak of Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis was confirmed the Mexican veterinary authorities would not have been able to sign the required official health certification confirming, amongst other things, that Mexico had been free of Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis for at least two years. Therefore, any importation into the Community of equine animals from Mexico after the initial outbreak would have been contrary to EC law.

  On 21 September 1993 the EC Commision adopted Commission decision 93/507/EC formalising the prohibition on imports from Mexico until further notice. In the light of specific animal health guarantees provided by the Mexican veterinary authorities, on 27 July 1994 the EC Commission adopted Commission decision 94/478/EC which permits the re-importation into the Community from the metropolitan area of Monterrey, Mexico of registered horses which have been temporarily exported from the EC.

  Whaling
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of whether the recent announcement by Norway to resume commercial whaling in the 1994 season is contrary to the agreement reached at the 1994 International Whaling Commission meeting, that no authorisation was given to any activity contrary to the moratorium on commercial whaling.

  Mr. Jack
  As Norway lodged an objection to the original decision by the International Whaling Commission in 1982 to establish a moratorium on commercial whaling it is not, under IWC rules, bound by this decision. At this year's IWC meeting, the UK and a number of other countries again urged Norway to reconsider its decision to resume commercial whaling activity and to comply fully with the moratorium. Norway has chosen to ignore these requests. The UK will continue to press the Norwegian Government to think again.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what agreement or settlement on the issue of whaling was contained in Norway's acquis communautaire to join the European Union.

  Mr. David Davis
  I have been asked to reply.

  All EC legislation on whales and trade in whale products will apply to Norway on its accession to the European Union.

  Ministerial Visits (Fund-raising)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many overseas visits she and each of her Ministers have made between 1 January and 30 June; during how many she, or each of her Ministers, participated in fund-raising activities for the Conservative party; and if she will name the Ministers and the countries in which these activities took place.

  Mr. Jack
  Between 1 January and 30 June 1994 MAFF Ministers made a total of 20 overseas visits. Nine visits were to EC Councils of Ministers; the remaining 11 were in support of bilateral relations, enlargement negotiations and trade promotion. None of these visit involved fund-raising activities for the Conservative party. The details are as follows.

  Ministerial Visits

  Date

  Venue

  Minister

  24 January

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  21-22 February

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  28-29 March

  Brussels

  Agriculture

  11 April

  France

  Bilateral with French Agriculture Minister

  25-26 April

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  30-31 May

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  20-23 June

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  140

  Ministerial Visits

  Date

  Venue

  Minister of State

  24 January

  Brussels

  Bilateral with Commissioner Paleokrassas

  25 January

  Netherlands

  NTV Amsterdam

  26-28 February

  Brussels

  Enlargement negotiations

  7-9 March

  Brussels

  Enlargement negotiations

  14 March

  Germany (Bonn)

  Bilateral with German State Secretary (Fisheries)

  15-16 March

  Brussels

  Enlargement negotitions

  30 March

  Netherlands (The Hague)

  Bilateral with Dutch Fisheries Minister

  12 April

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  9-10 June

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  Parliamentary Secretary (Commons)

  28 February

  France

  Paris Salon (SIA)

  30 May

  Brussels

  Health Council

  Parliamentary Secretary (Lords)

  30 January-1 February

  Germany

  ISM Cologne

  5-17 April

  China

  Trade promotion including attending AgroExpo, Beijing

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the implications of the European Commission White Paper, "Growth, Competitiveness, Employment-The Challenges and Ways Forward into the 21st Century", for research and development of biotechnology relevant to United Kingdom agriculture and horticulture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  In the Commission's view, the implications of its White Paper on "Growth, Competitiveness and Employment" for research are that it should be focused on the most promising areas of development, among which it identifies new unsubsidised outlets for agricultural raw materials, and that there should be greater co-ordination at a European level. The Commission also wishes to develop improved means for using scientific advice in the preparation of regulations.

  The potential of biotechnology to have an impact on the competitiveness of United Kingdom agriculture and horticulture has long been recognised by the Ministry and is reflected in its research expenditure plans. MAFF expenditure on biotechnology has grown to some £20 million per year. Its research programmes address both the development of biotechnologies for agricultural and horticultural application and assessment of associated risks, particularly in deliberate release of modified organisms, to ensure that safety regulations are scientifically based. Recent initiatives include a £1.5 million programme on crop molecular genetics and a new £1 million programme on non-food agriculture which the Minister announced in July.
  141
  The Ministry will continue to liaise with other Government Departments and the research councils, notably BBSRC, which fund research and development on biotechnology of relevance to agriculture and horticulture, so as to ensure a coherent approach to realising the potential referred to in the White Paper. Likewise, the United Kingdom will participate fully in the European Union's fourth framework programme which includes 552 mecu or £434 million for biotechnology research and development.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the less-favoured areas in England are designated as environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: Thirty per cent. of the 1,897,800 hectares designated as less-favoured areas in England lies within the boundaries of currently designated English environmentally sensitive areas.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what matters were discussed, what decisions taken, and which decisions were taken by vote, at the EU Fisheries Council on 28 September in Brussels.

  Mr. Jack
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Council of EU Fisheries Ministers in Brussels on 28 September with my hon. Friends the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office. No votes were taken at this Council.

  The Council discussed the Commission's proposals for future rules of access for all EU fleets to western waters after 1 January 1996. These would provide for the integration of Spanish and Portuguese fishing into the common fisheries policy.

  I said that these proposals were not acceptable. They were far too complex, imposing excessive administrative burdens on fishermen, contrary to the commitment at the June Council to reduce bureaucracy. Moreover, they could be operated only at quite excessive cost. They lacked credibility and would be unenforceable. I explained in detail to the Council the united position taken by the British fishing industry in rejecting the proposals. I emphasised the need for an adequate replacement for the Irish box when that expires on 31 December 1995.

  The great majority of other member states also felt that the Commission's proposals were not the right way forward.

  The Council agreed that a different approach was needed, which should be as simple as possible to administer and control. All member states were asked to make suggestions for alternative ideas so that the November Council could have a developed alternative approach to consider.

  The Commission's paper on the state of the Community fisheries market was also considered by the Council. It was agreed that there was a need to tackle problems of structures and marketing at various levels. Many measures are already in place but the Commission will be coming
  142
  forward with appropriate further measures in the light of the discussion. I emphasised the importance of the European fishing industry making greater efforts to focus on the needs of the market.

  The Council also considered the Commission's discussion paper and draft proposals for setting medium term management objectives and strategies for certain fisheries. Most member states recognised the value of taking decisions on fish TACs and quotas in the context of a longer term view of the prospects for stocks. However, more work is needed at technical level before the Council can reach conclusions.

  The Commission's proposals to phase out drift netting for most species over four years was also discussed. I took the opportunity to register the United Kingdom's concern about the disturbances in this summer's tuna fishery. No decision was taken on the Commission's proposals, and the discussion showed that there was no consensus on them. There was, however, a clear need to examine the scientific justification for what the Commission had proposed, since this seemed to be deficient, and the Union's scientific, technical and economic committee will undertake this.

  The Council also discussed the EU/Morocco agreement, the acquisition of arctic cod, a forthcoming conference on Mediterranean fisheries, the state of the salmon market, a possible increase in the autonomous tariff quota for cod entering the EU and the regime for tuna for the EU canning industry. In addition, the Council adopted a statement urging an orderly conclusion to the fisheries dispute in the Barents sea.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what matters were discussed, what decisions taken, and what votes were taken, at the Agriculture Council in Brussels on 19 to 20 September.

  Mr. Jack
  The Agriculture Council on 19–20 September, at which the United Kingdom was represented by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food discussed the welfare of animals in transit, agricultural structures policy and reforms of the wine and fruit and vegetables régimes. There were also brief discussions under any other business of a French memorandum on the future of European agriculture, inspection costs in the plant health sector and transport aid for Greek fruit and vegetable producers. No decisions were made nor votes taken.

  Intervention
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her latest estimate of the total tonnage of each commodity held in intervention stocks in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: Responsibility for this matter is delegated to the intervention board executive agency and I have asked the chief executive to reply to the hon. gentleman direct.
  143
  Letter from Guy Stapleton to Mr. Gavin Strang, dated 17 October 1994:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about current intervention stocks in the United Kingdom, as the matter is within my operational responsibility.
  The disposable stocks in intervention at 16 July were:

  Tonnes

  Beef:

  47,173

  Cereals:

  Barley

  1,291,193

  Feedwheat

  38,396

  Common Wheat

  3,290

  Rye

  —

  Total Cereals

  1,332,879

  Butter:

  5,389

  Skimmed Mild Powder

  6,406

  Labelling
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to discuss with consumer groups the labelling of fresh produce with a list of the chemicals that were used in their production for information of consumers.

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: None at present.

  In its review of food labelling published in 1991, the Food Advisory. Committee considered that labelling of all such produce with a general statement relating to all treatments used in their production might be potentially confusing for consumers, especially as residues may not be present in a product so labelled. The committee did suggest an indication of substances deliberately added as post-harvest treatments, but the European Commission has commissioned a study on the labelling of produce treated with pesticides. Since food labelling issues have to be decided at EC level, we need to await the results of this study.

  Farm and Conservation Grunt (89 & 91) Schemes Expenditure from start of Scheme to end March 94 by Financial Year in England Grant Paid in £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Investment Category

  LFA

  Non LFA

  All Rates

  LFA

  Non LFA

  All Rates

  LFA

  Non LFA

  All Rates

  LFA

  Non LFA

  All Rates

  LFA

  Non LFA

  All Rates

  Traditional Buildings

  0·038

  0·158

  0·196

  0·196

  0·916

  1·112

  0·337

  1·184

  1·521

  0·36

  1·007

  1·367

  0·41

  1·127

  1·537

  Land Improvement

  0·017

  0·029

  0·046

  0·16

  0·07

  0·23

  0·254

  0·059

  0·313

  0·319

  0·055

  0·374

  0·326

  0·051

  0·377

  Horticulture

  0

  0·011

  0·011

  0

  0·975

  0·975

  0·008

  1·702

  1·71

  0·002

  1·459

  1·461

  0·026

  2·513

  2·539

  Conservation

  0·302

  0·188

  0·49

  1·149

  0·803

  1·952

  1·731

  1·4

  3·131

  2·325

  1·724

  4·049

  2·616

  2·199

  4·815

  Waste Handling

  0·524

  4·729

  5·253

  2·435

  16·143

  18·578

  3·073

  19·737

  22·81

  3·751

  17·131

  20·882

  3·076

  15·808

  18·884

  Diversification

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·006

  0·006

  0·029

  0·245

  0·274

  0·021

  0·338

  0·359

  Others

  0·001

  0·003

  0·004

  0·013

  0·037

  0·05

  0·013

  0·033

  0·046

  0·031

  0·037

  0·068

  0·012

  0·023

  0·035

  Total All

  0·882

  5·118

  6·00

  3·953

  18·944

  22·897

  5·416

  24·121

  29·537

  6·817

  21·658

  28·475

  6·487

  22·059

  28·546

  Agricultural Wages
  Dr· Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is her latest estimate of the total number of persons whose pay and conditions are

  Farm and Conservation Grants
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the farm and conservation grant scheme comprehended in the past; what it comprehends today; what proportion of the cost of each eligible scheme, in and outside the less-favoured areas was met by the Government before and after variations to the scheme made since its inception; and what, in real and actual terms, has been the expenditure on each element of the scheme for each year both inside and outside the less-favoured areas.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: The farm and conservation grant scheme, set up in 1989, covers a wide range of investments. The items eligible for grant and the rates of grant payable since the scheme's inception, both within and outside the less-favoured areas, are set out in the scheme legislation, copies of which are available from the Library of the House. The statutory instruments concerned are:
  The Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme 1989 SI No. 128
  The Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1990 SI No. 1126
  The Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1991 SI No. 1338
  The Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1993 SI No. 2901
  The Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1994 SI No. 1302
  The Farm and Conservation Grant Regulations 1989 SI No. 219
  The Farm and Conservation Grant (Amendment) Regulations 1990 SI No. 1125
  The Farm and Conservation Grant Regulations 1991 SI No. 1630
  The Farm and Conservation Grant (Amendment) Regulations 1992 SI No. 3174
  The Farm and Conservation Grant (Amendment) Regulations 1993 SI No. 2900

  The table shows in cash terms expenditure on each element of the scheme for each year both inside and outside the less-favoured areas since the scheme's inception. A similar table showing expenditure in real terms is not readily available.

  covered by the Agricultural Wages Order 1994, for each region and county of England;

  (2) what is her latest estimate of the total number of persons whose pay and conditions are covered by the Agricultural Wages Order 1994.
  145
  Mr. Waldergrave
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: The Agricultural Wages Order 1994 covers both England and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is replying separately in respect of the workers covered by the order in Wales. Based on the June agricultural and horticultural census, it is estimated that the numbers of workers in England covered by the Agricultural Wages Order 1994 was 171,732 as at June 1993. Estimates for each region and county in England, excluding workers on minor holdings, are given in the following table.

  Estimated number of workers covered by the Agricultural Wages Board for each county in England as at June 19931

  Number

  Cleveland

  358

  Cumbria

  3,115

  Durham

  1,301

  Northumberland

  2,248

  Tyne and Wear

  264

  North Region

  7,286

  Humberside

  5,020

  N/Yorks (N'Allerton)

  7,550

  N/Yorks (Beverley)

  1,899

  North Yorkshire

  9,449

  South Yorkshire

  1,146

  West Yorkshire

  2,085

  Yorks/Humberside Region

  17,700

  Derbyshire

  2,388

  Leicestershire

  2,388

  Lincolnshire

  10,908

  Northamptonshire

  1,882

  Nottinghamshire

  2,498

  East Midlands Region

  20,064

  Cambridgeshire

  5,071

  Norfolk

  10,067

  Suffolk

  6,625

  East Anglia Region

  21,763

  Bedfordshire

  1,397

  Berkshire

  1,066

  Buckinghamshire

  1,685

  East Sussex

  2,709

  Essex

  5,979

  Greater London (E)

  284

  Greater London (SE)

  611

  Greater London

  895

  Hampshire

  5,281

  Hertfordshire

  1,556

  Isle of Wight

  629

  Kent

  13,112

  Oxfordshire

  2,592

  Surrey

  2,708

  West Sussex

  5,068

  South East Region

  44,677

  Avon

  2,810

  Cornwall

  4,502

  Isles of Scilly

  56

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  4,558

  Devon

  6,556

  Dorset

  3,152

  Gloucestershire

  3,108

  Somerset

  5,371

  Wiltshire

  3,244

  South West Region

  28,799

  146

  Number

  Hereford & Worcester

  8,145

  Shropshire

  4,485

  Staffordshire

  3,706

  Warwickshire

  2,347

  West Midlands

  486

  West Midlands Region

  19,169

  Cheshire

  3,884

  Greater Manchester

  1,119

  Lancashire

  5,447

  Merseyside

  649

  North West Region

  11,099

  1 The data in this table relate to main holdings only, ie. excludes data on minor holdings. The number of workers covered by the Agricultural Wages Board comprises the following categories: regular hired workers and seasonal and casual workers.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) of 14 July,Official Report, column 715, if she will publish the evidence that employers in a number of sectors of the industry are now questioning the value of keeping the present arrangements for statutory wage determination across the agriculture sector.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: Comments received as part of last year's consultation exercise on the future operation of the Agricultural Wages Board have already been made available for scrutiny in the Ministry. We have written to those offering comments since the end of the consultation period and—in cases where consent has been given—we have made these available in the same way.

  Less-Favoured Areas
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will provide a breakdown of all the additional financial support available to farmers from her Department and other bodies in the less-favoured areas for 1993–94; and what was the uptake of each scheme.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: Additional financial support available to farmers in less-favoured areas in 1993–94 from my Department and the uptake in 1993–94 are listed in the table below. I am not aware of any schemes administered by other bodies specifically targeted to farmers in less-favoured areas

  Scheme

  Number of payments

  Hill livestock compensatory allowances

  119,542

  Sheep annual premium scheme

  11,000

  Farm and conservation grant scheme

  4,284

  Notes

  All figures relate to number of payments in England.

  1 This figure incorporates a carry over claims for 1992–93.

  Advisory Bodies
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list those of her Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which the Government are required to consult prior to
  147
  legislation proposals; and in respect of which bodies the Government must publish their response to advice supplied by them.

  Mr. Jack
  [pursuant to the answer, 29 June 1994, c.553]: The reply should have read:

  "Prior to legislation proposals, the Government are required to consult the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, the Committee on Agricultural Valuation, and the Veterinary Products Committee. The Government are not required to publish their responses"

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average percentage change in EC common agricultural prices between August 1992 and May 1994.

  Mr. Jack
  It is not possible to calculate an average percentage change in prices under the common agricultural policy which is weighted to reflect accurately the importance of particular commodities. The table, based on information contained in the notes placed in the Library of this House following the 1992 and 1993 price fixing agreements, shows the changes in intervention or equivalent prices in ecu/tonne, of agricultural commodities over the period cited.

  Table showing changes in Intervention Prices: August 1992—may 1994

  Intervention prices (ecultonne)

  August 92

  May 94

  Percentage Change

  Wheat

  163·49

  115·49

  –29·36

  Barley

  155·33

  115·49

  –25·65

  Maize

  163·49

  115·49

  –29·36

  Durum wheat

  220·87

  115·49

  –47·71

  Rice

  313·65

  309·60

  –1·29

  Butter

  2927·80

  2803·30

  –4·25

  Beef

  3430·00

  3216·40

  –6·23

  Pigmeat1

  1897·00

  1872·00

  –1·32

  Sheepmeat1

  4229·50

  4174·52

  –1·30

  Sugar

  542·20

  523·30

  –3·49

  Dried Fodder2

  178·61

  178·53

  -0·04

  Cauliflowers3

  115·20

  106·60

  –7·47

  Tomatoes3

  93·60

  107·00

  14·32

  Apples3

  143·30

  133·10

  –7·12

  Pears3

  142·00

  145·40

  2·39

  Peaches3

  208·10

  200·60

  –18·46

  Oranges3

  208·10

  214·90

  3·27

  Mandarins3

  227·50

  233·40

  2·59

  Lemons3

  226·60

  239·90

  5·87

  Grapes3

  207·40

  230·20

  10·99

  Apricots3

  237·40

  234·40

  –1·26

  Aubergines3

  71·10

  70·40

  –0·98

  Nectarines3

  269·50

  226·90

  –15·81

  Satsumas3

  124·30

  135·40

  8·93

  Clementines3

  180·80

  184·00

  1·77

  Olive Oil

  2023·70

  1947·96

  –3·74

  Tobacco4

  3096·14

  1898·64

  –38·68

  Silkworms5

  111·81

  111·76

  –0·04

  Cotton2

  1027·90

  1014·62

  –1·29

  Table wine6

  35·44

  34·65

  -2·23

  1 Basic price

  2 Guide price

  3 Withdrawal price

  4 Average normal price

  5 Ecu/box
  148
  6 Average guide price/hl

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her latest estimate of the total cost of the common agricultural policy, including the agricultural monetary reserve, as a proportion of the total EU budget.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: The CAP, including the agricultural monetary reserve, comprises about 54 per cent. of the total EU budget for 1994. On present forecasts it will not be necessary to draw on the monetary reserve.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her latest estimate of the total cost of the common agricultural policy in 1994(a) including and (b) excluding the monetary reserve.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: The Commission's latest estimate of EC expenditure on the CAP in 1994 is 35·7 billion ecu. This estimate is well within the agricultural guideline and there is unlikely to be any need to draw on the monetary reserve.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her latest estimate of the total cost of the common agricultural policy in 1994 to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: The Exchequer cost of common agricultural policy expenditure in the United Kingdom in the current financial year is estimated to be just over £2·7 billion. The United Kingdom also contributes to the cost of the CAP in other member states through our net contributions to the EC Budget.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Small and Medium Firms
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what advice his Liverpool office gives to small and medium-sized enterprises who wish to apply for objective 1 funding on finding a public sector partner; and how he reconciles this advice with the European Union's policy on whether private sector companies can receive objective 1 funding directly;

  (2) what is his Department's policy on allowing small and medium-sized enterprises benefiting from objective 1; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Assistance available to small and medium Merseyside businesses includes help with premises, access to finance, strategic planning, training, technology transfer, industrial quality and design, marketing and joint venture arrangements. There are already a number of such business support schemes; the structural funds will be used to expand their availability, intensity and quality. They will also be used to bring forward new schemes, where there is a clear market need and value for money can be demonstrated. Structural funds grants will be paid to bodies administering the schemes, not direct to companies.

  The single programming document adopted by the European Commission states
  "Private Sector firms may apply directly to the programme (ie to the SPD Secretariat, in the Government Office) for structural funds support".

  149
  Such applicants will be directed to the bodies which actually administer the schemes, including the training and enterprise councils business links—when operational—Chambers of Commerce, business associations and local authorities; for, as the single programming document continues,
  "This will be appraised and administered through bodies designated by the Programme Monitoring Committee".
  Of course applications may also be made to the administering bodies direct.

  Policyholders Protection Act
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what disbursements have been made under the Policyholders Protection Act 1975 to(a) non-United Kingdom citizens or (b) non-United Kingdom residents in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  In the current calendar year the Policyholders Protection Board has made payments amounting to US$86.8 million to policyholders based overseas. The board does not keep records on policyholders' citizenship. Figures for the previous four calendar years were negligible.

  Thorn EMI
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he, expects to reach a decision resulting from his competition policy review of the sale of Thorn EMI's defence division to Thomson-CSF; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No such proposal is currently being considered by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Post Office (Mount Pleasant Depot)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the cost to the Post Office caused by the construction company V.A.T. Watkins going into receivership; and what is the projected cost of the new Mount Pleasant Depot.

  Mr. Eggar
  The implications for Royal Mail of the contractor V.A.T. Watkins Ltd. going into receivership are still the subject of resolution between Royal Mail's consultants and the receiver. The costs of the construction work at Mount Pleasant are the subject of a number of separate commercially confidential contracts between Royal Mail and the various suppliers, one of which was V.A.T. Watkins Ltd.

  Civil Aircraft Marketing Panel
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the members of the marketing panel that advises on future civil aircraft issues, together with the principal occupation of each member.
  150
  Mr. Eggar
  The current industrial and academic members of the market panel of the aviation committee and their occupations are as follows:-

  Mr. Philip Bolt

  Market Evaluation Manager

  British Aerospace (Airbus Limited)

  Mr. Richard P. Botwood

  Director General and Secretary

  Chartered Institute of Transport

  Mr. Stephen Charters

  Market Research Manager

  Civil Engine Group

  Rolls Royce PLC

  Mr. Sam Cherry

  Manager of Corporate Marketing

  Short Brothers PLC

  Mr. Howard Davies

  Secretary General

  British Air Transport Association (BATA)

  Mr. Graham Forbes

  Chief Executive

  General Aviation Manufacturers and Traders Association (GAMTA)

  Mr. John Friedberger

  Chief Executive

  British Helicopter Advisory Bureau (BHAB)

  Professor Keith Hayward

  International Relations and Politics Department

  Staffordshire University

  Mr. Peter Ibbetson

  Director and Head of Aerospace

  Nat West Markets

  Mr. Nicolas May

  Project and Business Executive

  Westland Aerospace Limited

  Mr. Anthony Starforth

  Vice President-Marketing

  Avro International Aerospace

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Cousins
  .: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements are in place to ensure co-ordination between his Department's companies and investigation branches and other regulatory bodies and agencies concerned with the control of money laundering; and how many cases have been referred to (a) non-Government statutory body or (b) a non-Government professional disciplinary body.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The structure set up to enable supervisory authorities to report information on money laundering, following the coming into force of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, provides that the National Criminal Intelligence section at Scotland Yard should be the first reporting point. This is a non-operational unit of the police, having a central intelligence gathering function, which is answerable to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary through the police department of the Home Office. Having received such information the NCIS then informs the local police force of any reporting of any suspected money laundering in its area of jurisdiction and it is that force which will investigate the matter further.

  The combined effect of the Act and the regulations under it is to lift certain restrictions on disclosure which exist by virtue of, for example, statute and which might otherwise prevent such reporting. A regular liaison

  151
  facility has been set up between NCIS and the supervisory authority which also includes various DTI divisions and, for example, those regulating insurance and financial services. Such facilities are designed to assist not only the reporting of suspected money laundering as above but disclosure of any such information on positive money laundering which might implicate a regulated person and throw doubt on his or her continued fitness for the job. Such information can be passed to regulators through a range of statutory gateways if it is required for the exercise of the functions of the recipient regulator. Such information is confidential and it is not our policy to reveal details of it, nor of any recipients of it.

  EU Funding
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if local authorities in objective 2 regions in the United Kingdom will be fully involved in the process of negotiations of EU support for their respective regions; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how the principle of local determination and discretion will be upheld in the current round of negotiations concerning the objective 2 plans and programmes within the United Kingdom;

  Mr. Eggar
  The negotiations are between the Government and the Commission, but the designated local partners; including local authorities, will be consulted throughout. There is a maximum of local discretion consistent with European law and Government policy, but it is not an overriding principle.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which national measures he intends to co-finance from the European regional development fund and the European social fund under the 1994–96 objective 2 and objective 3 programmes; and what was the level of national support for these measures in each year since 1990–91.

  Mr. Eggar
  The following national programmes are intended to be supported by the ERDF under objective 2 and the ESF under objectives 2 and 3. Expenditure on them since 1990–91 has been as follows. The ESF has contributed to these programmes; the ERDF has so far contributed only to SPUR.

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–3

  1993–4

  £ million

  ERDF: Objective 2

  Managing in the 90s

  1·8

  2·2

  3·2

  3·7

  Small Firms Award for Research and Technology (SMART)

  9·4

  12·0

  12·1

  12·9

  Support for Products under Research (SPUR)

  —

  0·3

  5·9

  8·7

  Teaching Company Scheme

  11·2

  10·2

  10·0

  11·5

  152

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–3

  1993–4

  Business Link Innovation and Technology Counsellors

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pump-priming support for Business Links

  —

  —

  —

  0·9

  Enterprise activities organised by Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs)

  —

  —

  —

  32·3

  Diagnostic and Consultancy Scheme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ESF: Objectives 2 and 3

  Training for work

  —

  —

  —

  892·4

  Youth Training

  823·4

  853·2

  757·1

  766·6

  Restart

  10·5

  10·6

  10·9

  11·3

  Jobplan

  —

  —

  —

  32·1

  YTCredits

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Skillseekers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Modern Apprenticeships

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made with the approval of the objective one plan for Merseyside; and what principles agreed in those negotiations are directly transferable to objective two negotiations relating to(a) measures, (b) working arrangements, (c) use of technical assistance, (d) targeting of resources and (e) other matters.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Commission adopted single programming documents for the three United Kingdom objective 1 areas, including Merseyside, on 29 July.

  Each of the 13 British objective two single programming documents is now being negotiated on the basis of the Government's plan for the area concerned. It is not possible to forecast how many of the points in any of the objective 1 documents may be included also in the objective 2 ones.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements have been made to ensure that structural fund resources are being made available now to national and local agencies under(a) objective 2 and (b) objective 3.

  Mr. Eggar
  Structural funds grants are made in accordance with the terms of single programming documents —SPDs—or community support frameworks—CSFs—which are adopted by the Commission in agreement with the member state concerned. The previous CSFs, for all member states, expired at the end of 1993; allocations of grants from 1994, and the corresponding payments, are therefore dependent on the adoption of new SPDs or CSFs.

  Throughout Europe, the adoption of new SPDs and CSFs has been delayed. The 1994–96 objective three SPD for the United Kingdom was however adopted on 5 August. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has already begun paying first advances of grant to projects approved under its terms.

  No 1994–96 objective two SPDs or CSFs have yet been adopted for any member state. Negotiations are due to be concluded next month; project approvals, and the first payments, will proceed after adoption.
  153
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what level of resource will be made available by the United Kingdom Government for business support measures which will be co-financed by the European structural funds in 1994, 1995 and 1996 in(a) objective two areas and (b) non-objective two areas.

  Mr. Eggar
  Following are extracts from the financial tables of the United Kingdom objective one single programming documents for 1994–1999:

  ERDF Contribution

  National Public Contribution

  Central Government Contribution

  Million ecu (1994 prices)

  Northern Ireland

  Aids to industry

  37·11

  8·84

  Merseyside

  Incentives for local business development

  76·0

  172·0

  Highlands and Islands

  Financial support for development of new ventures and SMEs; capital investment and marketing appropriate to SMEs

  23·0

  223·0

  Financial support for research and development

  6·0

  26·0

  Improve access to business information, financial services and market intelligence

  7·0

  27·0

  For Merseyside and the Highlands and Islands, the Government contribution is not separately specified.

  Separate figures for the years 1994, 1995 and 1996 are not available.

  The allocations in Objective 2 and 5 (b) areas of the United Kingdom will depend on the terms of the SPDs for these areas, which have not yet been adopted.

  1 Including Local Authorities, TECs, Business Links, Merseyside Development Corporation, British Coal Enterprise, Inner City Task Forces

  2 Including Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Local Enterprise Companies

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the role of the European investment bank and European Coal and Steel Community in policy and regional development; and what arrangements are to be put in hand for their administration within the United Kingdom for the period from 1994 to 1996.

  Number of firms (thousands) in the United Kingdom by employment size class

  Number of employees

  Year

  1–2

  3–10

  11–19

  20–49

  50–99

  over 99

  Total

  19791

  1,099

  498

  109

  46

  16

  24

  1,791

  1980–1985

  Not Available

  19861

  1,595

  713

  84

  56

  16

  17

  2,481

  1987–1988

  Not Available

  19892

  1,852

  825

  104

  68

  23

  17

  2,888

  19902

  1,826

  804

  103

  62

  21

  19

  2,834

  19912

  1,735

  761

  97

  65

  20

  19

  2,697

  Source:

  1 Employment Gazette, February 1992,

  2 The NatWest Review of Small Business Trends, Volume 3/Number 1/June 1993.
  154
  Mr. Eggar
  The roles of the European Investment Bank—EIB—and the European Coal and Steel Community— ECSC—are specified in the treaties of Rome and Paris respectively: see in particular article 130 of the treaty of Rome and article 56 of the treaty of Paris.

  Applications for EIB loans can be made at any time; there are no special arrangements for the period 1994–96. The EIB, which has an office in London, deals direct with applications for loans of over £10 million and will provide a list of financial intermediaries who deal with smaller applications.

  Applications for ECSC regional loans of more than £6 million should be made to the European Commission, in Luxembourg; applications for smaller loans may be made to Bank of Scotland, Barclays bank, Clydesdale bank, Investors in Industry (3i), Midland bank, Natwest bank, Royal bank of Scotland, TSB Scotland or the Welsh Development Agency. In view of the impending expiry of the treaty of Paris, applications will not be accepted after 31 December 1996.

  For the whole European Community the loans are administered, from offices in Luxembourg, by the EIB and the Commission respectively. Both publish annual reports. There is no separate administration in the United Kingdom. However, the Government offices in the English regions are glad to advise intending applicants.

  Regional Challenge
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what consultations he has undertaken to date to ascertain the views of national and local agencies in his proposals for regional challenge;

  (2) what representations he has received to support his regional challenge proposals for objective 2 areas.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have received various representations. Guidelines for regional challenge applicants are currently being drafted, and consultations about them will open this month.

  Small and Medium Firms
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many firms in Britain employed(a) one or two people, (b) three to nine people, (c) 10 to 19 people, (d) 20 to 49 people, (e) 50 to 99 people and (f) over 99 people in each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Estimates of the number of businesses in different size classes have been produced for five of the last 15 years, for the United Kingdom. The exact size classes requested are not available. Comparable estimates for these five years are given in the table.

  Lloyd's
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent information he had about the extent of Lloyd's losses in the United States market.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Lloyd's returns to the DTI are prepared on a global basis and they contain no figures for losses in the USA. Detailed figures covering certain classes of non-marine business denominated in US dollars are however provided to the Department. These show that Lloyd's made a significant proportion of their overall losses on these categories of business on policies written before 1986.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now set up an inquiry into the management and regulation of Lloyd's insurance market.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Welsh Consumer Council
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish for each of the last available five years the total budget of the Welsh Consumer Council, together with the outturn spending for those years; and if he will make a statement on the limits placed on spending decisions authorised by the chief executive.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The total income and expenditure figures1 of the Welsh Consumer Council in each of the previous five years, taken from the National Consumer Council annual reports, are:

  Year

  — Sterling

  Income for Year

  1989–90

  183,921

  1990–91

  209,431

  1991–92

  237,428

  1992–93

  249,869

  1993–94

  290,845

  Expenditure for Year

  1989–90

  184,383

  1990–91

  212,929

  1991–92

  240,499

  1992–93

  238,198

  1993–94

  271,627

  1 Figures show only direct expenditure incurred by the Welsh Consumer Council which receives its share of Government grant-in-aid from the NCC. Central costs, such as staff salaries, are borne by the NCC. Where expenditure exceeds income this is funded either by reduced expenditure elsewhere in the NCC's budget or by any accumulated surplus permitted under the grant-in-aid conditions.

  It is for the Welsh Consumer Council to decide upon suitable spending limits, although the director of the National Consumer Council, as accounting officer is responsible to the Department for ensuring expenditure is properly authorised and that expenditure is contained within the agreed allocation.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what additional criteria are now taken into account 156
  by his Department in deciding the disbursement of regional selective assistance.

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Belgium (Illegal Subsidies)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his Department has made to the European Commission in respect of the repayment of illegal subsidies to Belgium by the Belgian company Beaulieu and its subsidiary Fabelta; and what level of repayment has been made to date.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government have raised the question of the repayment of the aid paid illegally to Fabelta on a number of occasions with the European Commission since the ruling of the European Court of Justice in February 1990 that the aid should be repaid and has pressed them to secure compliance. Following the judgment in the Gent commercial court against the company the Belgian Government should now be taking steps to recover all the aid.

  SASEA
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what reports he has received from the Swiss or French Government's, police or judiciary in relation to the Swiss company SASEA and its United Kingdom subsidiaries; what actions he has taken as a result; what complaints he has received in relation to the collapse of the Mountleigh company; if he will order an investigation; and what is his policy in relation to the level of losses at a company which will automatically incur an investigation.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I am not aware that any approaches have been made to Her Majesty's Government regarding SASEA and its United Kingdom subsidiaries.

  It is not my Department's policy to discuss complaints received in relation to individual companies. If the hon. Member has information to suggest that there is good reason for a Companies Act investigation, my officials will consider it if he forwards it in the usual manner. Monetary loss is only one aspect of the test of good reason, there are no thresholds as such.

  International Signal and Control Technology Ltd
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will name the individuals who signed the accounts of International Signal and Control Technology Ltd in 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  There is no company registered with that name on the public record held at Companies House.

  Manufactured Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of import penetration of foreign manufactures in the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom shares of main manufacturing countries exports of manufactures in 1970 and at the latest available date; and what was the increase in the terms of trade for finished manufactures since the second half of 1973 and the corresponding increase in relative unit values for exports of manufactures.

  Mr. Needham
  The information on import penetration is available only to June 1989 and is published in table
  157
  12.2 of the CSO's annual abstract of statistic', a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The information on import penetration for 1970 is published in CSO's "Economic Trends" August 1977, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House, but is not comparable with the 1989 data. Comparable information for 1970 could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  The terms of trade for finished manufactures, can be readily derived from information held on the Central Statistical Office database, which can be accessed via the Library of the House.

  Information on United Kingdom shares of MMC exports of manufactures, and relative unit values for manufactures—back in 1975—can be accessed from the

  Percentage change

  Index of production (1990=100)

  SIC (80) Activity Heading Brief Description

  Index of Production (Q2 94 compared with Q2 90)

  Employment (Q2 94 compared with Q2 90)

  Peak output since 1988

  (Quarter, Year)

  Subsequent low

  (Quarter, Year)

  Q2 1994

  2512

  Basic general organic chemicals

  26

  -52

  125

  (Q2 1994)

  —

  —

  125

  3302

  Electronic data processing equipment

  58

  -19

  171

  (Q2 1994)

  —

  —

  171

  3453

  Active components and electronic sub-assemblies

  24

  -41

  125

  (Q2 1994)

  —

  —

  125

  3510

  Motor vehicles and their engines

  -7

  -18

  113

  (Q1 1989)

  85

  (Q3 1991)

  95

  3530

  Motor vehicle parts

  13

  -16

  110

  (Q2 1994)

  —

  —

  110

  3640

  Aerospace equipment manufacturing and repairing

  -22

  -29

  105

  (Q4 1990)

  76

  (Q2 1994)

  76

  Source:

  CSO - Index of Production, DTI, using data from Employment Department & Northern Ireland Office.

  Domestic Electricity Charges
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the change in average electricity bills for domestic customers since(a) January 1987 and (b) August 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is as follows:

  Domestic electricity prices

  Index numbers: 1990–100

  Year

  Current prices

  Real prices (deflated using the GDP (market prices) deflator)

  1986–87

  82·3

  103·4

  1987–88

  81·8

  97·6

  1988–89

  88·0

  98·4

  1989–90

  94·0

  98·4

  1990–91

  102·1

  100·6

  1991–92

  112·8

  104·6

  1992–93

  116·4

  103·8

  1993–94

  114·5

  99·0

  Q1 1994–95

  121·0

  103·5

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the change since 158
  Central Statistical Office database via the Library of the House.

  Import-saving and Export Industries
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the change to output and employment in the import-saving and export industries, since 1990; and if he will publish a table showing the peak output in each of the principal import-competing and export industries since 1988, the subsequent low., and the latest figure.

  Mr. Needham
  The principal import and export competing industries can be defined as those industries where total United Kingdom overseas trade—imports plus exports—exceeded £5 billion in 1992. On this basis six industries are identified.

  privatisation of electricity generators distributors in (a) their labour and labour unit costs, (b) the unit cost of energy consumed or electricity received and (c) the margin of profit and rate of return on capital; and what is the percentage difference between the return on capital on the basis of historic costs and that in manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This is a matter for the companies concerned. The Director General of Electricity Supply has recently investigated aspects of performance in the electricity industry, and published two reports "Decision on a Monopolies and Mergers Commission Reference" and "The Distribution Price Control: Proposals". I have arranged for copies of these reports to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table bringing up-to-date the share of the home market held by imports of selected products in 1964 together with all the other comparisons of competitiveness shown in paragraphs 63(b) and 63(c) in the report of the National Economic Development Council inquiry into competitiveness entitled "Imported Manufactures", presented to the
  159
  Council in August 1965 and subsequently published by HMSO; and if he will include this estimate of the increase in the terms of trade since 1964 in the case of trade with (a) the EEC and (b) non-EEC countries, together with the increase in relative export unit values.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information to update the share held by imports of home markets sectors is not currently available. The terms of trade indices for United Kingdom trade(a) with EC countries and (b) with non-EC countries can be derived for years since 1988 from data in table A19 of the monthly review of external trade statistics—MRETS— which is available in the Library of the House. For earlier years, the series is available only for United Kingdom trade in total, from the Central Statistical offices; central shared database, access to which is available in the Library of the House. Relative export unit value indices, for manufactured exports in comparison with those of principal competitors, are published for recent years in table D5 of MRETS; comparable data are not available for 1964.

  Consumer Goods
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the reasons for the change in levels of United Kingdom output and employment in the United Kingdom consumer goods industries since 1990 and of the contribution made to this by imports; and if he will publish a table showing the change in the volume of imports, exports and home demand for consumer goods in the first quarter of 1994 compared with 1990, together with the numbers employed and his estimate of the net effect of the increase in imports on employment.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is not possible to split employment in the manufacturing industries into that which is specifically for the production of consumer goods. My Department does not make specific estimates of the impact of trade on output and employment.

  The change in the volume of imports and exports in the first quarter of 1994 compared with 1990 is available from data published in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics" and on the Central Statistical Office database, which are available in the Library of the House. The equivalent change for output can be taken from the index of production which is also on the Central Statistical Office database. The trade data is based on a different classification from the output data and therefore it is not possible to construct a series showing home demand for consumer goods.

  Welsh
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Consumer Council concerning the suspension of the chief executive of that council.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  This was a management matter for the Welsh Consumer Council and the National Consumer Council. Whilst the councils kept my Department informed it was not an issue in which the Department would intervene.

  Mail Services
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much income Post Office Counters generated from its contract with the Royal Mail in 1993–94 and in each of the five preceding years.

  Mr. Eggar
  Post Office Counters Ltd. income from its contract with Royal Mail was as follows:

  Year

  Million £

  1993–94

  221

  1992–93

  212

  1991–92

  212

  1990–91

  191

  Figures for 1989–90 and 1988–89 are not available on a comparable basis.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of mail handled by the Royal Mail(a) in 1993–94 and (b) in each of the five years preceding that year was classified as (a) business mail and (b) domestic mail.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information relating to Royal Mail's traffic volumes by business sector is commercially confidential.

  Mail Services
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the gross annual income of the Royal Mail was derived from handling mail(a) in 1993–94 and (b) in each of the five years preceding that year.

  Mr. Eggar
  The proportion of gross annual external income derived from handling mail was as follows:

  Year

  Per cent.

  1993–94

  97·9

  1992–93

  97·9

  1991–92

  97·9

  1990–91

  98·8

  1989–90

  97·8

  1988–89

  97·7

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the total annual income of Post Office Counters was generated from income derived from its contract with the Royal Mail(a) in 1993–94 and (b) in each of five years preceding that year; and what is the estimated percentage of income for 1994–95.

  Mr. Eggar
  The percentage of Post Office Counters Ltd. total annual income generated from its contract with Royal Mail was as follows:

  Year

  Per cent.

  1993–94

  20

  1992–93

  20

  1991–92

  21

  1990–91

  20

  The figures for 1989–90 and 1988–89 are not available on a comparable basis. Forecasts of income are commercially confidential.
  161
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the gross annual income of the Royal Mail was derived from handling mail with a postage cost of less than £1(a) in 1993–94 and (b) in each of the five years preceding that year.

  Mr. Eggar
  Royal Mail's income from individual market segments is commercially confidential.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many overseas visits he and each of his Ministers have made between 1 January and 30 June; during how many he, or each of his Ministers, participated in fundraising activities for the Conservative party; and if he will name the Ministers and the countries in which these activities took place.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Between 1 January and 30 June 1994 Ministers in my Department made 33 overseas visits in their official capacity. Fundraising activities for the Conservative party are not part of our official duties.

  Mining Subsidence
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he will conduct a review of the costs incurred by householders whose properties are affected by mining subsidence in obtaining structural engineering reports;

  (2) if he will conduct a review of the problems of household insurance for householders whose properties are affected by mining subsidence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I see no grounds for such a review. The Association of British Insurers has recently assured me that there is definitely no industry bar on writing subsidence cover in coal mining areas. The industry's general principles are that existing contracts will be offered for renewal at expiry, subject to the usual underwriting criteria on any cover renewal including features such as claims in the year, new material features etc, but such decisions are matters for the individual insurer in the light of its own criteria.

  British Nuclear Fuels
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade at which precise place British Nuclear Fuels take title to the Purex radioactive nitric under contract for import from the United States of America.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for the contracting parties.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if British Nuclear Fuels plc or the predecessor fuel division of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has co-processed reactor grade plutonium from electricity board Magnox reactors with plutonium in spent fuel from the Calder Hall or Chapel Cross reactors.

  Mr. Eggar
  Co-processing at Sellafield of spent fuel from Calder Hall and Chapelcross, and from the reactors of the electricity generating boards ceased in 1986. Since then, such materials have been reprocessed separately.

  Euratom Agreement
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has received from the European Commission under the provisions of article 228 162
  of the treaty on European Union in regard to the letter of 17 June from the United States Department of State to the Commission on the extension of the 1960 United States Euratom co-operation agreement.

  Mr. Needham
  The negotiations on a new nuclear co-operation agreement with the United States are being conducted pursuant to article 101 of the European Atomic Energy Community treaty and are unconnected with article 228 of the treaty of Rome, as amended by the treaty on European Union. My Department has received from the Commission a copy of the letter of 17 June from the US Secretary of State which forms part of the continuing negotiations between the Commission and the United States. A further negotiating meeting was held on 3 October.

  Regional Sourcing
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that the regional sourcing proposals about which his Department is currently consulting do not undermine the position of existing businesses in the sourcing sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The regional supply network offices are encouraged to make use of existing businesses in the sourcing sector to assist in delivery of their services where they consider this appropriate. In addition, each office will be required to carry out a feasibility study on charging for its services before the end of its first year of operation.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent meetings his Department has had with representatives of manufacturing contacts; and what was the purpose of those meetings.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department maintains a regular dialogue with a large number of manufacturing contacts to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to proposals from manufacturing contacts for the provision of an alternative service to his regional sourcing proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The service will be delivered through regional partnerships of existing business support organisations. They have been encouraged to consider ways in which they might co-operate with other bodies, including manufacturing contacts, in the provision of product sourcing services.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what charges will be made by those involved in his regional sourcing proposals to companies availing themselves of those services.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am currently awaiting detailed proposals from the prospective regional supply network offices, including their initial views on any charging policy. It is likely that it will not generally be appropriate for the offices to make charges initially. Each office will however be required to undertake a review of the feasibility of charging before the end of its first year of operation.

  Public Information
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will indicate which departmental publications are currently available(a) in Braille, (b) in large print and (c) on tape; and if he will indicate what

  163
  efforts have been made by his Department to inform visually impaired people about the availability of publications in alternative formats to normal print;

  (2) how much has been spent by his Department in each of the last three years to (a) produce public information in alternative formats for visually impaired people and (b) publicise the availability of accessible information amongst visually impaired people.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Green Paper on the Future of Postal Services is available on audio tape; Braille copies of the press notice and summary version issued when the Green Paper was published are also available. The cost to the Department of producing these alternative formats was £963.

  Publicity has been given to the availability of these alternative formats through a press notice and Talking Newspaper Enterprises Ltd., which arranged publicity through a number of publications directed at the visually impaired.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response he has made to the Latham report on the construction industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have welcomed the Latham report as making an important contribution to improving the competitiveness of the British construction industry.

  Jordan
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clark) of 18 July,Official Report, column 22, what is the total sum now outstanding in the ECGD's accounts together with rolled-up interest in respect of defence sales to Jordan.

  Mr. Needham
  The amount of £255 million given in the reply to the hon. Member for Monklands, West is the estimated sum due to ECGD in respect of defence sales under the three rescheduling agreements. This figure comprises the rescheduled amounts of principal and contractual interest, plus an estimated amount of rolled up interest, accruing under the first two agreements, which is capitalised and will be payable on deferred terms under the third agreement.

  Astra
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will now reconsider his decision to exclude Mr. Stephan Adolph Kock from the disqualification proceedings concerning the directors of Astra board between 1986 to 1991.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Under section 8 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 the Secretary of State may apply for the disqualification of directors if it appears from a report made by inspectors that it is in the public interest to do so. I have been advised that the report justifies proceedings only against those directors against who summons have been issued.

  Overseas Investment
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the value of British investment overseas over the past 15 years; and what has been the 164
  value of inward investment into the United Kingdom over the same period.

  Mr. Eggar
  The figures refer to flows of direct investment into, and out of, the United Kingdom. This information is for the years 1978 to 1992, the latest available. Data for total cross-border investment transactions are available from the publication "The Pink Book—United Kingdom Balance of Payments", CSO, 1990 and 1994.

  Year

  1Flows of inward direct net investment to United Kingdom £ million

  1Flows of outward direct net investment from United Kingdom £ million

  1978

  1,261

  2,710

  1979

  1,740

  3,035

  1980

  2,541

  3,391

  1981

  980

  4,671

  1982

  1,137

  2,122

  1983

  2,063

  3,498

  1984

  2,3–246

  5,813

  1985

  4,416

  8,625

  1986

  5,645

  11,798

  1987

  8,986

  19,159

  1988

  11,562

  20,915

  1989

  17,405

  21,491

  1990

  17,155

  10,108

  1991

  8,418

  9,304

  1992

  9,231

  10,139

  Notes

  1 Direct investment refers to investment that adds to, or deducts from or acquires, a lasting interest in an enterprise operating in an economy other than that of the investor, the investor's purpose being to have an effective voice in the management of the enterprise (taken here to be equivalent to a 20 per cent. holding or more in the foreign enterprise). Direct net investment is net of disinvestment and includes unremitted profits.

  Other investments in which the investor does not have an effective voice in the management of the enterprise are mainly portfolio investments and these are not covered here. Cross-border investment in property (which is regarded as direct investment in national accounts) is not covered here, but is shown in the balance of payments.

  2 Prior to 1984 transactions of oil companies were excluded.

  3 A minus sign indicates net disinvestment (ie decrease in amount due to overseas countries)

  Source:

  CSO Business Monitor MA4 Overseas Transactions, 1987 and 1992.

  Trunk Telephone System
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultation he has had with the Director General of Office of Telecommunications concerning the disturbance to the national trunk telephone system on 4 July, covered by telephone calls made to the tele-sales facility for the sale of M prefix personalised number plates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Issues relating to telecommunications services of this kind in the United Kingdom are a matter for the Director General of Telecommunications. I am aware that the hon. Member has raised his concerns with the Director General who has written to him in reply. I understand that safeguards put in place by BT to deal with the tele-sales facility in question prevented any threat of network failure.

  Companies House
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultation he has had with(a) trade and commercial organisations and (b) relevant trade unions in relation to the status and future functions and integrity of Companies House.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced on 19 July,Official Report, column 179, that as part of the latest stage of the current review of Companies House's agency status, consultants are exploring the views of a range of trade and commercial organisations on the possibility of contracting out most of the services of Companies House.

  I met relevant trade unions on 21 September and have invited them to meet me again before a final decision is taken.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with the Director-General of the Office of Electricity Supply and the data protection registrar in relation to the disclosure by public electricity suppliers of consumer information to third parties, including debt collection companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In his 10th annual report earlier this year, the data protection registrar highlighted the issue of the use of customer information collected by regional electricity companies. I understand that the Office of Electricity Regulation is presently in discussion with the registrar on this issue.

  Filing Fees
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultation he has had with(a) the Registrar of Companies and (b) the Association of British Chambers of Commerce in relation to prospective cuts in the level of statutory filing fees at Companies House.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The fees are based on costs incurred by Companies House, and their level on

  Incorporation Per cent.

  Name Change Per cent.

  Annual Return Per cent.

  Nominal change October 1994/1984

  -60

  -50

  -10

  RPI adjusted change

  -75

  -69

  -44

  Patent Office
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received in relation to the public sector guaranteed status of the Patent Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I have received and am reviewing representations from a range of interested parties on the current status of the Patent Office. No decision has yet been taken on the future of the Patent Office.

  National Consumer Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much grant was given to the National Consumer council for each year since 1987.
  166
  recommendations made to me by the Registrar of Companies.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date statutory filing fees at Companies House were reduced; what consultation he has had with his opposite number in the Commission of the European Union in relation to the level of charges for statutory filing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The new lower fees apply with effect from 1 October 1994. The details and transitional arrangements are set out in the Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994 No. 2217), and the European Economic Interest Grouping (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994 No. 2327). No consultations have taken place with the European Commission.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the gross percentage year-on-year change in the level of statutory filing fees at Companies House and its net change after deduction of retail price index inflation for each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The main filing fees are for the registration of a new company, the change of name of an existing company, and a company's annual return. There were no changes in these fees in the years between 1975 and 1990, or between 1991 and 1994. Comparisons for each year separately are not therefore appropriate. Fee levels and date changes were introduced as follows.

  Date of change

  Incorporation £

  Name Change £

  Annual Return £

  October 1994

  20

  20

  18

  July 1991

  50

  50

  32

  July 1990

  50

  40

  25

  June 1975

  50

  40

  20

  The RPI increase in the ten years to September 1994, the latest month for which data is available, was 61 per cent. This compares with fee changes as follows.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The following table gives the grant-in-aid paid in each year since 1987 to the National Consumer Council:

  Year

  Grant (£)

  1987–88

  1,800,651

  1988–89

  1,843,097

  1989–90

  1,991,334

  1990–91

  2,225,599

  1991–92

  2,559,129

  1992–93

  2,929,827

  1993–94

  3,138,741

  Note:

  Figures include DTI contribution to NCC staff pension fund.

  Source

  National Consumer Council Annual Reports 1987/88–1993/94.

  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the grants given to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The following table gives the grant-in-aid paid in each year since 1987 to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux:

  Year

  Grant (£)

  1987–88

  8,028,000

  1988–89

  8,405,962

  1989–90

  8,999,971

  1990–91

  10,346,000

  1991–92

  11,085,000

  1992–93

  11,699,000

  1993–94

  12,252,700

  Source:

  National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux Annual Reports 1987–88–1993–94

  London Underground
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that a company which both assembles in the United Kingdom and sources most of its components from the United Kingdom is given favourable consideration as the supplier of new rolling stock for London Underground's Northern Line.

  Mr. Eggar
  A "buy British regardless" policy would not serve the tong-term competitiveness of firms in the United Kingdom and would be contrary to Community purchasing rules. I am pleased to note, however, that there is a strong United Kingdom presence amongst the bidders.

  Atomic Energy Division
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the success rate of the Atomic Energy division in achieving project milestones on or ahead of time in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94; and if he will make a statement on the factors underlying this.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The proportion of project milestones in Atomic Energy Division's decommissioning and waste management programmes—DRAWMOPS and DRAWMS—which were achieved on or ahead of time was 56 per cent. in 1992–93 and 66 per cent. in 1993–94. The target for 1994–95 is 76 per cent.

  The figures show a steady improvement in performance resulting from management improvements by the UKAEA's DRAWMOPS directorate and by Atomic Energy Division, including improved programme definition and more effective programme monitoring.

  Nuclear Emergencies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the relevant staff of(a) the Electricity and Nuclear Fuels division and (b) the Atomic Energy division have been trained to enable them to respond to an emergency at a civil nuclear site; and if he will set out the factors underlying this.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  By the close of 1993–94,95 per cent. of new staff of Atomic Energy Division had been trained, during their first nine months in post, to enable 168
  them to respond to an emergency at a civil nuclear site. This was achieved through participation in exercises. In addition, 90 per cent. of the staff of this division had, again by close of 1993–94, received further training by participating in more than one exercise. Due to organisational changes, training now covers relevant staff of both Electricity and Nuclear Fuels Division and Atomic Energy Division. Future statistics will be on the basis of both these divisions. The training is intended to ensure that the relevant Department of Trade and Industry staff are trained and able to respond in the most unlikely event of a civil nuclear emergency.

  Biological Weapons Convention
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representation his Department had at the meeting held in Geneva on 19 to 30 September on the implementation of the biological weapons convention.

  Mr. Heseltine
  A special conference of the bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons convention was held in Geneva on 19–30 September to consider a possible verification regime for the convention. Because of the potential importance of this question for the biotechnology industry, an official of my Department formed part of the United Kingdom delegation which was led by the head of the Untied Kingdom disarmament delegation in Geneva.

  Trade and Development Report
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evaluation he has made of the Trade and Development report 1994 produced by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in September; and whether he plans to make any response to the UNCTAD secretariat in respect of criticisms made of European Union trade policies in the report.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  UNCTAD's 1994 trade and development report did not specifically address European trade policies. It did assert that industrialised countries should adopt more expansionist economic policies in order to stimulate global demand. In general we agree, but this approach needs to be in the context of consistent policies to reduce inflationary pressures in industrialised economies. This point was made during a recent meeting of the UNCTAD Trade Development Board in Geneva.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how his Department was represented at the annual meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency held in Vienna on 19 to 23 September; what proposals were put forward to the conference by the United Kingdom delegation; what proposals from other nations' delegations were accepted by the United Kingdom; and if he will put copies of documents submitted in the Library.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The United Kingdom delegation was led by the new United Kingdom governor to the IAEA, Mr Meadway, head of the DTI's Export Control and Non-Proliferation Division. In his statement on behalf of the United Kingdom, Mr Meadway reiterated Her Majesty's Government's full support for the objectives and principal activities of the agency, in particular in the areas of safeguards and nuclear safety. To this end the
  169
  United Kingdom was among the first to sign the nuclear safety convention which opened for signature during the conference.

  The United Kingdom delegation took a full and active part during the conference making statements in support of measures to strengthen the agency's main activities and assisting the German delegation, on behalf of the European Community, in putting forward a resolution on the recent seizures of smuggled fissionable material.

  A copy of the document produced by the IAEA containing resolutions and other decisions of the General Conference will be placed in the Library of the House when it becomes available.

  Environmental Software
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what initiatives his Department has taken to promote environmental software to industry.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Department has provided grant support to the following projects relating to environmental software:

  Project

  scheme

  (i) The development of a software system for real-time monitoring and evaluation of discharges and emissions from industrial plant.

  EUREKA - EUROENVIRON

  (ii) The development of software to assist in the development, forward planning and management of river basins.

  EUREKA - EUROENVIRON

  (iii) The development of software to assist in the day-to-day management of river systems.

  EUREKA - EUROENVIRON

  (iv) The development of a software system to provide training for industrial management on environmental issues. The project includes a conference and exhibition with demonstrations in London on 25 October 1994 of environmental software.

  DTI's Environmental Management Options Scheme (DEMOS)

  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced the joint DTI/DoE environmental technology best practice programme on 7 December 1993, Official Report, column 149. The programme was launched on 29 June 1994. The programme will, where appropriate, promote environmental software as part of its function of disseminating information on best practice in environmental technology and techniques.

  EU Industry Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what matters were discussed, what decisions taken, and which were decided by vote, at the EU Industry Council in Brussels on 28 September.

  Mr. Eggar
  I attended the Industry Council in the morning of 28 September. This Council was followed in the afternoon by a joint Industry and Telecommunications Council which was attended by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology.
  170
  The Industry Council heard a report from the Commission on progress towards restructuring the Community's steel industry. The Commission said that although the market for steel had improved, capacity reductions were still essential and hoped that the final total would be close to the target of 19 million tonnes of reductions. The Commission proposed that if the steel industry failed to make progress on capacity reductions then the flanking measures aimed at alleviating the effects of restructuring should be ended. The Council agreed that a decision would be reached at the November Industry Council on this issue. The Commission also gave an oral monitoring report on the article 95 state aid decisions agreed in December 1993. I stressed that strict control of state aids is the key to successful restructuring of the industry.

  The Council adopted a resolution calling on the Commission to follow up its integrated programme for small and medium-sized enterprised —SMEs— and stressing the need to improve the administrative and legal environment for SMEs. The resolution calls on the Commission to establish fora in which member states can share experience of national measures in favour of SMEs and to set up a committee to identify administrative and legal provisions which hamper the competitiveness of small firms.

  On biotechnology, most member states agreed on the need for a regulatory framework more favourable to industrial investment and competitiveness, while at the same time maintaining appropriate safeguards. The Council welcomed the Commission's proposal for amending directive 90/219 and its intention to review directive 90/220 and encouraged the Commission to bring forward for discussion proposals for action in other areas.

  The Council took note of the Commission's communication on an industrial competitiveness policy for the EU. A draft resolution is currently under discussion with a view to adoption at the November Industry Council.

  The afternoon's joint Industry and Telecommunications Council was convened specifically to discuss the report of the Bangemann group on development of the Information Society in Europe and the Commission Communications issued in response to that report.

  The joint Council adopted conclusions on the Commission Communication and noted the Commission's intention to submit proposals for the development of the Information Society. In particular, the Council noted the Commission's undertaking to present, by 1 November 1994, the first part of the Green Paper on liberalisation of the EU telecommunications infrastructure and the second part by 1 January 1995. The Council also noted that the Commission was taking account of social and cultural activities and invited the Commission to assess the economic and social implications of its proposals.

  The Commission reported briefly on preparations for the G7 conference on information super-highways, to be held in February 1995, and informed the Council of progress in following up the November 1991 Council

  171
  resolution on electronics, information and communications technologies.

  There were no votes taken at either Council.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the United Kingdom signed the convention on nuclear safety opened for signature in Vienna on 20 September; what estimate he has made of the likely cost to the United Kingdom each year to implement the convention; and if he will make a statement on how he intends to keep Parliament informed of the United Kingdom compliance with the reporting rules contained in the convention.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The United Kingdom signed the convention on Nuclear Safety at the general conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on 20 September. The convention will enter into force once it has been both signed and ratified by 22 states, including 17 states with at least one civil nuclear power plant. Arrangements for the reporting and reviewing process outlined in the convention will be decided by the contracting parties at a preparatory conference to be held within six months of the convention's entry into force. Until then, no firm estimate can be made of the likely annual costs to the United Kingdom of implementation of the convention. Nevertheless, the Government do not expect that they will be substantial; most are likely to be administrative costs associated with the peer review process. Once the mechanisms for reporting and reviewing are in place, I shall ensure that appropriate arrangements are made for keeping Parliament informed.

  Non-Fossil Fuel Levy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the non-fossil fuel levy paid by regional electricity companies on supplies in the year ended March was paid to(a) the nuclear industry, (b) the non-fossil fuel obligation-I, (c) the non-fossil fuel obligation-II, and (d) any other recipients; what was the
  172
  total size of the non-fossil fuel levy in 1993–94; and what it is expected to be in 1994–95.

  Mr. Eggar
  Payments from the fossil fuel levy to nuclear and renewable generators in 1993–94 were as follows:

  £ million

  Percentage

  Nuclear generators

  1,166

  94·5

  Renewable generators (1990 Order)

  30

  2·4

  Renewable generators (1991 Order)

  38

  3·1

  Total levy payments

  1,234

  100

  Source:

  Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency Ltd.

  It is too early to know the level of receipts form the fossil fuel levy in respect of 1994–95, or the allocation of those receipts between nuclear and renewable generators.

  Plug and Socket Harmonisation
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the effect on UK manufacturing and future of trade of proposed electrical plug and socket harmonisation.

  Mr. Eggar
  No formal proposal has been made. To be prepared for such a proposal, however, the Government commissioned a report by the Building Services Research and Information Association on the "Cost and Benefits in the UK of Plug and Socket Harmonisation in Europe". Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Scuttled Barge (Hall Sands)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which company owned the barge which was scuttled off Hall Sands in 1993; and what is its current status.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 19 July 1994]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Department understands that the barge had been acquired by Mr. G. A. Lawrence before it arrived off Hallsands and that the salvage of its remains has been undertaken on his behalf.

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

Kashmir
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
On what occasions they have asked the Indian Government to provide details of the cases in which members of the security forces have been sentenced for crimes committed in Kashmir, and what replies they have received.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we have frequently encouraged the Indian Government to provide details of such cases. They have told us that 75 members of the security forces were given prison sentences between 1990 and September 1994. Non-custodial action, including dismissal, was taken against a further 133 members.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not the Indian authorities' new approach to be welcomed, in that Mr. Shabbir Shah was released from custody last week following the earlier release of Yassin Malik? But is it not of the utmost importance that members of the security forces are not seen to enjoy immunity for the crimes they have committed against the civilian population of Kashmir over the past few years? Bearing in mind that something like 34,500 have perished, including 4,700 deaths in custody, since 1989, does the Minister think that the 75 prison sentences are wholly disproportionate to the scale of atrocities committed against the civilian population? Will the Minister therefore press the Indian authorities that as a sign of
2
their more open attitude now they should publish details of the charges against members of the security forces and the sentences imposed upon them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is right to say that we welcome the new approach taken by the Indian authorities. We do not believe that anyone who has committed the type of crime to which the noble Lord referred should be immune from prosecution, but that is a matter for the Indian authorities. The noble Lord asked about publication and so on, but that is something that we must leave up to the Indian authorities. They are becoming increasingly open, and when the delegation of six Members of another place visited in September they were given free access. I hope, too, that there will be a continuation of the transparency that has started and that there will be as much action as possible to bring those who have committed crimes before the relevant authorities.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in the light of the increasing openness on the part of the Indian Government, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government have managed to elicit any further information from the Indian Government about the 200 or more disappearances that have been catalogued by Amnesty International in Jammu, Kashmir and the Punjab?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness the exact answer that she seeks, but Amnesty International's report, after its visit in January, was a comprehensive report, and the Indian Government have told us that it will be allowed to make further visits elsewhere in India on a case-by-case basis. There are continuing discussions between Amnesty International and the Indian Government on that, and I believe that is to be welcomed.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, when I became a Minister in the Commonwealth Office, almost

3
30 years ago, one of the documents that I was asked to peruse was a paper on the
problems of Kashmir. What are the prospects for a settlement of that problem?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I well remember when the noble Lord became a Minister some 30 years ago. I believe that it was the beginning of my great interest in foreign affairs. I, like him, wish to see a real solution to the problems of Kashmir. What we have said is that it is important that a genuine political process should be established in Kashmir. The Indian Government have recently declared their intention to hold elections in Kashmir next year. We welcome that effort. We hope that the elections will not just be seen to be free and fair but that they will actually be free and fair, but it is much too early to judge when we shall see a full resolution of the problem.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, will the Minister comment upon recent encouraging suggestions from the Indian authorities that they are at last considering a solution which will be equitable to all interested parties in this dispute?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the Indians are giving increased attention and commitment to doing that, but it is not for us to interfere. We can give them guidance if they ask for it. We have consistently encouraged both sides to resolve their differences through bilateral negotiations. We are willing to use our good offices to help if they wish us to do so. I can only say that the signs are much better than they were, and we wish them well in resolving the matter.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I visited Azad Kashmir last year and that I was also in Kashmir for the Indian side this year? In the light of the recent elections in South Africa, and what has happened in Northern Ireland, does the Minister feel that an initiative might be taken by the Commonwealth to seek to resolve this problem, which is a major flashpoint?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, who has long experience of such matters, for all that he has done. I am not in a position to say whether there is a specific role for the Commonwealth. However, the Indian Government have taken on board the importance of good government, which is one of the philosophies pursued by the Commonwealth. If any further work can be done to resolve the situation through the Commonwealth I have no doubt that the Secretary General will take that action.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that Chief Anyaoku and the Foreign Secretary have from time to time offered their good offices to help to reach a solution but that that has not been welcomed by the Indian authorities? The Minister welcomed free access. Will she press the Indian authorities to go a little further and allow Amnesty International to visit Kashmir and to make a report on its findings? Will she also press the Indian High Commissioner in this country at least to
4
reply to letters addressed to him by the parliamentary human rights group, and in particular the repeated request to be allowed to send a mission there?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, discussions about further visits and access to Kashmir are taking place between Amnesty International and the Indian Government. I believe that we must leave that in their hands. As regards intervention by Ministers or the Commonwealth Secretary General, not only did the Foreign Secretary have discussions with the Indian Foreign Minister in July, but in March the Prime Minister discussed human rights and the situation in Kashmir, in particular with the Indian Prime Minister. We take opportunities to raise in private all such matters. It is for the Indian Government to respond. Undoubtedly, they respond better to those of us who seek to show understanding of the difficult situation. In our discussions with them we shall not let go of the problem but will continue to press it.

The Disabled: Discrimination
2.45 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many responses they have received to their consultation paper on discrimination against disabled people and what proportion of these responses was critical.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, we have received more than 900 responses to the consultation, which closed less than three weeks ago. Analysis will take some time and it is too early to attempt to draw any conclusions.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I hope that it will not take too much time. Is the Minister aware that paragraph 2.9 is the most remarkable in the consultation paper because the Government have performed a U-turn and at last have admitted that the "reasonable aspirations" of disabled people cannot be met by voluntary action alone? Will the Government now admit that these aspirations cannot be met by legislation which fails to include education, transport, indirect discrimination and Britain's 2.75 million small firms? In such a situation millions of disabled people will continue to be discriminated against, and that will be perfectly legal.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord invites me to prejudge the results of the consultation and our deliberations upon it. I do not intend to do that. During the next few weeks we shall be looking at all such matters and coming forward with what I hope will be sensible solutions which will help disabled people, as we have helped them vigorously and to a considerable extent during the past 15 years.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend expect support for replacing the quota scheme, as it is impossible for all employers to reach the level of 3 per cent. because only 1 per cent. of the population is

5
registering as disabled? Does my noble friend agree that during the past 50 years the 1944 Act has nonetheless served its purpose because it was mainly intended for young war disabled people who had their working lives ahead of them—and I was one—and that those who are still alive are past retirement age?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for making the point that the quota system provided for in the 1944 Act was introduced in a different working and disabled environment. Whether or not we replace the quota system and the way in which we tackle the employment prospects of disabled people are important matters that we are currently considering.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, bearing in mind that fit people are being paid wages as low as £2 per hour, has the consultation paper produced any evidence showing that disabled people are being exploited by being paid even lower wages? If so, will the Government seek to deal with that matter as quickly as possible?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord must table a Question before I can respond to him in the detail that he expects. As a result of their disability, desire or other factors, many disabled people want or can only obtain work which is for less than a full working week. That is certainly part and parcel of the pattern, but it is also the pattern of many able-bodied people who do not want to work full time.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one reason why so many people do not register as disabled is that the}/ feel that it will disadvantage them when they apply for a full-time job?
Secondly, will the Minister reconsider the point which he made—I thought rather unfairly—to my noble friend Lord Ashley that my noble friend was wishing him to prejudge the issue? Does the Minister accept that there is now a great deal of strong and considered feeling? It is helpful that the Minister's document points in some way towards a more encouraging way forward. However, I hope that he will not allow this matter to slip. Will he recognise that now is the time to come forward with a really positive proposal which will encourage those who have been campaigning so hard for a proper and effective piece of legislation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that the Government will be able to let this matter slip. In view of the number of noble Lords who are interested and (he extremely vociferous lobbies outside, I believe that the Government will come forward with proposals in the reasonably near future.
As regards the general point, the Government have an excellent record in this sphere. Expenditure last year on disability benefits represented some £17 billion, which is a three-fold increase in real terms over what it was in 1979.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Government rejected the Berry/Ashley civil rights Bill on the grounds that it was "exorbitantly costly" for
6
employers. Is the Minister aware that the Employers Forum on Disability has now responded to the consultation document saying:
"Anxiety regarding exorbitant costs would seem to reflect: inadequate understanding and analysis of the benefits generated by bringing disabled people into society as taxpayers and consumers; a lack of understanding",
on the part of the Government,
"of the business case for such reforms; a failure to place expenditure within the appropriate long term scale; and lack of direct experience of disabled people contributing in the workplace"?
That is the voice of the employers and they go on to criticise the Government. Will the Government therefore accept that they defeated the civil rights Bill by attributing views to employers which they clearly did not hold?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness has found a quotation which seems to support the model Labour Party's new view that the points of view of business and industry must be taken into account. That is the point that we have made all along. That is a factor that we shall put into the balance when we decide what sort of action we must take to help disabled people. We must balance the advances that we can make with the costs to business, industry and the taxpayer.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, to what extent do the Government intend to respond to the representations made to them about this paper? If the overwhelming majority really want more wide-ranging proposals, will they get them?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, again, I believe that the noble Lord is trying to persuade me to prejudge our decisions as a result of the consultations. We shall take into account all the documents that we have received in response to the paper which we put out. As I said to the noble Baroness, we shall have to balance what comes in from the various pressure groups, which of course will wish us to go a long way, with the problems which that might cause to the economy at large and to the public purse.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I please ask the Minister—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I believe that we should move on to the next Question.

Health Spending
2.53 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United Kingdom spends a smaller percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) on health than most other European Union nations; and whether they have plans to

7
remove present restrictions on spending at least up to the level of average European Union health expenditure.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the OECD's figures take no account of the different definitions of health spending that are used nor of the greater efficiency and effectiveness with which the UK uses its resources.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. But is she not aware that, in spite of those differences, the fact that we are 19th out of 26 in the recent examination of health spending in Europe gives cause for concern? Does she recognise that, while it is certainly true that our method of financing gives us a certain advantage, if we were to move from our present 6 per cent. up to the average of about 8 per cent., in reality that would bring us into the top half? I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is a position from which we should never have resiled.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do think that this is a spurious argument because internationally there is no accepted definition of health. If one looks at the Netherlands, for example, it includes expenditure on private nursing homes; and other countries include social services. To concentrate on the amount that we spend, ignoring the efficiency and effectiveness with which resources are used, ignores our responsibility both to patients and to taxpayers.
The fact is that the NHS treats more patients than any other country and twice as many per bed as in Germany. We do not have the costly system which exists in countries such as France where large numbers of clerks need to be employed to process patients' claims for charges which they have paid for health services. Only three other EC countries provide free and universal access to both GPs and hospitals. Our record is very good.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in 1979 we spent £22 billion and in real terms we are spending here a total of £35 billion? That is an increase not of 6 per cent. or of 8 per cent. but of 57 per cent. in real terms in this country. Is that not a fine result?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right, and of course we have also given a cast iron commitment in our manifesto that spending will continue to grow.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is the case that the National Health Service is an efficient organisation and it always has been? Will the noble Baroness explain therefore why the Government have spent the past few years messing around with it? In particular, will she explain why their interventions have been based on American ideas in view of the fact that America, which has a market-driven system, is
8
universally regarded as having the least efficient system of health provision in the world? Why do we not stick to our own methods instead of undermining the service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, our system is very different from that which exists in the USA. I thought that the noble Lord was trying to draw an analogy with the USA. I am saying that our system is very different. If one looks at the system in the USA, there are between 30 million and 40 million people who are uninsured and who have no access to health care.
However, the OECD document praises our reforms. It says that the improvement in the annual rate of efficiency gains has been considerable; that we have had a surge in hospital activity, including a doubling in the rate of increase of day cases; that the success of fundholders as purchasers is to be applauded; that the focusing of DHAs' attention on local health needs and priorities is to be commended; that the initial encouraging indicators regarding the performance of trusts is also good; and that in our The Health of the Nation policy we lead the world.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, while the case can always be made out for increased spending on our NHS, will my noble friend endorse the fact that we need to ensure that the increasing resources which this Government have made available to the NHS are spent wisely and efficiently and that that requires good management? We are lucky to have so many dedicated and devoted managers in the health service backing up and supporting the clinical staff.
Will my noble friend take this opportunity also to repudiate in the clearest possible terms the absurd and wholly inaccurate and alarmist assertion made by Labour's shadow health minister in an article in the Evening Standard today that Guy's Hospital is to close? It is not closing. Indeed, the very expensive building to which she refers in the article is to be used broadly for medical care as was always planned.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right in his assertion that the National Health Service needs good managers. In fact, managers have delivered many of the reforms, albeit that they represent only 2 per cent. of the NHS workforce and 3 per cent. of expenditure on salaries and wages.
With regard to the future of Guy's Hospital, there is nobody better placed than my noble friend for he is the chairman of the board and clearly knows what lies in the future.
I believe that it is very wrong that the Labour Party should make those allegations when one realises that it was the Labour Party which cut NHS spending by 2.8 per cent. in real terms, the only real-terms cut in total NHS spending in recent history. It was the Labour Party which cut capital spending when it was in power by nearly 30 per cent., whereas we have increased it by over 70 per cent. in real terms. It was the Labour Party which cut nurses' pay, whereas the Conservative Party has increased nurses' pay by 52 per cent.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, do not the figures from the OECD simply confirm the criticisms of the health service and its spending which have been

9
made by experts in the field, including doctors and nurses? Therefore, would it not be as well for the Government now to accede to the request that I made before the Summer Recess; namely, that we have a Royal Commission into the working of the health service so that there can be no doubt as to who is right and who is wrong?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in its economic survey which was published in July of this year, the OECD said:
"The NHS was and is a remarkably cost-effective institution. It achieves comparable health outcomes with other large OECD countries".
There is no doubt that, compared with the rest of Europe, we use our resources extremely well and that the health of this nation is improving.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister give the same assurances to Baits Hospital as she has just given as regards Guy's?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, the future of Barts Hospital is still subject to consultation. No decisions will be taken until that process is complete.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister recognise the fact that it is very easy to score party points on such an issue? However, if she will look at the Southampton study, about which she is aware, and study the report of the Financial Times on it she will see that on the balance of argument the United Kingdom is falling sadly behind. Can we look at it from an impartial point of view as it is matter of universal concern, rather than being given wholly biased figures such as those produced by the Minister this afternoon?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is no body more impartial than the OECD, and it has given this country a clean bill of health.

Demonstrations: Planned Disruptions
3.3 p.m.
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to adopt measures to prevent those planning deliberate confrontations with the police from taking part in peaceful demonstrations.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): No, my Lords. There are already sufficient powers which provide a range of measures to deal with those planning acts of violence.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, surely it would be quite easy to distinguish, in the first place, between a peaceful protester and someone carrying a CS gas canister, a brick or a pointed stave, and to exclude such people from the demonstration. Further, has my noble friend the Minister any information on a publication entitled, Keep it Spikey, which has been described by the police as,
"a blueprint for a riot"?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not always easy for the police, in advance of a protest procession, to know precisely who will be carrying the gas canisters and who will be lobbing the bricks. Where the police have advance warning, measures are available to them to take action. However, they have the most incredibly difficult task and the level of provocation —as, for example, on October 9th—is sometimes very serious. Indeed, the police are still in the throes of dealing with that incident.
I am afraid that I need reminding of my noble friend's second supplementary question.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I referred to the document, Keep it Spikey.
Baroness Blatch: Yes, my Lords, I have the document with me. All I can say is that the literature that was passed round by Class War in advance of the protest on October 9th is really quite dreadful. Again, it could be subject to charges by the police. However, it is for the police to take such a decision.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that it is already the practice of the police to draw to the attention of the organisers of such demonstrations the likelihood—and sometimes chapter and verse on numbers of demonstrators—that there are those whose only purpose is to be violent and to disrupt the activity? Further, does the Minister share my view that it is for the organisers to consider carefully whether they are able and willing, through their own stewarding, to contain those activities? If they do not do so, should they not carefully consider whether they should continue to use the demonstration as a means of giving effect to perfectly proper political activities? Finally, will the Minister invite the police to make more explicit to organisers of demonstrations their obligations and responsibilities in that respect?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. I believe that we have a proud reputation in this country for allowing free and peaceful protest. I can also say that the police have a very proud record of working with such organisations to ensure that there is proper stewarding and that the routes are properly worked out. Indeed, on 9th October the police had a good deal of discussion with the organisers of the march. But, sadly, as often happens with such marches, the occasion was marred. A small number of people set out with the intention of being violent and put in peril innocent participants who were trying to make a perfectly legitimate protest in respect of something about which they care deeply.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with deference to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is it really a matter exclusively for the police? Should it not perhaps concern my right honourable friend the Home Secretary? The police have very limited remits and are subject to permission being given by the Home Secretary.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I understand it, the police have the powers to deal with public order and have a whole range of measures available to them.

11
Therefore, it is not for my right honourable friend to involve himself in the operational matters of public order. My right honourable friend has a part to play if the Commissioner of Police wishes to apply for consent from him to ban a march. In that case, my right honourable friend does indeed have a role to play.

Business of the House
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Iraq and Kuwait.

Northern Ireland: Recent Developments
3.8 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Much has happened over the past few weeks in Northern Irish politics. It is, therefore, clearly useful that the House should take the earliest opportunity to discuss the latest developments. They are important and, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for his initiative in suggesting that the House should discuss such matters— a sentiment with which Her Majesty's Government wholly agree.
I also hope that the late change in the business has not unduly inconvenienced too many of your Lordships. I shall try to be brief. There are many who wish to speak and there is other business for the House to consider this evening. Therefore, if your Lordships will allow me, perhaps I may suggest that we ought to try to impose some sort of self-denying ordinance as to the length of speeches. I shall try to set a good example in that respect.
As noble Lords know only too well, the past 25 years have seen spilt an horrific quantity of United Kingdom blood and United Kingdom treasure. Neither has the Irish Republic emerged from the troubles entirely unscathed. It is only right that any British Government should put the peace of Northern Ireland at the top of their agenda. After all, Ireland has been the graveyard of many a Westminster political career. Therefore, I am sure that the whole House will admire the courage of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for ignoring that uncomfortable historical fact and seizing an opportunity when he saw it. The Joint Declaration by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach last December created the conditions to achieve an end to all paramilitary violence. It set out the principles which both governments believe can provide a basis for peace and for a political settlement—the principles of democracy and consent. The Joint Declaration indeed received widespread support. Sinn Fein and the IRA have been unable to achieve their objectives militarily and the Joint Declaration left them isolated. It showed them that the only way forward was by peaceful
12
means—by persuasion through political argument. Her Majesty's Government therefore welcomed the announcement by the IRA on 31st August of,
"a complete cessation of military operations".
But I feel that nevertheless we ought to be clear what peace means. It does not mean giving in to the IRA, for one very simple reason. The majority of people in Northern Ireland, both Protestant and Catholic, Unionist and Nationalist, believe in parliamentary government rather than political change brought about through violence. When they committed themselves to parliamentary government those people renounced other means of achieving their political objectives, whether the club, the flintlock, the Armalite or indeed high explosives. If ever the affairs of the Province were to be settled with Semtex instead of the mere acrimony of party politics, no good reason would remain for the people of Northern Ireland to continue to put their faith in our traditions of representative government.
That is surely one reason why it was so important for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to make the commitment he did to holding a referendum, to give the people of the Province the chance to accept or to reject the terms of any political settlement that might emerge from multi-party talks. Without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland the Government will not adopt any proposals that emerge from such talks. Had such an undertaking not been given, I have to tell the House that I, for one, should have been most unhappy. What is clearly more important indeed is that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister would himself have been most unhappy.
Her Majesty's Government have been criticised in some quarters for moving too slowly towards accepting the bona fides of the IRA. I must say I am astonished that such criticism should be made. After all, subjects of the Queen, police, soldiers, sailors and airmen of the Queen have been subjected for 25 years to the horrors of a particularly nasty guerrilla war conducted by at most a very few hundred gangsters wrapping themselves in the Irish tricolour and in doing so defiling it. It is entirely reasonable for us therefore to exercise due caution and to ask for some evidence that they accept that the only way the Province should be governed should be by peaceful and parliamentary means. Not to be cautious would be to raise perhaps false hopes needlessly and would be to play a cruel trick on the people of Northern Ireland who after all, as this House knows perhaps more than most, have endured so much, so courageously for so long, and indeed on the security forces whose skill, bravery and restraint are, as I am sure the House will agree, beyond praise. It is only fair too that we should apply the same degree of caution to last week's declaration from the Loyalist paramilitaries, which nevertheless I believe saw another extremely important part of the jigsaw falling into place.
We ourselves of course have begun to respond to the encouraging calm that has descended on the Province. We have opened a number of border crossing posts; our soldiers now wear berets instead of helmets; and, perhaps more important still, we have lifted the broadcasting ban so that now supporters of terrorism must expose themselves to what I believe Mr. Enoch

13
Powell has called "the power of debate". Indeed, before any party can take part in the processes of parliamentary government we would expect it to comply, too, with the accepted canons of the Westminster model of parliamentary government. This means not just that electors should vote, late or early, only once. It means that parties and their associates should not hold stocks of weaponry stashed away in case the voters do not support them. It means that they should leave the maintenance of law and order to the police and to the courts and should themselves support the law.
When as a result of their words and deeds, and more particularly in this instance their lack of deeds, and when we can be confident that the IRA has given up violence for good, we are prepared within three months to enter into exploratory talks with Sinn Fein. These talks would examine the practical consequences of the ending of violence. They would examine the basis on which Sinn Fein would be admitted to political talks and they would be a means of exchanging views on how, over a period, Sinn Fein might play the same role as the existing constitutional parties in the public life of Northern Ireland.
Your Lordships will also be aware that over the past 12 months we have been engaged in two parallel sets of discussions. The first set has been with three of the main constitutional parties in the Province. The second has been with the Government of the Republic with the object of reaching a shared understanding of what characteristics a settlement should possess if it is likely to attract broad support in the Province.
The latter set of discussions has, I know, set all sorts of alarm bells ringing in unionist minds. I use the word "unionist" with a small "u" to cover many members of my own party, as well as others. I, perhaps more than many Englishmen, understand that. After all, there is no point in hiding the fact from your Lordships that I was one of those very few who voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement in another place in 1985. However, I remind your Lordships that the Government's interest is to find common ground between the interested parties that can form the basis of a settlement we can put to the people of Northern Ireland. We are not—it is worth emphasising this—in the business of cooking up deals or seeking imposed solutions. The Ulster Unionist Party and other parties will be participating in any talks leading up to any proposal for a settlement. The Ulster Unionist Party has been engaged for the past 12 months in the bilateral discussions to which I have just referred. It has an opportunity to resist proposals it regards as unacceptable, and the people of the Province will have what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister called "the cast iron guarantee" of the referendum. Indeed, my right honourable friend the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party was quoted last week as saying,
"there is no possibility of us being betrayed".
I do not know about your Lordships, but I hope that reassures the unionists with a big "u" and a small "u".
Finally, many who support the Union—my noble friend Lord Tebbit I think is one and I am sorry to see he is not in his place today—have expressed the fear that all this is a smokescreen. Under its cover we are thought to be proceeding down a slippery slope of small
14
concessions to the Nationalists which, when the smoke clears, will reveal us to have conceded de facto joint authority in Northern Ireland as a half-way house to complete unification. I was delighted therefore when on 25th April last Mr. Spring, the Irish Foreign Minister, said,
"Joint authority is not being considered".
Indeed such an authority cannot and will not form part of any settlement, covert or otherwise, so long as the people of Northern Ireland reject it. And indeed there appears to be no foreseeable prospect of their accepting it.
The House will know—many of your Lordships better than I —that the people of Northern Ireland have made a great contribution to the United Kingdom in both peace and war. Most of them undoubtedly wish to remain a part of the United Kingdom, a desire which I believe is by no means limited to the Protestant side of the Community. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said at a certain party conference in Bournemouth last week:
"we are glad of it: it is a strength and an inspiration".
We are not indifferent to those sentiments. However, if the people of Northern Ireland come to want to leave, although nobody would be more sorry than I, we would wish them Godspeed and would not stand in their way.
Meanwhile, Her Majesty's Government will do everything in their power to secure a lasting peace; but it must be a peace which is properly obtained. I have tried to emphasise this afternoon that there have been no secret deals. However, for such a peace to last it must be acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland as a whole, both Unionist and Nationalist. Both parts of the community must feel that they have a proper stake in society and a fair say in decisions that affect their lives. The principles of even-handedness, agreement and consent which are exemplified in the Joint Declaration will continue to be our guide.
We have made a start. We can only hope for success. We ask for the prayers of all to help us towards that success in the weeks and months to come.
Moved, That this House takes note of recent developments in Northern Ireland.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
3.21 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, when the noble Viscount the Leader of the House started his speech, he referred to the fact that I had asked for this debate. That is true. It seemed to me to be sensible that at this stage this House should examine what has happened and the prospects for the future.
I say in no spirit of rancour to the noble Viscount that I wish that he had given us a more generous overview of where the Government now see the prospects. He reminded us that he was one of those who voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement. One respects him for the vigour and continuity of his views. Having heard his speech this afternoon, I can understand why, holding those views, he voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

15
Perhaps I may begin by giving the Government credit (which they deserve) for what has happened so far in relation to Northern Ireland. So far the negotiations, such as they have been, have gone well. I believe that credit deserves to be given, and I am happy publicly to give that credit.
I should also like to give some credit to somebody who was not mentioned by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House; namely, John Hume. We do not know precisely what happened in the discussions between Mr. Hume and Mr. Adams. I have not seen the famous document which both of them are supposed to have signed, and I do not know whether the Government have had sight of it. But there is no doubt that Mr. Hume played a considerable role in changing the atmosphere and in producing a situation in which the IRA could make their declaration.
The only certainty about affairs in Northern Ireland at present is that they are moving. Change is not only taking place, but it seems to be accelerating. Yesterday the sight of Mr. Ervine of the Protestant paramilitaries and Mr. McGuiness for the IRA on the same television programme, although not yet in the same studio, was a sight which I did not expect to see happening quickly. Indeed, it would have been inconceivable a few weeks ago.
The news last week that the Protestant paramilitaries were giving up their campaign of violence was extremely welcome. After all, it is the first time in many years that Northern Ireland can look forward to a period in which sudden death is not the normal day's news. It therefore behoves us now to look at the situation as objectively and dispassionately as we can. We owe the people of Northern Ireland our analysis and our judgment as well as our prayers and our hopes.
The first issue that has to be addressed is the genuineness or otherwise of the ceasefire. It seems to me that, so far as the Protestant paramilitaries are concerned (as, indeed, they have said), provided the IRA ceasefire holds the likelihood of a resumption of violence by them is small. If that is so, the question remains whether one can now accept the permanence of the IRA's cessation of violence. The fact that the word "permanent" has not been used is probably now not very important. Indeed, as time passes and the ceasefire continues to hold the non-use of that word becomes increasingly less significant. Last week the Secretary of State said that there was now a presumption of permanence. I prefer to say that there is now a presumption of the continuation of non-violence.
On the other hand, the statements made by Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuiness, which I found disturbing, are also significant. We must not forget them when we consider the totality of the situation. What Mr. Adams said to the Boston Herald 10 days ago was disturbing. He said that no one could guarantee:
"that two or three years up the road, if the causes of conflict aren't resolved another IRA leadership won't come along".
Mr. McGuiness, when asked whether the ceasefire was permanent, contented himself with saying rather tritely:
"nothing in life is permanent".
16
That is true, but it does not advance the political process a great deal.
Therefore, I believe that the Government have been right to be relatively cautious in their acceptance of the words used by Sinn Fein. But, as I said earlier, words now matter less than deeds. It may be that within the ranks of the IRA itself the possibility of the use of the word "permanent" had provoked a major political row. We do not know, and I am happy to say that I have no means of inquiring. However, the longer the ceasefire exists the more one is entitled to treat it as being permanent.
The Government have said that exploratory talks will be held within three months after they have sufficient indications that the IRA intends the ceasefire to be permanent and there has been "a period of verification". It has been said that the period of verification has already begun and that the Government are waiting less for a specific form of words from the IRA than for a feeling that Unionist opinion is ready for those talks to begin. If that is so then, again, as more time passes without violence, and particularly after this weekend, that approach becomes less demanding. While the Government were right to be cautious in their response to the IRA ceasefire, it is also right that today we should be cautiously optimistic about the possibilities of those ceasefires holding. We should therefore now look forward to the next stages in the peace process rather than over-analysing what has already taken place.
I should like to say a word about the security forces. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House was right— and I echo his sentiments—to pay tribute to what the security forces have achieved over the past 25 years. It is great, and their contribution has been massive. I do not think that this is the time for scaling down the security forces in Northern Ireland. It is right that the Government again should be cautious as to the way in which they approach the question of how many soldiers are needed in Ulster. I am sure that it is also right that the Government should reject any suggestion of demilitarisation of Catholic areas alone, as some Nationalists have demanded. That would be not only divisive, but I believe that it would be totally unacceptable.
However one looks at the situation in Northern Ireland, the Province is still deeply divided. I was shocked the other day to find that well over half the population of Northern Ireland live in wards that are more than 90 per cent. Catholic or 90 per cent. Protestant. Ever since its creation people in Northern Ireland have been divided in their national allegiances. Those divisions express themselves in voting, culture, education, and also, until recently, in overtly discriminatory treatment of one community by the other. Economic inequality still exists in Ulster and there is no point in denying it. There are strong disagreements over policing and the administration of justice. Thus although the threat of violence may be removed, we are still faced with the realities of those divisions. It will take generations to overcome that legacy of history. However, the best opportunity of so doing almost certainly lies in economic terms. If Northern Ireland were to become more prosperous, if job opportunities

17
were greater and more equally shared, then some of those ancient divisions and antipathies might begin to abate.
There are still far too many arms on both sides in the Province. Somehow in the course of the negotiations such arms have to be brought under better control. Do the Government insist on a surrender of weapons and explosives by both sides, or at least on mutual and balanced disarmament? Do the Government foresee that as an issue to he raised in the negotiations in the short-term; and, if so, how? Indeed, I ask the Government this question: is that insistence to be a prerequisite to the negotiations even beginning? That is an issue upon which we are entitled to ask the question and to receive an answer.
There is still much to be done, but at least now there is a real prospect that some of those issues may be tackled against a background of peace and for that we are, and should be, extremely grateful.
The two Governments are in the process of preparing a framework document. Perhaps I may say this to the Government. They should not expect to be able to please all sides. Indeed perhaps the best outcome—-at least to start with—would be that dissatisfaction with that framework document should be evenly spread. It is far better that all sides should feel mildly dissatisfied rather than that one should feel grossly so. Perhaps I may say one further word of caution to the Government. Do not be too optimistic on the political side. It is unlikely that the problems in Ireland will be solved in the short term. We are at the beginning of a process. We are nowhere in sight yet of a solution.
However, when the framework document emerges— and I shall be grateful for more information about it from the Minister who will wind up—the issue of acceptability of any proposals by a majority of the people in Northern Ireland is, in my view, fundamental. The majority, as well as the minority, in Ulster have rights. One should never forget those rights. The principal right that the majority has derives from the fact that it is the majority community and that therefore it is entitled to have its approval sought. I do not believe that Government could conceivably accept an obligation to persuade the Protestants in Ulster to accept a united Ireland. Mr. Bruton, the Fine Gael leader, writing recently in the Irish Times, stated:
"The only united Ireland worth having is one that is not only consented to, but is actively desired, without coercion of any kind, by all the major communities on the island. That is what I am working for. Anything less than that would bring tragedy and strife to the whole island. That is why I so strongly object to the Sinn Fein idea that the British should do the 'persuading' for them. Not only is this concept dangerous in its practical implications, it is unworthy of any self respecting Irish person. It is a form of inverted colonialism. It is, quite literally, shameful. We must be men and women enough to do our own persuading, without threat, coercion or outside pressure from Britain, from America or anywhere else".
I find that argument totally convincing.
For centuries Ireland has been a divisive force in British politics. Perhaps it is true that the English have never truly understood, or perhaps really tried to understand, Ireland or the Irish. Perhaps it is true that the memory of 1916 is still too alive on both sides of the Border. But it is also true—and that is the importance of
18
today—that for the first time in generations there seems to be a glimmer of an opportunity to produce a lasting settlement. Perhaps this time Ireland really is at one of those crossroads in history about which people talk, perhaps too glibly. But, if it is, I hope that we have learnt the lesson that a settlement in Ireland can come only from the Irish themselves. It certainly cannot be imposed by Westminster or, for that matter, Dublin; and certainly not from Washington. The process is now launched; and for that we should all be profoundly grateful.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, perhaps I may add my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for suggesting the debate, and to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for acceding to it. For those of us accustomed to discussing Northern Ireland in the interstices of parliamentary business at strange times of the night, it is useful to be able to do so in peak time, as it were. It is also a particular pleasure to hear the noble Viscount, with his personal and ancestral interests in the issue, introduce the debate. Many noble Lords will have listened to what he had to say with particular interest, given his long commitment to the affairs of Northern Ireland.
It is sometimes said in Belfast that an optimist is someone who has not heard the news. I believe that this is one of those occasions when the news is good. We are allowed to be hopeful, and to feel a sense of opportunity not just for Northern Ireland but for Anglo-Irish relations, which have been bedevilled for so many centuries in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, described.
We should give credit to the paramilitaries who have stopped shooting. We should give even more credit to those intermediaries, some highly visible like Mr. Hume—the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to him— and many more who remain invisible but who have worked so hard to bring about this truce—this cessation of violence which we hope is something more. This development has been a great success for the two Prime Ministers. From these Benches I should like to pay a quite unqualified tribute to what the Prime Minister and Mr. Reynolds have achieved together. They have advanced a long way along the path to peace. It would be appropriate, too, to mention the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his team, and Mr. Dick Spring who has played such a notable role as Irish Foreign Minister.
I emphasise the understanding between the Governments. No negotiation—we now look forward to a process of negotiation—works unless there is a centre at the heart of it which holds together. That is the lesson of South Africa and the Middle East; it is the lesson that we should learn. Negotiations cannot succeed without a centre—a place where the agreement that has been constructed matters more than the misgivings of the nervous and the militant on the respective wings of those concerned.
In Northern Ireland that centre should be constituted by Mr. Hume and Mr. Molyneaux, the leaders of the SDLP and the official Unionists, and by the coming together of the Unionist and nationalist positions in

19
realistic discussion and realistic negotiations. But, of course, both those gentlemen face outward to the world, to their respective sponsors, to the United states and to their respective communities. We have not yet reached the point where they face towards each other to talk to each other and become the centre about which I speak. The only centre of these putative negotiations is the two Governments. In that context it seems to me more important than anything else that the two Governments hold together.
I am one of those who takes the view that the Joint Declaration is a major step forward in Anglo-Irish negotiations. I believe that the declaration is more realistic than the Anglo-Irish Agreement which preceded it. It seems to represent a firm basis for progress. However, it is worth while spelling out what that declaration means because it is the deal that dare not speak its name. It needs spelling out to avoid the negotiating process becoming one of mutual misrepresentation.
I believe that the Downing Street Declaration means that the unity of Ireland becomes a legitimate but long-term aspiration which is achievable only peacefully, by consent. Mr. Reynolds himself has put the timescale at more than 20 years, but it may be much longer than 20 years; it may never come. It may be achieved so far ahead that the context, both European and global, will have totally changed by the time that it does come.
Those who want the unity of Ireland as an immediate objective have a painful step to take, which is to accept that it has become, instead of an immediate objective, a long-term aspiration. But—and this is an enormous "but" —the Unionists, safe behind their referendum, to which the noble Viscount referred, have themselves to come to terms not only with the legitimacy of the aspiration for the unity of Ireland but with sharing power in Northern Ireland, protecting the rights of the minority in Northern Ireland and finding new forms of pan-Irish co-operation, particularly on the economy and infrastructure where there are such great steps forward in prosperity to be achieved, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said.
One only has to voice that obvious trade-off as explicitly as I have done to see how steep the hill ahead still is. It is good that we have reached this point, but anyone who now gives way to optimism has not heard the news, has not heard the entrenched attitudes that exist to be overcome. They have not realised that the Joint Declaration, in the terms in which I have just described it, presents hard challenges to both communities. So we need all the more convergence and initiative at the centre between the governments.
I can understand what has gone on over the past seven weeks, the case for role-playing, with the Taoiseach "cementing" Mr. Adams into the peace process and with Mr. Major reassuring Unionists and Loyalists. But the definite sense of caution in the United Kingdom is now palpable. I for one, as spokesman for my party, have been anxious to support the Government in their caution. I think that there has been every reason to be cautious about the IRA; but the time has now come
20
when the Government should use a little less caution and be prepared to move the momentum forward. After all, it is now nearly seven weeks since the IRA ceasefire.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that if people do not voice the right words, then one must judge them by their actions. Their actions have been of maintaining the ceasefire. Now, crucially, the Loyalist paramilitaries have followed suit. The Loyalist paramilitaries must themselves have made their own judgment of the seriousness of the change of strategy by the IRA. Mr. Molyneaux has clearly made that judgment because he thinks that the time has come to move on to the next stage. So I think that the Government ought now to consider changing gear. First, they should accept that however natural the suspicions we all share about Sinn Fein and the IRA leadership, the ceasefire represents a serious change of strategy, at least on their part.
If the Government decide in the near future that the IRA and Sinn Fein are serious, could they not wind the clock back and take the time which has already passed into account so that talks can start in five weeks from now? That would mean talks before Christmas, rather than losing momentum with a further three months' probation. Let us just dwell on that. The point of the three months was to establish that they were serious. Let us not double count. Once we have decided that they are serious, once we have decided that this is for good and for real, why can we not get ahead and get the process moving before Christmas?
Thirdly, and I think most important, is that Mr. Major and Sir Patrick Mayhew should move on from questions of process, which have consumed us ever since the ceasefire was declared, to issues of substance—the disarming of paramilitary organisations to which both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord referred, matched by prudent, step by step measures of demilitarisation. I agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said about the IRA not becoming the de facto civil power in Nationalist areas. It is vital that that should not happen. But by the same token, the Government need to look carefully—as I know they have over many years without much success—at the composition of the RUC which is so overwhelmingly Protestant in its membership that many Catholics doubt it. Of course, we all know the reason for that: Catholics who tried to join it have been lent on by the paramilitaries, the terrorists. Now, in the situation of the ceasefire, any activity which tends to deter people from joining their own civil police force in a civil society should be looked on particularly askance.
Further, the time has come to consider a comprehensive review of all emergency security legislation which impacts on human rights. The great danger is that we take the security issues one by one; they seem to be concessions to the IRA rather than being a response to the new situation. There is a great danger in this country, as several noble Lords know: the Official Secrets Act was introduced as a temporary measure during the First World War and yet it is still with us. The danger is that after some of the emergency legislation is needed, it hangs on in a perpetual twilight.

21
How much better that the Government should look at it comprehensively, rather than item by item in response to the new situation as it develops.
Most important of all, I believe that a draft of the framework document for the future government of Northern Ireland should be published for early discussion by the politicians and people of Northern Ireland. We should recognise that the name of the game is not enthusiasm. Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, we cannot expect either community to respond to the framework document with enthusiasm. We are not seeking enthusiasm, we seek acceptance. If we are to have peace in Northern Ireland, pretty well everyone will have to accept what is from their point of view the second best. The sooner they are able to accept that reality, the better.
What will that framework document say? It will say something, I hope, about devolution. It is preposterous that we are considering the detailed governance of Northern Ireland in this House and another place late at night, as we do. Those are issues that should be decided by Northern Irish people in Northern Ireland. We need devolved government in Northern Ireland. We need devolved government on the basis of some system of sharing power between the two communities. Let no one tell us that it cannot be done, it has been done in Holland and Belgium and it can be done in other places. We need a Bill of Rights that enshrines the legitimacy of both traditions and protects minorities. When the noble Baroness replies, I should be interested if she would address herself specifically to the prospect of a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland. I speak as someone who has long been committed to a Bill of Rights in the United Kingdom; but I do not think that that argument should be used on this occasion. It is one of the few measures that unites all parties in Northern Ireland, it is generally acceptable in Northern Ireland and could form part of the solution there. I should be interested to know whether the Government are prepared to act on the matter.
What we are really looking for in the framework document is the outline of a constitutional settlement for Northern Ireland. Rather than going down the path, which is a cul-de-sac, of joint authority and involvement by the Irish Republic and the government of Northern Ireland, I wonder whether we should rather think of the role of the Irish Republic being that of guarantor of the new constitutional settlement.
I urge the British and Irish Governments to be positive and clear with Mr. Molyneaux and Mr. Hume respectively. I urge Mr. Molyneaux and Mr. Hume to determine to make the compromises that are necessary for peace.
One of the sad aspects about Northern Ireland of which the noble Baroness will know is the extent to which so many active middle-class people have given up politics and dropped out, upset by the raucousness of the political debate and the extreme sectarianism. They have gone to enjoy contented professional and business lives in suburbs where they do not see much violence. If nothing else, let us hope that now the process of rational discussion is moving forward, they will be attracted back into the political process, both in local government
22
and in government for the Province. It is particularly important that the voice of non-sectarianism be heard, as well as of the formal representatives of the two communities. The Alliance Party has made such a contribution. We should think of the role of integrated education. We should address ourselves to people who do not care to be lined up forever in a column that is labelled "green" or "orange".
Peace, power-sharing and mutual respect will not in the end be created in Northern Ireland by politicians or by constitutional devices, however fundamental those are. They will be created by a change of culture, by a gradual, long-term, incremental sense of moving away from the culture of victimhood that is shared by both communities and by starting to create the new era of confidence and co-operation which I now believe is within our reach.
3.50 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for making this debate possible this afternoon.
As an Ulsterman and a native of Belfast, I find it somewhat moving and a cause of great thanksgiving to be able to speak in such a debate as this, which for the first time in 25 years is being held against a backdrop of non-violence in Northern Ireland. It is personally moving for another reason, and I hope your Lordships will recognise the unique position in which I find myself. As I look round this House today, I see many noble Lords who, as former Secretaries or Ministers of State for Northern Ireland or as Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland, have served my homeland with political distinction and personal courage. I welcome the opportunity that is provided by this debate of expressing genuine gratitude to them, and indeed to all those who for the past 25 years have been working tirelessly for peace in Northern Ireland.
The cessation of violence on the part of the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries is to be warmly welcomed, but it is, as it were, the "copper bottom" on the strenuous efforts for peace on the part of trade unionists, industrialists, Church and community leaders and those small but significant communities, like Columbanus and Corrymeela, to name but two of very many, which have not only held the vision of peace but have practised it across the political, sectarian and religious divide.
It is not my intention to make a lengthy speech. Such is the experience of Northern Ireland affairs contained within the membership of this House that I want to listen eagerly to, and learn from, the wisdom that will be revealed during the course of the debate. I shall restrict my comments therefore to just two matters about which I feel most strongly. The first concerns what I believe to be the wider context and true perspective in which this debate is being held. I refer to the Downing Street Declaration, which other noble Lords have already mentioned.

23
Misguided people in the USA may project onto the Sinn Fein leader of the role of peacemaker and miracle worker. But to my mind the true miracle workers in this matter are the Prime Ministers of this country and the Republic of Ireland. They are the true focus of hope.
The media has tended to emphasise the so-called "Adams factor". But the truth of the matter is that in Northern Ireland Mr. Adams, as president of Sinn Fein, represents only 10 per cent. of the voting population and in the whole of Ireland less than 5 per cent. Unlike John Hume, who, whatever reservations some of us may have (and some of us do have reservations), will come to the forthcoming discussions with an honourable and consistent record of seeking peace, Mr. Adams, by contrast, carries in his pocket the coinage of violence.
"Give peace a chance" has been a repeated refrain and an avowed aspiration over the years. The British Prime Minister and the Irish Taoiseach have responded positively, skilfully, sensitively and, I believe, successfully to such an aspiration. It is they who represent the feelings and hopes of the people of these islands. For the vast majority of the population and all the political parties, with the exception of Sinn Fein and the DUP, support the Downing Street Declaration.
What now needs to happen is a commitment on the part of all people of goodwill to make that declaration work. It needs to be clothed with some form of local assembly. It needs to be clothed with certain necessary reforms, for instance in the realm of law and order. It needs to be clothed with a non-threatening North-South co-operation—with both sides co-operating under the umbrella of consent. Along with the promised framework document, it needs to be implemented without either undue haste or unnecessary delay and with the sensitivity and skill that will forestall the twin dangers of pan-nationalism and pan-unionism.
That brings me to the second of the two matters on which I wish to speak. Over the years successive Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland have declared that the ultimate resolution of the so-called Irish question has to be found among the Irish people. I believe that to be the case. But those who watched the brief American television clash between Mr. Adams and Mr. Maginnis will have seen a preview of the difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the discussions that will follow the publication of the framework document. Despite what Mr. Adams says, Britain needs to be a facilitator rather than a persuader in these matters. And, to be frank, the task ahead is an onerous one. So far as the IRA is concerned, the armed struggle may have exhausted itself but the struggle itself is not over. There are very many unresolved issues. How easy, for instance, will it be for the Official Unionist Party (let alone the DUP) to sit down with Sinn Fein after what has happened in the past 25 years? If mainstream unionism and mainstream nationalism (in the form of the SDLP) have found it impossible to work together in the past is that situation likely to improve when Sinn Fein is added to the mix?
That is the measure of the task. That is why all who are engaged in it will need our prayers, understanding and practical support. It is an immense challenge. Both
24
communities will be in need of constant reassurance. When unrealistic objectives are not met there will be the usual rhetoric of betrayal. (Dare I mention who will make the rhetoric?) Real interests and possibilities for constructive ways forward will need to be found. Progress will not be possible without change and compromise. Ahead are dangers, risks and wonderful opportunities for creative ways forward. As a senior Irish Church leader has said:
"A new situation exists. We are moving on and we need new maps and new compasses".
But, at the end of the day it is the people of Ireland who will create the environment that will lead to a lasting peace. It was Archbishop Robin Eames who said, a few weeks before the IRA ceasefire was declared,
"An end to violence is a vital step—but only a step, so much more remains to be done. Attitudes will have to change, grievances real and imagined will have to be faced honestly and openly and people will have to learn that the real healing of our community is about much more than an absence of violence".
Sectarianism has been a poison that has seeped into every part of life in Northern Ireland—and the Church has not been free from it. If the present opportunities for lasting peace are to be grasped and built upon, the evils of sectarian attitudes, actions and words must be faced with an implacable determination to eradicate them as fully as possible from the Ulster scene.
It is sectarianism that has permitted and encouraged the politics of confrontation. It has warped the minds of paramilitaries. It has hindered community growth. It has fed fear and uncertainty about the future. It is a problem that cannot be solved by governments. It is a challenge that must be faced by every section of Ulster society. It is certainly a challenge that must be confronted by the Churches in Northern Ireland.
They will find every encouragement to do so through the competent, passionate and courageous leadership of Archbishop Robin Eames, Cardinal Cahal Daly and their fellow Church leaders. They recognise, as we must, that the real mountain to climb is the establishment of the peaceful and just society, to which an end to violence is a wonderful beginning but still only a beginning.
There is a generation of work to be done. There is a spiritual, practical and political task to be accomplished. The prize of lasting peace is a vital one. The spectre of a return to the horrors of the past 25 years is too terrible to contemplate. As the Archbishop of Armagh said in a recent statement to the people of the Province:
"It is a time for Christians of all traditions to renew their faith and confidence in Almighty God that peace with justice for all their traditions can become a reality, if under God we can step forward with a new confidence in each other."
We are only too aware of the complexities and difficulties of the days ahead. There is little room for complacency. There is every need for realism; but our realism must be balanced by hope.
In the days immediately following the ceasefire a message was faxed to the Secretary of the Irish Council of Churches from his counterpart in South Africa. It was an expression of goodwill and prayerful support. It

25
spoke of the grace of God experienced in the midst of the frustrations and difficulties as they set about the task of reconstruction in that land. It ended with the words:
"We can wish our fellow Christians in Ireland no more than to wish for a similar experience of the grace of God at work among the people of that split nation. For this we shall continue to pray. May God strengthen the hands of the peacemakers".
We have seen one miracle this year in South Africa. Just possibly we may be seeing another in Ireland. I am sure that all people of goodwill will join in the prayer: "May God strengthen the hands of the peacemakers".

Iraq and Kuwait
4.2 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Iraq-Kuwait which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend Mr. Douglas Hogg, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission Madam Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the situation in the Gulf. I apologise for the absence of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. He is accompanying Her Majesty the Queen on her state visit to Russia.
"Over the past two weeks we have once again witnessed a serious threat by Saddam Hussein to the state of Kuwait and the stability of the Gulf. On 7th October numerous Iraqi troops, including two divisions of the Republican Guards, began to move towards the Iraqi border with Kuwait. At the same time the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council and other Iraqi Ministers made a number of threatening statements against Kuwait and the United Nations inspection teams.
"In response to a request from the Kuwaitis made on 7th October under the terms of our bilateral defence co-operation arrangement, HMS "Cornwall" arrived in Kuwaiti waters on 9th October. HMS "Cardiff has now joined her. Six Tornado aircraft have been deployed; these are in addition to the six previously in the region and engaged in patrolling the no-fly zone over southern Iraq. Her Majesty's Government have despatched the Spearhead battalion to Kuwait. The total number of UK troops on the ground in Kuwait now numbers over 800, building up to over 1,000 by the end of this week. Over 2,000 personnel will be deployed to the Gulf area.
"In the face of the vigorous action taken by Kuwait's allies, the Iraqis are withdrawing their troops. However, it is too soon to say that the threat has completely subsided. Iraqi troops must return to the positions they held before the start of the present crisis.
"As the House knows, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary visited the region from 11th to 14th October. He and the US Secretary of State met the Foreign Ministers of the Gulf Co-operation Council in Kuwait. There was general condemnation of Iraq's latest actions and agreement on the need to prevent a repetition. There was also widespread
26
concern for the continued suffering of the Iraqi people at the hands of their government. We share that concern. The Iraqi Government has rejected the United Nations offer to allow limited oil exports in return for humanitarian aid. The immediate implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions 706 and 712 would bring huge humanitarian benefit to the Iraqi people.
"In order that sanctions can be lifted, Iraq must comply with all relevant UN resolutions, including the unambiguous recognition of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Kuwait and an end to the repression of its civilian population.
"The Iraqis must not again pose a threat of this kind. We therefore welcome the unanimous adoption on 15th October of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 condemning Iraqi actions on the Kuwaiti border, demanding the immediate withdrawal of troops recently deployed near the border, and further demanding that Iraq does not use again its forces to threaten neighbours or United Nations personnel. This is an important first step. The Iraqi regime must understand that the international community has both the authority and the will to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Kuwait".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.7 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. On these Benches we welcome the decision reached in the Security Council on Saturday evening and support Resolution 949 of the Security Council which requires Iraq to pull back from the zone close to the Kuwait border.
However, what is not entirely clear from the Statement is whether that means all Iraqi troops or just the Republican Guards, the elite forces, as was reported in some newspapers. For those of us who have been unable to obtain a copy of the UN resolution, can the Minister clarify the position? Under the resolution, will any Iraqi troops be able to be deployed near the Kuwait border or none?
In the Statement the Minister said that the Iraqis were withdrawing their troops. Can she give a little more information about their current positions? How many troops have now returned to positions held before the start of the present crisis? How many are still in a position which poses a threat to Kuwait?
Turning to the position of the United Kingdom troops, I repeat the Question put by my noble friend last week in a PNQ. Under whose command and control will they be? Is it to be a NATO command structure? In her reply last week the Minister said that the matter was being discussed in Kuwait at that time. Presumably she can now give the House the answer.
Can the Minister also indicate what action is being taken to eliminate the need to keep British troops in Kuwait on a long-term basis? We support the move to take action to deter Saddam Hussein from aggressive action against Kuwait; but we would find it helpful to know what further diplomatic pressures are being

27
exerted on Iraq to recognise the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Kuwait. For example, could the Minister report on the latest initiatives of the Russian Government in that respect?
No mention is made in the Statement of what will be the position of the UK Government should there be a need for military action against Saddam Hussein. Is it not vital that in such a case there should be a further United Nations resolution? The French and Russian Governments appear to share that view, believing that there should be no pre-emptive strike without a further resolution. The American Government appear to take a different line. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government's position is?
Perhaps I may make our position on these Benches clear on the subject of sanctions. We support provisions which will allow Saddam Hussein to sell limited amounts of oil in exchange for humanitarian aid. The suffering of the Iraqi people is of Saddam Hussein's own making, not that of the United Nations or of members of NATO. There seems to be some misunderstanding about that in the British press and perhaps the Government can do a little more to try to clear that up.
I make it absolutely clear that we support the Statement's position in relation to sanctions. They should be lifted only when Saddam Hussein complies with all the relevant United Nations resolutions, including the unambiguous recognition of Kuwait's sovereignty. We regret only that the Government saw fit to allow the selling of arms to Saddam Hussein and hope that they may have learnt some lessons from that. With respect to the immediate action being taken, we support the Government in the position as set out in the Statement.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we from these Benches also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which is no doubt issued today due to the fact that the Commons have just returned from an extended Recess. Nevertheless, it gives us the opportunity to have a slight update on the position and for that we are grateful.
In general I have nothing to add to or detract from what was said by my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth at the time of the Private Notice Question last week. I shall therefore confine myself to the additional information contained in the Statement. My questions revolve around the adoption of Council Resolution 949 and the negotiations that took place around that time. I believe that we should go on record—I am sure it will be welcomed on all sides of the House—in commending the excellent job done by Sir David Hannay in the Security Council. He was present during the difficult time when it appeared at one stage as though the alliance was going to start fraying at the edges; when the Russians in particular seemed to be straying from the straight and narrow. Great credit is due to him and his staff for getting the show back on the road.
I concur with what the noble Baroness said in relation to misunderstandings in the British press regarding the ability of Saddam Hussein to obtain humanitarian aid in connection with sales of oil. It is important that that
28
should be stated more clearly, not only in the British press but also to ensure that the press in the Arab world understands what the position is. The danger of misunderstanding among Arab countries in the Middle East is extremely serious. We must remember that at some stage in the future, when Saddam Hussein moves off the scene, we hope to be able to resume our good relations with the people of Iraq with whom this country had a close association for many years. Unfortunately at the moment it appears as though we in the West are deliberately targeting our attacks on the people of Iraq when, as we know, that is far from the truth. However, that is not always apparent in the Middle East.
The difficult situation has been met with determination, patience and some very good thinking on the part of the British Government and the Security Council, and that is to be welcomed.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. Let me try to respond to their questions as quickly as possible. I will furnish the noble Baroness with a copy of the resolution after our discussion this afternoon, but let me say this. In the key part of the resolution, which comes under Chapter VII of the Charter of the UN, the Security Council condemns the recent military deployments by Iraq. Secondly, it demands that Iraq immediately complete the withdrawal of all military units recently deployed to southern Iraq to their original positions; it demands that Iraq does not again utilise its military or any other forces in a military or provocative manner to threaten either its neighbours or United Nations operations in Iraq; it demands that Iraq should not redeploy to the south the units I referred to in the second point or take any other action to enhance its military capacity in Southern Iraq; it further demands that Iraq co-operates fully with the United Nations Special Commission; and, finally, it decides to remain actively seized of the matter. I hope that that clarifies Resolution 949. It also answers the point made by the noble Baroness in regard to Iraqi troops returning to their former positions.
In relation to the position of the Russian Government, I understand from the Statement that was issued after the visit of Foreign Minister Kozyrev to Baghdad on 13th October that the Russians will support a fixed probationary period for the operation of long-term monitoring after Iraq officially recognises the sovereignty of Kuwait and its borders. I understand further that Mr. Kozyrev is addressing the Security Council this afternoon in New York and we shall know more about their position following that speech. We understand that Russia believes six months is an adequate time for verifying the Iraqi intentions. It agrees that the situation must be reviewed. But we should be a little wary of predetermining the length of the probationary period for that ties up our own troops and those of America, France and the Gulf states if we have to wait six months to see whether Iraq complies.
The noble Baroness asked what our forces were doing. I can say that they have taken up positions which will contribute to the defence of Kuwait, if that were necessary, and they continue to exercise with Kuwaiti and American forces. They will remain in the Gulf for

29
as long as they are required to underpin regional security. The UK forces will remain under national command at all times but, as in the Gulf war, the units may be placed under the control of US commanders for day-to-day tasks as the situation requires. I do not see any insuperable problems with that as we have been through all that before.
The noble Baroness further asked, as did the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that the Government make quite clear not only to the British press, but also to the press across the world, that we expect full compliance with all the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. She agreed that what has happened in relation to the Iraqi people is entirely the responsibility of Saddam Hussein himself. As I said when responding last week to the PNQ, Saddam Hussein rejected two United Nations offers to allow limited oil exports in return for humanitarian aid. One was the 706/712 mechanism and the other was the flushing out of the Iraq-Turkey pipeline which Turkey desires but which Saddam Hussein refused to do. Either of those options would have brought huge humanitarian benefit to the Iraqi people. I agree with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord and I can say that we have attempted to make these matters quite clear to the press. But, as she will be aware, it is not always the facts of a situation that are printed.
Perhaps I may say further that diplomatic pressures continue. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his comments in relation to the British Ambassador to the United Nations, Sir David Hannay. Throughout the time that he has been in New York he has been coping with elements of the Gulf situation in a most forthright but understanding and effective way. We do indeed owe him a real debt.
There is much to be done to ensure that the people of Iraq obtain the help that they need. We shall continue to support the efforts of the United Nations and non-governmental organisations which are allowed to operate in Iraq. But the plight of the Iraqi people can be rectified only when Saddam Hussein accepts Resolution 706/712 and all the other resolutions.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has answered the questions. However, she has not answered one particularly important question regarding the British Government's position with respect to the need for a further UN resolution should military action be required against Iraq.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness and to the House. I believe that another resolution may be needed but no decision has been taken. Certainly, if it clarified the situation in some way that was necessary, we would have no objection to that. But the most important point is that at this moment we do not believe a further resolution is needed. Should that become necessary I am sure it will happen forthwith.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not a fact that while the present emergency has been successfully
30
overcome—and Her Majesty's Government have been very helpful in so doing—the situation will remain dangerous as long as Saddam Hussein is there?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend in his comment. The Iraqi National Congress has been making efforts to form a united representative opposition to Saddam's regime. We cannot decide the future for the Iraqis but we certainly can make sure that we remain in contact with them and help them to try to assert their democratic rights.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that the relevant UN resolutions include those requiring the Iraqi Government to lift their blockade of the Kurdish regions and to stop attacking and persecuting the Marsh Arabs?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the answer is yes in both cases.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Government point out to the Russians that, if a time limit is imposed, as they have suggested, of, say, six months after the compliance of Iraq with the resolutions and the acceptance of the frontiers, that will make life very easy for Saddam Hussein because all he will have to do is wait until the six months expire and the troops have all gone home and then renew the threat again?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, on that point I agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, one point arising out of the Statement bothers me a little. It calls for a further resolution before any steps are taken under certain circumstances. We know that getting such a resolution often takes a lot of time. If things happen which mean that that delay could be dangerous, I would not like to feel that we are committed under all circumstances to getting another resolution before we can act.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I did not intend to imply to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in answering her question that we had to have a further resolution. We believe that we could take action at the present time under the previous resolutions and Resolution No. 949. But there may be a change in the situation and therefore the noble Baroness was quite right to mention that. That might be necessary. However, I can assure my noble friend that, with Sir David Hannay at the helm in New York, I have no doubt that we will be all too well prepared should the need arise.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give an indication of what steps the Gulf Co-operation Council has been taking to help Kuwait, whether in deployment or financially, and whether there will be any assistance with the additional costs which Her Majesty's Government will bear on deploying the forces to the theatre?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I know that the Gulf Co-operation Council has already agreed

31
on burden sharing in principle. It is still working on the details since the meeting which was attended by the Foreign Secretary on Wednesday of last week. The total cost has yet to be quantified but I may say that our troops are receiving generous support from the host nation. Recalling the generous contribution made by our Gulf friends in 1991, I am quite sure that they would do no less on this occasion. There are still matters to be worked out but there has been no reluctance whatsoever on the part of the Gulf Co-operation Council to support what the Americans, ourselves and others are prepared to do in defence of Kuwait.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Statement which raises some interesting points. I should like some clarification on one point particularly and would ask her to comment on another one as well. Last week we were concerned to hear on the Private Notice Question that no command and control mechanisms were at that time in place. This afternoon we are informed that less than half of the spearhead battalion has arrived in theatre 10 days after the initial request from Kuwait. What is the explanation for that apparent tardiness? Why did it take a spearhead battalion—presumably a rapid reaction battalion—10 days to get less than half its men to the theatre of action, bearing in mind that in 10 days at an average of 10 miles per hour a tank force could progress 2,500 miles, which, far less Kuwait, would take it well into Saudi Arabia? My second point was not mentioned in the Statement but it has been reported in the press that the United Nations resolutions under which sanctions are imposed on Iraq have been complied with by the Iraqi regime and therefore the legitimate basis for sanctions no longer pertains. Given that it has been reported in the press, I am sure we would all welcome the Minister's comments on that report.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I find the noble Lord's questions somewhat surprising. I made it quite clear this afternoon that we had agreed last week that UK forces would remain under national command at all times but that they might, as in the Gulf war, be placed for certain duties at certain times under US command. The noble Lord went on to criticise what he thought was the tardiness of the deployment of the UK forces. It is perfectly true that there are nearly 1,000 spearhead troops—ground troops—in position but he may remember that when I answered the PNQ last week I told him that within 48 hours of the request from Kuwait we had already deployed HMS "Cornwall" and HMS "Cardiff was already under way at that moment and in fact had arrived almost before I had finished answering the PNQ. Given that there are some 30,000 United States troops being deployed in the region, our men are getting there with the equipment they need. And of course there are the 12 Tornados and other support aircraft. So there was certainly no tardiness in the deployment of the UK forces.
The noble Lord asked about United Nations sanctions. Iraq has not complied with the UN sanctions. Saddam Hussein continues to have an abysmal record on all these matters. We have made that clear time and
32
again, as I did in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, earlier this afternoon. Let there be absolutely no doubt. It is Saddam Hussein who will not comply with the United Nations resolutions. Sanctions will not be lifted until the Iraqi regime ends its repression against its own people in line with Resolution No. 688 as well as its aggressive action against Kuwait.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I wish to ask my noble friend two questions. Does she not agree that regrettably the pigeons seem to have come home to roost in as much as this horrible man has held the allies to ransom? He can take whatever action he seems to want to take, at any time, and thereby cause considerable inconvenience to the West. Does she not agree that had the policy of hot pursuit been permitted to General Schwarzkopf at the time when he had this tyrant on the run we would not be in this position today? On the surrender of Iraq, General Schwarzkopf accepted the signature of surrender from some underlings of this man rather than from Saddam himself. If we had insisted on doing that at least he might have been taken into custody and made to answer for the revolting war crimes which he is believed to have perpetrated. May we be reassured that, if by any chance we have to face or enter into hostilities again with this rotten man, these principles will be remembered and perhaps put into effect?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am mindful of what my noble friend says. However, in these situations it is extremely easy to have what I term 20-20 hindsight. At the time there is no doubt that those who were in command of the situation believed that it would not have been right to have pursued Saddam Hussein to Baghdad, because that is what would have been involved. I know that there would have been a very different situation in this country had we, the Americans, the French and others suffered substantial casualties, which undoubtedly would have been the result of trying to get to Saddam Hussein who remains to this day so completely protected by the revolutionary guard that it would be a very major task indeed. I believe that my noble friend underestimates just what that task is. I note what he said about Saddam Hussein's signature, but I was not privy as to why General Schwarzkopf took somebody else's signature. I shall try to find out and let my noble friend know.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, perhaps for a minute I may introduce a slightly discordant note into these exchanges. There is no good reason why the noble Baroness should remember that I was one of few Members in another place who was very doubtful about the action that was taken at the time of the Kuwait-Iraq conflict. Is there not the danger at the present time that we are about to become involved in a tragic farce? There is absolutely no possibility, as Sir Peter De La Billière said, of Saddam Hussein obeying any United Nation's resolution. Can the noble Baroness picture a situation where Saddam Hussein withdraws his troops to their original bases, we bring home our troops and the French

33
and Americans go home, and Saddam Hussein moves forward again? The situation will continue like that unless there is a different approach to this problem.
I have admiration and respect for the noble Baroness, but we cannot go on saying that the death of children through a lack of medicine—while we know that that is the responsibility of Saddam Hussein because of his actions—can be excused by merely saying that it is Saddam Hussein's fault. We must really have another look at this question to see whether there is some diplomatic method through which this matter can be solved.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, given that the noble Lord has been obviously doubtful about the action taken by the allies for as long as three-and-a-half years now, I am anxious that I should learn from him what his possible solution is since nobody—I believe that I speak for all sides of the House in saying this—has come up with any better solution than that deployed by the allies. So I invite him to come and tell me quietly and privately what his ideas are and if they are feasible we shall look at them.
As regards the noble Lord's last point, it is ridiculous to talk about the West being responsible in any way for the state of the children of Iraq. The United Kingdom alone has contributed over £66 million to the United Nation's aid programme. I have just set aside another £10 million this year for drugs and help to those who are most vulnerable. However much the outside world gives, there is no way that all the people who need help will get it when Saddam Hussein himself has been spending Iraq's foreign currency on military procurement, ostentatious construction projects and luxury items for his entourage. That is a sure sign of the blatant disregard which he has for the ordinary people of Iraq, whatever we may do.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one further question of the noble Baroness since the Back Benchers seem to have had their turn. I read a report today saying that there has been the transportation of chemical and biological weapons to those areas where troops are presently deployed in Basra and Nasiriyah. This report comes from a source which is not necessarily reliable; namely, the Supreme Council for Islamic Resistance in Iraq which is based in Tehran. But since this rumour is floating about, it should either be killed or something should be done about it.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I too have seen the report, but I know no more. I can only say that we shall look into it. If there is anything that I have to tell the noble Lord I shall write to him.

Northern Ireland: Recent Developments
4.35 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, perhaps we may return to the subject of Northern Ireland. I start by reiterating what has been said by every speaker so far and that is my delight that there is now no violence going on in Northern Ireland after so many years. That is the
34
greatest pleasure and delight to everybody. I am sure that everyone will join me and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition in paying a tribute to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in this regard. He alone among Prime Ministers over the past years has created conditions in which this situation has arisen. Enormous credit is due to him.
However, it is also fair to say that credit is due to successive British Governments over the past 25 years, of whichever party, because they have at last got it into the heads of the IRA that the British people will not give way to violence. A great many people have made that mistake over many centuries, but they should know by now that we do not give way to violence. The real pity is that it has taken so many years and cost so many lives—many of them innocent lives—to get that message through to the IRA. However, that has been accomplished and now we are all looking to the future.
I also agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that the first essential for the British Government is to establish the real thinking behind the IRA and Sinn Fein. Many voices are saying, "The shooting and the bombing have stopped; you must get on with political discussions immediately". Those voices come from Ireland, overseas, from the United States, and from Mr. Adams. All kinds of people are saying that, but I believe that the Government are right to be cautious.
Perhaps noble Lords will consider the following. Which of us would be happy to sit down and conduct negotiations with somebody who has been trying to get something from us by force but who then says "Well, I would like to talk about it instead" yet who refuses to say that he will start again if he does not get everything he wants? I believe that that is called blackmail, is it not? Is not blackmail demanding money with menaces?
Mr Adams is not demanding money, but he has made plenty of demands. Nobody can deny that the menaces are not there. The IRA has enormous quantities of weapons stashed away somewhere. Furthermore, they have a large number of people who are skilled in using those weapons. They are still about. Who knows, but that they may one day say, "We are going to start again". That is why I believe it is absolutely essential that the Government are satisfied that the real intention of Sinn Fein and the other paramilitaries is to talk, to see whether progress can be made and to accept, if necessary—and it will be necessary—a way forward which will not give them everything that they want. If the Government can so satisfy themselves—and I hope that they can—then, as the right reverend Prelate said a moment ago, the real difficulties start.
A great many people seem to think that this trouble has been going on for 25 years. Oh no! Not 25 years. Not even 70 years. Not long after I was appointed to Northern Ireland I was having an informal conversation with some Ulstermen. They were not political activists, just ordinary Ulstermen pursuing their careers and businesses in the ordinary way. I said to them that I did not know how long I would be their Secretary of State. I did not know whether it would be two years, three years or four years. I said that I did not know how much I could do in that quite short time to solve a problem

35
that as far as I could see had been going on for 400 years. One of the Ulstermen interrupted me. He said: "Oh no, Secretary of State, not 400 years; 800 years". Whether he was right or not, I cannot say, but everyone knows that the political differences between the two traditions are long-standing and wide.
One of the disadvantages of the differences being so long-standing is that these difficulties are more or less ingrained into the people from birth. I am sorry to say that there is another one that I would mention. It is that many people are frightened. I do not mean frightened of being shot or blown up. The Ulster people are much too robust and brave for that. They carry on with their ordinary lives and have done for all these years despite all those difficulties. What I mean is that they are frightened of the future.
People of the nationalist tradition are frightened that one day the British Government will succumb to the voices that come from this country—I am sorry to say that some of them come from my own party—and say, "Oh, you must run Northern Ireland just as if it were Sussex or Derbyshire". In other words, they must have local authorities with a great deal of power. The nationalist tradition had that as well as Stormont. They know that what happens if one does that in Northern Ireland is that they are discriminated against. There is no doubt about it. In the days of Stormont and the straightforward system of electing local authorities, they were. I am sorry to say that even when I was there 15 years ago it was still happening.
Local authorities in my day had, and they still have, very little power, but I can think immediately of two examples where a Unionist-dominated local authority sought to exercise its tiny powers against Catholics. That is only 15 years ago. So it is no wonder that those people of the nationalist tradition in the Province who fear that that may happen are frightened. On the other hand, those of the Unionist tradition too are frightened. Although they do not need to be, they are, because they think that one day a British government will say, "We wash our hands of the whole lot of you. Join the rest of Ireland and get on with it".
As I know, and as I am sure all my predecessors and successors know, in Northern Ireland one has to start every speech by saying that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland will not be changed except by the will of the majority. If one does not say that, one is asked why one does not say it. In fact it must be clear, I would hope, to everyone that that is never going to happen. It has been reinforced most recently by the Prime Minister. I am glad to see that the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party agrees with that. But my point is that for those two reasons those two traditions are frightened of the future.
If you are frightened and you are in a moderately safe place, even though it may not be as comfortable as you would like, and someone asks you to move, you do not, do you? You stay in your hole because it is safer. When these discussions take place, everyone will have to move a bit. No one will get everything that they want. Everyone has to move, and persuading frightened people to move is very difficult. So I think that there is no
36
question about it: these discussions, when they take place, as I hope they will, will be very, very prolonged. Anyone who believes that the discussions can solve so long-standing a problem in two or three months will be gravely disappointed. I hope expectations that that can be done will not be built up because that will not help, it will only hinder. The discussions will take a very long time.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have to dig deep into his reserves of patience. Luckily he has them. I know that My goodness, he will need them. I cannot foresee or tell the Government what the outcome of these discussions should be. As the right reverend Prelate and others have said, this must be to a large extent for the people of Northern Ireland themselves. It is not for me or any of your Lordships. All that we can do is to thank heavens that the atmosphere is such that the discussions can, I believe, start soon, and give every support that we possibly can to those conducting them.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I too welcome the opportunity to participate in this most important debate following the announcements by Provisional Sinn Fein, the Provisional IRA, and the combined Loyalist military command, to cease all operational hostilities. First we should give credit and thanks to Ministers, both in the Republic and the United Kingdom, to the Province's politicians and to Church leaders in Northern Ireland. There is, as a result, unbounded national relief. The possibility of a permanent peace has been an unbelievable happening to those in Northern Ireland. We all hope sincerely that we have seen the end of Provisional IRA and Ulster Volunteer Force terrorism in our country.
The Official Opposition in Parliament have recently reaffirmed their historic commitment to the unification of Ireland by consent. They support the principles contained in the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which states that there can be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority of its people and that it is for the people of Ireland alone to exercise their right of self-determination, and they welcome the Irish Government's recognition that that right must be exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
I believe that every word of that statement will be endorsed by Her Majesty's Government. That is of paramount important at this crucial time of peace-seeking. It is now clear beyond doubt that Parliament stands four square behind the democratic principle of that self-determination, and that there is a clear bipartisan policy on that stand. Therefore neither the Provisional IRA nor the Ulster Volunteer Force can exploit any differences between the main political parties if and when the constitutional talks begin.
It is also patently clear that Provo terrorism's goal of a united Ireland is unlikely to be achieved and, in the Taoiseach's words, not even in a generation's time. I believe not in the foreseeable future. With that being understood by all political parties, and that fact

37
gradually sinking in to the minds of the Provisional IRA's hawks, the cautious attitude of Her Majesty's Government is eminently sensible.
We must not underestimate the great problems that lie ahead. So far, a ceasefire has been declared by the Proves and the Loyalists. This could well be only a temporary halt in the Provos' campaign. The advent of peace in the Province is dependent upon them. The Loyalists have been the reactors, and their recent increased militant reactions could well have forced Provisional Sinn Fein to the negotiating table. We must also bear in mind that no permanent ceasefire has so far been announced. Gerry Adams will not use the word, because he cannot guarantee it. Provisional Sinn Fein has not laid down its arms. The Provos are on a command of wait and see, fingers on triggers and safety catches, and sitting on an arsenal of 1,000 Kalashnikovs, two tonnes of Semtex, machine guns and rocket launchers.
The UDA and the UVF waited six weeks before making their cessation announcements, fearing that the Provos' statement could well have been another tactical weapon, a device for rest and consolidation. Some still believe it will prove to be that. But I believe that the Prime Minister's announcement of a referendum on the future of Northern Ireland has undoubtedly helped. Therefore, will the Government discuss disarmament first and prevent the threat of a renewal of violence from hanging over the talks? The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have a pistol at his head, the Provisional Sinn Fein will want to make progress for the Provos; constitutional concessions or else. If there is a "working assumption" that the ceasefire is real why not all disarm—the Provisional IRA and the Loyalist military groups—and call upon the INLA to do the same? I believe that the first call should be, "Lay down your arms".
The Provisional Sinn Fein must be made aware of the feelings of the majority of the electorate. Northern Ireland is a democracy, not a dictatorship. Provisional Sinn Fein could have campaigned democratically to increase its political profile and democratic strength peacefully and without the violence of its military arm. It is still free to do so and if its policies gain political credence its democratic strength will be enhanced. That is the democratic path that Provisional Sinn Fein should now announce and take.
We—and especially the Americans—must recognise that the Provisional IRA is not the Irish Republican Army but a military breakaway group whose objective is to obtain a united Ireland by force; Brits out of the Province first and then take on the South. That was hinted at by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. The Provisional IRA has still not renounced that objective. Furthermore, the Irish National Liberation Army is another splinter group of the Provisional IRA and has been determined to prove more militant than the Provos. It is not interested in constitutional talks, no announcement has been made of a ceasefire and it remains a loose and dangerous cannon in the Province.
38
Where do we draw the line showing that terrorism does not pay? The loyalists have seen that Provisional Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, has successfully bombed its way past the ballot box. What will their reaction be if Provo advances are made? They are still suspicious of secret deals. How will the UVF and the UDA be involved, especially knowing that their concern that a foreign country is interfering in their country's affairs? They will want to be involved. If the talks founder, if the Provos are not satisfied and believe that they have been let down and possibly fooled, will they not raise their arms again? A united Ireland is still their goal. Therefore, it is imperative that, even if talks are delayed, consideration is given to a surrender of arms, lifting the threat of killing.
Of course, there is an allied problem. Can Provisional Sinn Fein carry the Provo hawks with them? They are the ruthless criminals, the mafia men who are rich on rackets—protection rackets, black taxis, drug smuggling and dealing —which are all run and controlled from the barrel of a gun. In due course, that problem must be faced too.
We shall be constantly on a knife edge as these talks get under way. A Provisional Sinn Fein official recently threatened that if there was no agreement with Her Majesty's Government—really, on its terms—a new generation of Provos might "act very differently". And, as I have said, all weapons are still at hand.
I believe that Her Majesty's Government have been absolutely right in urging caution as regards the question of the ceasefire. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said:
"We are not satisfied at the moment. We do not know for sure that we will ever be satisfied ✶ I think a lot of caution is in order from us. After all, it is our country's people who have suffered. We are going to be cautious and not seize upon the first opportunity to suppose that these people have given up violence for good".
That statement has my total and unfettered support.
With that sensible cautionary stance, I also urge that the Government go slow—if there is any movement at all—on the constitutional changes which may dent or destroy the symbolically important Government of Ireland Act 1920. I am aware of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Downing Street Declaration, enshrining the principle of consent. But I ask the Government not to tamper with the 1920 Act as I believe that serious consequences will follow, for it is the bedrock of consolidation for the Province. I say that because it is unlikely that Albert Reynolds will agree to an unambiguous commitment to remove Articles 2 and 3 from the Republic's constitution, which is its claim to jurisdiction over the whole of the island of Ireland.
When the two governments produce their framework document, which will be the basis on which the talks will take place, there is bound to be a list of demands. Although the generally agreed objective of a devolved democratic institution will be constantly in mind, the likely early demand from Provisional Sinn Fein to obtain some satisfaction for the Provisional IRA will be British troops off the streets and back into the barracks, with prospects of amnesty and prisoner paroles and releases. Therefore, we can foresee a long, wearisome,

39
sensitive and difficult series of meetings treading a path between the two basic desires of Unionists and Nationalists. The Unionists will have no truck with hints of a united Ireland and the Provisional Sinn Fein will want to see a united Ireland on the horizon: otherwise, to them, all will have been lost.
Finding common ground will be a difficult task. I believe that for many months the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has patiently, skilfully and quietly helped to bring us to the prospect of peace in Northern Ireland. His undoubted special legal skills will be required in the months ahead. He knows that he has total parliamentary backing in his endeavours.
Perhaps I may conclude by quoting from the Loyalist Military Command's cessation of operations statement. It states:
"Let us firmly resolve to respect our differing views of freedom, culture and aspirations, and never again permit our political circumstances to degenerate into bloody warfare".
We can all say "Amen" to that.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I too thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for instigating this debate at such a timely moment. Following the Loyalist ceasefire announced only last Thursday, it is even more timely. What prescience.
Among the many who will welcome the developments of the past few weeks will be the men and women of the Armed Forces. During the past 25 years they have been involved in a constant round of emergency tours in Northern Ireland. It is gratifying and a privilege to be able to echo the praise of the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal for all the skill, courage, dedication and commitment which have been the hallmark of the security services during so many years. Nor shall we easily forget the hundreds of servicemen and women who were murdered or injured as they went about their dangerous and difficult tasks. Let us hope that their sacrifice and that of all the other victims of violence will not have been in vain and that peace and prosperity will be found for the Province.
I believe that the Government are absolutely right to approach the new developments with caution and circumspection. Once lowered, even for a short period of time, our security arrangements could not be resurrected instantaneously to full effectiveness. We must of course not forget that the role of the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland is in support of the civil authorities. The Armed Forces have helped to contain the security dangers. Of themselves, they could never achieve a lasting solution to the problem of Northern Ireland. That has been and will always remain a political issue for resolution.
All of us will wish to see the police able to support and maintain law and order without having to be supported by the Armed Forces. But we should not underestimate their task. Even if the bullet and the bomb have been given up, how far will the extremist elements go to maintain their influence and finances by
40
intimidation, thuggery and robbery? Such crimes lie fully in the domain of the police, so they will continue to be hard pressed.
However, scope for Service reductions in the emergency tours and in the large-scale deployment of troops and helicopters in the Province could materialise soon. I am sure that the Ministry of Defence planners have those possibilities very much in mind. But I am sure also that they and the Government have no intention of responding to the ridiculous demands of Sinn Fein that all troops should be withdrawn from the Province and even that there should be not a single soldier remaining. It is outrageous that any parallel should be drawn between the murderous operations of the IRA and the essential activities of the Services in support of the police. Adams was reported to have repeated that demand only last week. I hope that the Government will continue to make absolutely clear their position on that issue.
I hope too that the Government will give the most careful consideration to the size and shape of the defence units and establishments which should form the long-term peacetime Service presence in the Province for so long as it remains a part of the United Kingdom. As elsewhere in the United Kingdom, Service units should undertake training and exercises in Northern Ireland, both flying and ground, demonstrating to those who have representation in Parliament the normal peacetime activities of their Armed Forces.
Indeed, it would be marvellous if we could build in the excellent arrangements which our search and rescue helicopters enjoy in the Republic when they are operating in the South-West Approaches and the eastern Atlantic. Should we perhaps not contemplate joint training and exercises with the Republic, possibly in a United Nations context, in which one day we may be possibly be asked to work together in some distant trouble spot? Apart from any military benefit, such arrangements would do much to strengthen ties across the Border.
I recognise, with the draw-down in the Armed Forces and with the turbulence that has followed in the wake of the series of defence reviews and defence cost studies, that now is not an easy moment to contemplate further adjustments to take account of the need to deploy units and to undertake normal peace-time training in the Province. But I hope that the Government will think carefully about the contribution to normalisation which should and can be made by the Armed Forces as the future for the Province unfolds. I hope that Ministers will soon be able to make clear their position in that regard.
5.5 p.m.
The Marquess of Downshire: My Lords, although I have never given the nomenclature of my speech a second thought, it has occurred to me that the word "maiden" is delicate, which leads me to believe that your Lordships will, in your customary fashion, give me a quiet over.
Perhaps I may say how indebted we are to my noble friend the Leader of the House for tabling this Motion. For my part, I felt compelled to take part for a variety

41
of reasons, not least because of my family ties with the Province, and also because I believe that the events which have brought us to the present position need to be examined full)' so that further progress can be made.
It would be fair to say that Ireland as a whole, as other noble Lords have said, has had a turbulent history and that fact has been emphasised by its continuance in Ulster. There are a multiplicity of reasons for that phenomenon, although some try to award part of the blame to the equivocal manner in which Ireland has been treated successively by England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom. I would not subscribe entirely to that view, although I believe that, in establishing a link between England and Ireland, fundamental mistakes were made at the start which are taking many centuries to resolve.
But surely the overriding issue is the establishment of peace in Northern Ireland, allied to the paramount need to give the people a political voice so that they can be heard and thereby take their rightful place in the Union, if it is to be that, and in the wider context of the world order.
It would be quite wrong if the strenuous lengths to which the United Kingdom has gone in endeavouring to preserve the status quo in Northern Ireland as regards its position in the Union were to be jeopardised by hasty moves on the part of any of the participants in those on-going multilateral talks. However, somebody must hold the ring and produce a formula which will be acceptable to all parties. It seems to me that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's suggestion that a referendum could be held in the Province to decide the key issue—that is, whether it is the wish of the electorate to remain in the United Kingdom—is a possible way of establishing its will. Such a process would be both speedy and overtly democratic and would start the process of determining the future of the Province. At the same time, the leaders of the indigenous parties making up the spectrum of Ulster politics must be encouraged to gather round the table in an endeavour to reach at least a compromise which may lead in turn to a more permanent agreement.
Your Lordships may say that that is premature prior to the holding of a referendum. But I believe that, whatever the outcome of the ballot, a need for co-operation will still exist.
Of course, it is inevitable that there are those who pay only lip service to the peace accord. But I believe that the longer both ceasefires prevail, the greater the opportunity for those mavericks to see the advantages which will emerge. At the same time, your Lordships may say that time does not stand still and there is a compelling need for action to placate that element of the electorate. On that valid point, does the opportunity not present itself quite soon to indicate at the very least how a democratic framework for the Province might look?
In saying that, I should like to see the representatives of those organisations who are truly identified with the Six Counties invited to participate. I believe that that is the policy of the United Kingdom Government. For their part, I should like to see a token of the UK Government's earnest in the shape of a solid intention to withdraw that proportion of the Armed Forces from
42
the Province which is over and above what is required for the defence of the realm. However, I would not advocate any move in that direction unless an arms amnesty was announced simultaneously.
There is no doubt that the joint declaration marks a sea change in contemporary Irish politics. The opportunity it affords for all who hold both the Province and Ireland as a whole most dear they will ignore at their peril.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, on behalf of the House, I should like to express our pleasure at the speech just made by the noble Marquess. His family ties are with a most important and beautiful part of Northern Ireland, but also a part of Ireland where the Troubles have shown themselves not only in recent years but over the centuries. The right reverend Prelate spoke earlier and said that it is most important—indeed, it is vitally necessary—that those with a knowledge of Northern Ireland, and not from outside as with many of us, should speak on such matters. He was absolutely correct. It is only in Northern Ireland that the matter will be resolved. The family ties of the noble Marquess are with Northern Ireland. We listened to him with great interest and I hope that we shall hear from him again. Perhaps I may just apologise for arriving late this afternoon. I consulted the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition and other Ministers because I knew that I would be late due to the fact that I had an engagement in my old constituency which, as chairman of a charity, I felt that I had to attend.
As a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I should like to pick up one point that came from my successors. They said how important it is that there should be a bipartisan policy on Northern Ireland. Of course, policy and political considerations on other issues are very important, but they are partisan in a contrived sort of way. There must never be that sort of thing with regard to Northern Ireland as there was, though perhaps not contrived, 100 years ago in this House, as the picture on the wall in the Corridor outside shows; namely, the division in the rest of the United Kingdom in relation to politics in Northern Ireland was real and had a great effect on one of the major political parties of the day. That is certainly not something that we should emulate today.
One could try to suggest what has brought Sinn Fein and thus the IRA to their present position. Perhaps they took the advice that I am sure was given to successive Secretaries of State—indeed, it certainly was to me— that there is no military solution in Northern Ireland. If there is no military solution for the Army, there is no military solution for the IRA or the other paramilitary groups. I do not know why such a debate should arise now. With the Loyalists I have some idea. I have had contact, although not in the past two or three years with, oddly enough, the Loyalist paramilitaries. I believe that what has affected them is the realisation, as a result of what the Government and Mr. Molyneaux have said, that there is no deal and that the position of the Union is not at risk.

43
I know that my noble friend Lord Donaldson met Mr. Gusty Spence in the Maze, as I did. He is remarkable man. He was in prison for the murder of a Catholic barman and received an 18-year sentence. My noble friend Lord Fitt knows Mr. Gusty Spence as a cult figure in the Loyalist areas. He has played a part in the matter. We should recognise that fact; indeed, the words that he used were most moving.
On the Union, I have never changed my mind since first confronted with the Ulster workers' strike when the majority community combined together. People tell me that, "You can't hand over Northern Ireland because you have no power to do so". That is so. It would be utterly impossible to hand over Northern Ireland to the South. It might look good on paper, but it could not possibly be done. But, equally, the minority cannot be ignored. Northern Ireland is a place apart, albeit a part of Ireland.
To talk about devolution in the context of devolution for Wales or for Scotland is misconceived. For one thing, the Border is in the wrong place. Of course, there is no right place; but it is in the wrong place. That is something of an Irish-ism. If that were not so, "devolution" would be much easier. As I said, Northern Ireland is a place apart. How the matter of the Union and the position of Northern Ireland can be handled is really at the heart of everything that will be discussed in the months and years ahead.
The Irish Taoiseach has made a helpful statement on the matter, as was pointed out by a previous speaker. However, I have noticed that the leader of Sinn Fein disagreed with it. That raises an issue which will arise time and again during the months ahead. Who speaks for the Irish Government? Is it the Taoiseach and the Tainaiste (the deputy Prime Minister), or is it the leader of Sinn Fein with about 2.5 per cent. of the votes in Northern Ireland but nevertheless with military backing?
I met the IRA with the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, in Phoenix Park at dusk one evening. One gets an eerie feeling in Phoenix Park. At the end of the discussion— and I do not know whether I have ever told my noble friend Lord Fitt this —Mr. Wilson, as he was at the time, raised the question of the position of Gerry Fitt; for example, was his life at risk? He said, "Politicians don't worry us, the men with the guns are the ones that count". Therefore, the IRA do count, as do the Loyalist paramilitaries.
The Union is the stumbling block. As I said, I have met members of the IRA; indeed, I met them twice. My officials talked with them for a long period at the end of 1974 and during the greater part of 1975. The notes of those meetings are available. I looked through them to see what was discussed. At the end of the day what broke up those meetings was the fact that nothing could be given on the Union. The discussion was about how to return to normal life. For example, would they be allowed to carry guns? The answer I gave was that they would have to go to the police station and obtain a licence if they wanted to protect their lives. It is not easy for people on either side who have been involved in killing over the years. They must be afraid that someone will come to their home in the Ardoyne, or wherever, and fire through the front door. It will not be easy to
44
bring about the end of violence in Northern Ireland. The problem is how to get back to normal life. As my noble friend Lord Mason pointed out, there are those on easy money; for example, the shebeens and so on.
My father was a Welsh coalminer but also a soldier in the Irish Brigade. He was present at the 1916 Easter Rising before he returned to France and fought there in an Irish brigade against the Germans. That is a most curious situation to be in. In 1922, at the end of the Black and Tans, let us never forget that one-half of the IRA went for peace while the other half continued with the civil war. There were more people killed in Ireland in 1922 than had ever been killed with the Black and Tans and the British Army.
History lies low over the Province. One keeps thinking about these things and perhaps one should not, but at least one has to bear them in mind when undertaking talks in the 1990s. In looking at my papers I noted that the other matter that was discussed was releases from prisons. In my day there was detention. I wanted to get rid of detention because I regarded it as a mistake. We ended detention but ending detention is a good deal easier than dealing with people who are properly sentenced through the courts. There is the parole scheme and the use of the Royal prerogative. In my view those matters can be handled in the course of time.
I believe we can also handle the role of the Army. In my day, and in the days of my predecessor Secretaries of State, the Army was not in support of the civil power. The RUC was not a good police force. It had degenerated into a paramilitary force. It was at the end of my time and at the beginning of the time of the noble Lord, Lord Mason, that the position was reversed after the police had been given larger numbers of men and had received training in normal police work. They are now one of the best police forces in the United Kingdom, but that was not the case at the time to which I have referred.
However, the Army is in support of the civil power now. It is not difficult to reduce the role of the Army and in many ways that is happening already. As regards the emergency battalions, if there were more transport aircraft they could return home but get back to Northern Ireland in a matter of hours. However, as I said, the role of the Army can be dealt with, as can the role of the emergency provisions Act in Northern Ireland. That is not a difficult matter. I noticed that one of the Members of the coalition of the Irish Government, Dick Spring, has announced that he will suggest in the Cabinet—I believe this is referred to as open government—that the relaxation of the rule of law as regards the arrest of members of the paramilitary forces should be ended. Let us never forget that the Irish Government had the most stringent methods of arresting members of the paramilitary forces, but if we used those methods in Northern Ireland there would be the devil to pay. Nevertheless those methods are used in the South of Ireland.
One could not repeat my next comment in Northern Ireland because people would think it was something one wished to do, but if ever there were a united Ireland, I tell your Lordships that the paramilitary forces on both

45
sides would be dealt with in a very harsh manner, if what happens in the South of Ireland at the moment is anything to go by.
In my view the stumbling block is the Union. I admire the Secretary of State. One must not mention people who work for him but his Permanent Under-Secretary was once my secretary and I have a great regard for him. Those people will have put their mind to these matters. I do not know when; the idea of a forum in the South of Ireland will fit in. It appears there is to be a forum again and some of the parties from the North will be invited to participate. I know straight away what the answer will be as regards some of those parties. However, others will attend. Must the forum finish its discussions before there are other discussions in which the British and Irish Governments participate? There will have to be discussion and of course once the discussions start—this is apparent from the papers I have been considering— the Irish Government and the British Government will have to be in charge of them. A discussion with no one in charge—I am not talking about deciding things, but about being in charge—will end in disarray at the end of the first day. Someone must be in charge. Will the membership be the elected parties, participants from both parts of Ireland, the IRA and the Loyalists? What about the INLA, as has been said before? There are many matters to decide.
These days I listen to the "Today" programme in bed, although I did not used to do so. That programme upsets my twilight sleep when it is suggested that if only someone acted quickly this matter could all be over by 9 o'clock, and by tea-time there could be a great conference at which everyone would shake hands. This matter will take a long time to resolve, not because people are naturally "conservative" with a small "c" but because it has been going on for a long time.
There is a new environment and there is a great deal of hope but many people are dead, many people have been killed. Let us never forget the festering that exists in the hearts and minds of many people in Northern Ireland. The right reverend Prelate has reminded me— this had started in the days of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw—that the heads of the Churches came to see me to discuss the situation. I do not think this had happened before the days of the noble Viscount. They were all Ulstermen talking together and I was an outsider. They said, "Never forget what has happened in the past. The pike goes back into the thatch ready to be used at a later date". We have to make absolutely sure that it is not just a case of the pike going back into the thatch, but that we create a genuine peace in the latter years of the 20th century. That will take time but we should not be ashamed of that.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I join with others in thanking the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for making this debate possible. I was much encouraged by what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House had to say. I noted that in most of what he had to say he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I believe
46
that if the Government can proceed in the way that the Leader of the House indicated today, supported by the Labour Party, that in itself will be most helpful.
Recent developments in Northern Ireland have been dramatic. For the first time in 25 years we are free from terrorist attack and only we who live in Northern Ireland can really appreciate what this means. We all hope that this removal of terrorist threat is permanent. As of now we cannot be sure of this but I think we all know that the longer it continues, the more difficult it will be for terrorists to get support for further action.
Each one of us in Northern Ireland has been affected to some extent during the past 25 years of terrorist activity but the community generally had learnt to live with this and it became part of life. Determination to overcome terrorism never faltered. It is only after the ceasefire that the growing sense of relief permits us to realise what we had to put up with. We are all now walking with a lighter step and are able to think of other things. But we can never forget that 3,000 people lost their lives from terrorism, including over 1,000 members of the security forces. The scale of the suffering is hard to grasp.
It is not surprising that political progress was almost impossible in face of terrorism. However, with the cessation of violence we can now begin to think and talk sensibly about political development. The change in feeling in Northern Ireland in recent weeks is due not only to the ceasefire. Uncertainty about the status of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom has been removed in recent weeks which is an enormous relief to the greater number in Northern Ireland who support the Union.
It would be almost impossible to exaggerate the damage caused by the Anglo-Irish Agreement which was signed in 1985. A treaty was negotiated in secret with the Dublin Government undertaking to consult and involve the Dublin Government in discussions concerning government of part of the United Kingdom. We in Northern Ireland were not consulted; not even the most senior Northern Ireland civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office were allowed to know what was being negotiated. It is not surprising therefore that the unionists—I say unionist with a small "u"—throughout Northern Ireland ceased to trust their government. They asked, "If government can do that to us, what else might they be doing?"
The Prime Minister has now made it clear that the citizens of Northern Ireland have the right to remain in the United Kingdom as long as they wish. What is more, the Government of the Republic of Ireland now accept that citizens of Northern Ireland have the right to remain part of the United Kingdom as long as that is their wish. The Prime Minister in his speech of 16th September has undertaken to consult the people of Northern Ireland by referendum before any new arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland are put into effect.
It is difficult for those not living in Northern Ireland to understand the effect of those statements. We hope that uncertainty about the status of Northern Ireland is now over. It is apparent that that has been a factor in the decision of the Loyalist terrorists to call a ceasefire. I ask Her Majesty's Government to continue to treat us

47
as they have in recent weeks, never again to resort to deceit or underhand dealings, to support the Union in accordance with the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland and not to appear to be neutral. They should not use phrases such as "the Government have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland". That statement caused a great deal of alarm and anxiety.
I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on the skilful manner in which he and the Government have handled Northern Ireland affairs in recent months. His statements have been timely and clearly expressed. The Secretary of State, Sir Patrick Mayhew, has understood the difficulties and has contributed much to the changes which have taken place. It is indeed a pleasure to congratulate the Government, in contrast to the many times I have felt it necessary to criticise their policies. Appreciation and thanks are also due to all those who have worked so hard to persuade the terrorists to cease their activities. In addition to those in the headlines there are many others who have worked silently to that end.
The majority in favour of remaining in the Union is now probably greater than it has ever been. Throughout the troubles people have kept a close eye on the political scene in Dublin, and we are now determined that we do not want anything to do with Dublin politics. That is not a sectarian or religious matter; it is the feeling of people throughout the Province, except for a small minority, particularly those who have been held in thrall by the IRA for many years and who have been brought up and taught to be anti-British.
I mentioned earlier the improved atmosphere in Northern Ireland. On Saturday the Ulster Unionist Party held its annual conference. More than 500 delegates attended. It was an excellent conference, with healthy Ulster humour never far from the surface but not preventing serious and thoughtful discussion of important issues. The theme of the conference, "Our duty to the greater number", was taken to heart and the party will be working to welcome all who support the Union. Our leader, Mr. James Molyneaux, Member for Lagan Valley, was acclaimed by all present for the vital and important part he has played in the progress made in recent months.
The question in everybody's minds is, what next? The coming months will be difficult. The Government have to make carefully balanced and thought out decisions. The Prime Minister's statement:
"I will take it in my own time but will not tarry a day longer than is necessary",
commends itself to me. One of his early tasks will be to ensure that hundreds of tonnes of arms and several tonnes of Semtex are accounted for. I do not see how former terrorists can join constitutional politicians in talks while guns and explosives remain readily to hand.
The ceasefire must be built upon step by step. There is much that can be done to improve government in Northern Ireland with democratic involvement. The objective must be to provide fair and equal treatment for all under the laws of the United Kingdom, so that anyone can have any aspiration provided he or she behaves in a peaceful manner within the law.
48
For two years or more it has been the Government's objective to publish a framework document after agreement with Dublin. However, it must be noted that there is still no agreement on that. I took careful note of what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said in suggesting that the Government should not attempt to achieve full agreement because that was probably not possible. When that framework document is presented, whether agreed or not, it is to be put before the constitutional politicians who are then expected to discuss and agree future arrangements covering all relationships in the Three Strands but with nothing to be agreed until everything is agreed. I believe that it is far too ambitious to expect agreement to be reached on relationships in the Three Strands at one time, and I beg the Government to rethink the way forward and proceed in a more practical manner. I was encouraged by the Secretary of State's remarks on Thursday last when he emphasised that it is important to proceed step by step.
If we are to achieve agreement on the first stage, which is the development of devolved government in Northern Ireland, it must be recognised that there is no place for Dublin involvement in the internal affairs in Northern Ireland, any more than there is a place for the United Kingdom to interfere with the internal affairs of the Republic of Ireland.
It is clear from statements from Dublin that the Government of the Republic are demanding the setting up of formal cross-border institutions with executive powers. There is almost universal opposition to this, and I beg the Government not to proceed with any such institutions. At the non-political level there is scope for all kinds of collaboration and for working with appropriate bodies in the Republic of Ireland. There is already co-operation at many levels and the ending of violence will accelerate that. Business organisations work closely together; there is collaboration on tourism, and local councils work with their opposite numbers across the border on matters of common interest. At various times I have been involved in such arrangements, and I can assure your Lordships that the ordinary people, North and South, have no problem working together for mutual benefit. The sensible course is to encourage all such informal arrangements and only at a later stage, when experience shows that formal arrangements would be helpful, should any action be taken at the political level.
In the next few months there will be many difficulties to overcome. However, I shall not spend time speculating about those difficulties. Those of us in Northern Ireland understand them only too well. I repeat the words of others that there must be no giving way to demands for the policing of nationalist areas or other such arrangements.
If the Government can proceed with the skill and understanding that they have shown in recent months, then I believe that real progress can be made so that we in Northern Ireland can face the future with hope and confidence.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is now many months since in a Northern Ireland debate I was listened

49
to in stony silence—which in your Lordships' House normally means profound disapproval—when I described my right honourable friend the Prime Minister as a brilliant negotiator for his great achievement of the Downing Street Declaration. I said that I felt that that declaration would break the log jam in the beleaguered Province. I believe that my thoughts on that occasion have to some extent been vindicated.
Seven weeks ago the IRA announced a ceasefire, which is still holding. That is another vital step forward on the way towards Northern Ireland once again becoming a normal and fully integral part of the United Kingdom. On Thursday last we had another piece of good news; namely, the announcement of a ceasefire by the Loyalist terrorists. The latter have always said that they saw their role as responding to the activities of the IRA. In their announcement on Thursday they said:
"the sole responsibility of a return to violence lies with the IRA".
If that sounds as though I condone the actions of Loyalist terrorists, I shall put your Lordships' minds at rest. I certainly do not. But we must all pray and work towards ensuring that violence does not recur.
Over the past 20 years violence has indeed begat violence. The question now is whether peace will beget peace. That is the question which we are debating today. That there is peace, and an economic dividend to go with it, is beyond doubt. That was apparent very early in the process. I have in front of me an article from the Belfast Telegraph of 20th September which states:
"The number of shoppers in Belfast city centre rose last week by 5 per cent. over 1993, as bag searches came to an end in some large stores such as Marks and Spencer and CastleCourt.
'We believe this is directly related to the ceasefire and it's very encouraging', said [the] chief executive of the Belfast Chamber of Trade and Commerce."
At the same time, and almost in juxtaposition, the article states:
"Security firms have continued to recruit workers—despite a decision by some stores to cut back guards following the IRA ceasefire.
"Both Securicor and Group 4 Securitas have placed recruitment ads in the past few days".
I am glad to report that so far as concerns Securicor, I was told by their marketing director only last week that that was still going on. It is a small start to revival, but a start, nonetheless. However, I believe that we would delude ourselves if we thought that peace was so established as to be permanent at this moment. Not using the enormous pile of arms that are available to terrorists on both sides is one thing. Having an amnesty and handing those arms in is quite another. I am sure that the Government are quite right to be cautious on that issue. Permanency, as the Taoiseach said on Thursday, will be achieved only when all the weapons are handed in. There is an obvious temptation to rush at that but if we have learnt anything over the past two decades in Northern Ireland it is that rushing things is counter productive.
In passing, it is in my view sterile to try to look behind the IRA ceasefire and seek to put reasons on it. For now it is an established fact. However, violence has not ceased and what the IRA sometimes refer to as their policing of the nationalist areas continues. The noble
50
Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, spoke witheringly on that; I agree with every word he said. Baseball bats and thuggery generally are still in evidence. That matter must be dealt with.
What really matters is where we go from here, politically. The attitude of mistrust by Unionists of Nationalists and Nationalists of Unionists continues and will remain until a proven, stable democracy exists in the Province. I was heartened by one thing that I heard my honourable friend David Curry say only last week. He stated:
"Local government is the bedrock of democracy".
Therefore I am encouraged, despite what my noble friend Lord Colnbrook said earlier, to repeat my previous thoughts: that stability will not occur in Northern Ireland until local government there is rebuilt. We all know that it is de minimis now. Planning, housing, education, libraries, social services and policing are all centralised. There has been very good reason for that in the past. The majority has so often deprived the minority of its fair share of those services. Memories are long and strong in the Province. The fear that it would do so again is uppermost in people's minds. Let us not forget that the minority is Loyalist in parts of Northern Ireland. The fear of death may have gone, but the fear of deprivation remains.
Would the populace accept increasing the powers of local government? I believe that it would—not, however, based on a rejigged Stormont, or anything else with a built-in electoral bias. That has been tried, and failed, more than once over the years. I should like to see my right honourable friends promote in the framework document a slow but increasing role for local government perhaps on the Scottish or Welsh model, coupled with a strong Northern Ireland Office with reserve powers to put matters right when they go wrong. There is already a proven model in the Department of Health and Social Services. I have to confess that it was not the easiest moment in my political life when I had to go to my Secretary of State and ask him to back me in serving a direction on a health and social services board to enforce competitive tendering. Once was enough, and the implied threat of doing that again was sufficient to keep the board within the law, without the interference of the department or its Ministers. Nor indeed do I believe that that experience was resented by many people in the Province. There was grudging acceptance initially, certainly. However, over time it reverted to a belief that my noble and honourable friends had long held that it was right and proper to test the cost of public services, and if possible —it often is not possible—to reroute the money into mainstream activities rather than to the peripheries.
Therefore a model exists, but whether the talks will embrace that arrangement remains to be seen. That is part of the trouble, is it not? Today your Lordships are trying to fulfil one of your constitutional roles: that of advising the government of the day. Alas!, we are speaking into a vacuum and we do not know what ideas are being worked up in the talks or what have already been discarded. While I do not expect my right honourable friends to reveal any of their hands before they are ready, I believe that we should be told if we

51
are still in the ball game of nothing being ruled in and nothing being ruled out, or whether we have passed that stage. Since all the debaters have not yet been involved—Sinn Fein is an obvious example—I would expect that ideas would be welcome. However, I urge my right honourable friends to tell us of those which have been discarded when they feel that it is wise for us to know.
Talking of wisdom, I was delighted to hear that there are to be not one but two referenda as a result of the talks. I congratulate my right honourable friends on holding a referendum on the scheme that comes out of the discussions. I am sure that they are right. The plan must be broadly acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland as a whole, otherwise it will simply come apart at the seams and we shall be back to the drawing board again.
The first referendum was of course announced in the context of the Downing Street Declaration—that is to say, on whether the majority of the population still believe in a union with Great Britain. I believe that such a referendum is long overdue and might be held with advantage before the closing stages of the talks. However, whenever it is held, I am also inclined to think that it should not be a one off approach. I am sure that it would clear the air to make such a referendum a regular occurrence—perhaps once a parliament or every time there were a new Prime Minister. Such action would continually reinforce the hand of the government of the day and give much needed reassurance in the Province. Something must be done to allay what the Secretary of State called the other day,
"the dark fears and suspicions in the hearts and minds of so many in Northern Ireland".
Following that, he said that we must go on giving reassurance. My suggestion is one way in which to achieve that aim.
I have spoken long enough. I do not see the need today to expand on the other two strands of the talks between London and Dublin, and between Belfast and Dublin. Suffice it to say that obvious though the need is for such talks, they will need the same dedicated skill in negotiation that we have seen until now between Belfast and London. I hope that the advice that my right honourable friends will take away from the debate today is, "Steady as she goes". Whatever our friends in the media may say about momentum, I believe that we in this House will unite in telling the Government, "You rush things at your peril"—and, more importantly, at the peril of those people who have suffered so much in Northern Ireland.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, there has been an absence of gunfire in Northern Ireland for this past six or seven weeks. But that does not mean that there is anything remotely approaching that word with five letters, "peace". We have a million miles to go before we can achieve that in Northern Ireland. These past 25 years have left deep, gaping wounds on the body politic of Northern Ireland which will take generations, perhaps forever, to heal.
52
I realise that a certain number of people in Northern Ireland now say, "Don't say anything which could resurrect past differences or in some way affect the peace process". I do not accept that, because I believe that, unless we face up to what has been happening in Northern Ireland and what is liable to happen, as well as what we can do to allay the fears in both communities, then attaining that peace will be all the more difficult.
Let me put it in terms which I understand. Until two days before the dramatic announcement by the Loyalists in Northern Ireland that they were calling a ceasefire, I—like everyone else in Northern Ireland—had been a pessimist par excellence since the murdering began there. Two days before that announcement I watched the television screen and saw spokesmen for the Loyalist paramilitaries. One man shown was referred to as a co-ordinator for the Loyalist prisoners. Then the caption went up with his name and when I saw it my blood ran cold—it was John White. He was the man who so brutally and savagely murdered my colleague, Senator Paddy Wilson, in 1973. What a terrible effect that had on me when I saw him being given credibility in front of the television cameras as a Loyalist paramilitary co-ordinator. It had the same effect on my family, all my daughters and the rest of my family, who knew Paddy Wilson so well. They immediately got on the phone when they saw that. That was only in my case, just one case.
Then I thought of the two British Army corporals who were so brutally murdered on the Falls Road in Belfast. One of the men who pulled the corporals out of the car was accompanying Gerry Adams as a kind of bodyguard on his perambulations around the United States of America. Can one begin to imagine for a moment what the relatives of those corporals felt, and not only them, but all the other soldiers, policemen and civilians who had been killed? They left behind scores, hundreds, indeed thousands of grieving relatives who will bitterly resent any attempt to let Loyalist or Republican murder gangs come to the conference table to speak on their behalf.
However, something else made me cringe besides seeing that murderer on television. It was when Senator Edward Kennedy put his arms around Gerry Adams and welcomed him to America. What that man did in an attempt to save his own electoral fortunes was bitterly resented, not only by the Unionist people in Northern Ireland, but by many members of the Catholic minority. Gerry Adams perambulated through America and Canada. He claimed—and every time I heard it I cringed—to speak on behalf of the Irish people, underlining the "Irish people" or the "nationalist people". The reality is that the only credibility Gerry Adams has is with about 5 per cent. in the whole island of Ireland. The only reason he had for going to America or being involved in politics was that he had an army of gunmen behind him.
I realise that in the peace process Gerry Adams may have a part to play. I suppose there is a voice there; he has some form of electoral mandate. But I pose a question to the House and to the country, and I cannot give the answer. The fact is that Gerry Adams is the

53
spokesman for an organisation that has murdered its way into the political arena in Northern Ireland. But he knows that he has a 5 per cent. electoral vote. The Loyalists have an even smaller vote, a very small figure. When they go to the forum to put forward their case, they will be very much in a minority.
My question is: are they prepared to abide by any resolutions which come from such a forum or will both sides go back and resort to violence? I pose that question but I cannot give the answer. I wish that I could, I wish I could say that, if they have now given an undertaking that they will abide by the democratic process, they will abide by their electoral position by sheer weight of numbers in such a forum. I am fearful that the Sinn Fein element in such a forum may not find its views totally rejected, it may find some sympathy from Fianna Fail or some of the other political parties engaged in the forum. Those may find that they have some empathy with the Sinn Fein point of view, but I hope that that will not be the case.
It is said that one of the issues for discussion in the forum would be the abolition of Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, which lay claim to governing Northern Ireland. Some people here believe that the Irish Government can recommend to the Irish population that Articles 2 and 3 be withdrawn from the Irish constitution. I can tell noble Lords, particularly those on this side of the House, that Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution are equivalent to Clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution. They are icons. The Irish Government can recommend it, but there is no way they could ever win it. We saw what happened with Clause 4. As we all know, Clause 4 does not mean anything and Articles 2 and 3 mean nothing except in emotional and symbolic terms. I cannot see any Irish government, particularly Fianna Fail, recommending that those two articles be removed.
This past week I have watched the whole process and the people who have spoken. I too was amazed by some of the words which emanated from the Loyalist paramilitaries. I never expected that I would hear Loyalist spokesmen apologise for the ferocious murders which they carried out among the Catholic population in Northern Ireland. I listened to Gusty Spence, however, and I accept what he said and feel that he meant it. I also listened to David Ervine on television yesterday morning. If I ever heard a sensible voice emanating from the present troubles, it was that of David Ervine. I only wish that there were more David Ervines living in the Shankill Road and the Loyalist areas of Belfast who would have been able to stop the descent into Loyalist paramilitary murders. I believe that David Ervine may have a place in any future political discussions in Northern Ireland.
I appeal to the noble Baroness, however, that under no circumstances should those people take part who have committed ferocious murders on the Loyalist side or the Republican side. They have no mandate from the Irish people to take part in any solutions to the Irish problem.
I believe that some things said recently only exacerbate the existing tensions. The shadow spokesman on Northern Ireland, Kevin McNamara, made a
54
statement last week that there would have to be a reform of the RUC; the RUC was unacceptable in nationalist areas. That is totally untrue. I spent many years of my political life in Belfast and the RUC were guilty of mistakes, but the overwhelming majority of the Catholic population realised that the RUC was the only legitimate force that they had and they accepted it. At the moment when Gerry Adams and his cohorts are demanding the withdrawal of the RUC and the Army from West Belfast, the elected spokesman for West Belfast, Joe Hendron, the West Belfast MP, has contradicted them and said that there is no big demand for the RUC to be withdrawn. I advise the Government to listen to the elected MP and not to Gerry Adams, who claims that he can push Joe Hendron aside at the next election and become the next elected representative himself. I hope that that does not happen, but that is certainly what he thinks.
A spokesman for the Labour Party has said that there has to be reform of the RUC and that first of all the "Royal" must be taken out of its title. That is totally insensitive to the feelings of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that the word "Royal" has any great significance in the name. After all, the British left the Republic of Ireland, but if you go to Dublin there are hundreds of places with a "Royal" prefix: the Royal Dublin Horse Show, and the Royal Dublin Yacht Club, for example. Many places have the word "Royal" in their name. But to say that the word should be taken out of the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is very insensitive at this time.
Another big demand has been made in America. How did Mr. Clark, who was involved in pulling the corporals out of the car to be murdered, get into America? The American Government have played a very ignoble part in this whole affair. One must never forget that when the Americans thought that their position was endangered by terrorists, they had no hesitation in bombing Libya, with the support of this country. Yet they can find it in their hearts to provide a passport to allow into the United States someone who was convicted of a ferocious murder.
The big demand that Gerry Adams made on television in America related to the fact that he was able to speak in America but was not able to speak in London since here there was an exclusion order on him. The British Government could make a deal with Gerry Adams. They could say that they would lift the exclusion order on him here if he would lift the exclusion order on hundreds of young Irish fellows from Belfast who have been excluded from that city because they do not agree with the IRA. The number of such young men excluded by Sinn Fein and the IRA runs into hundreds. If the exclusion order on Gerry Adams is to be lifted, let it be lifted on all those other people.
My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees has referred to what is going on now in Loyalist areas that are regarded as ghettos —the knee-cappings and the beatings up are not confined to Catholic areas in West Belfast; they also take place in Loyalist West Belfast. I do not think that the noble Baroness will find anyone in this House today who disagrees with the stand that has been taken by the

55
British Government. I urge the British Government to move very, very cautiously, and to move in their own time.
I personally believe that the Irish Government have moved far too quickly. I know that they have a different constituency: they are on the island of Ireland and they do not have to take into account what has happened in Northern Ireland and here. They may feel justified in revoking some of their emergency legislation, as was announced last week. But I have to say to the Irish Government that they have not suffered the pain that we in Northern Ireland have had to suffer. If they had had to endure over 3,000 deaths and all the maimings that we in the North have experienced, I believe that they would have been just as reluctant as this Government are to accept the bona fides of the IRA. I urge the Irish Government to take into consideration the feelings of people in Northern Ireland.
I turn now to the question of a referendum. We have already had a referendum in Northern Ireland. It took place in 1973, and was known as the Border Poll. But in that poll there was only one specific question; namely, do you want to see the Border remain, or do you want the Border abolished? That was 21 years ago. At the time I was the leader of the SDLP. We knew that we would lose in any Border poll. Everyone knew that there were more Protestants in Northern Ireland, more Unionists, and that the minority who were opposed to the Border would lose. But the next referendum will not be on the question of the existence of the Border; it will be on whatever emerges, either from the framework document or from any agreement which is arrived at subsequent to the framework discussions.
I am about to make a statement with which the IRA will certainly not agree. My former colleagues in the SDLP know that it is true, but they do not want to say it out loud as it may have some effect on their electoral base. At least 30 per cent. of Catholics living in Northern Ireland do not want to see a united Ireland; they do not want to live in the Republic under any circumstances. They have their own reasons, based largely on the economic wherewithal that is available in Northern Ireland.
Here I have to say again that the present Prime Minister, John Major, and Albert Reynolds deserve great credit for all their endeavours in respect of the Downing Street Declaration. No other British Prime Minister, since the inception of the state of Northern Ireland has ever put the problem of Ireland at the top of the agenda. Everyone who has spoken here today has said that tremendous obstacles must be overcome before we can begin to see a glimmer of hope in the search for peace in Northern Ireland.
Since the onset of the shooting war in Northern Ireland I have always been pessimistic. I begin to see some ray of optimism. I believe that this Government deserve credit. But I warn the Government to tread very slowly, to be aware of the sensitivities and feelings in both communities, and not to give the impression that
56
the individuals who have carried out such a murderous campaign are deciding the future in which they and their children will have to live.
6.8 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I too am very grateful to my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for introducing this debate. For the first time, it takes place without the fear of bombs and guns being used in the United Kingdom by Northern Ireland based terrorists. For those of us from Northern Ireland it is very welcome (even though it is quite late now) to have at least started the debate in daylight for a change.
Everyone would agree that the most important development in the past 25 years is the present ceasefire. In the views of many people the catalyst for this was not on its own the Hume-Adams talks but was, far more importantly, the Downing Street Declaration. For the first time ever, an Irish Government were prepared to state to the world that they condemned terrorism in Northern Ireland, the reasons for it and those who perpetrated it. Many other events have taken place since. But I am quite sure that it was that act—not without courage on the part of the two Prime Ministers —that tipped the scales.
Everyone in this House and in the United Kingdom is relieved that it has come about, in the short term at any rate. I can assure noble Lords that the feelings in the Province are even more so feelings of relief. But they are perhaps more tempered by the realism which can come only from closer involvement.
Having done a tour of duty in the centre of Belfast during the busy 1970s and having been involved for the past 16 years with the security forces in Fermanagh, I can tell the House that there is a lot more involved than the relief that all here get from not seeing the horrific news headlines. Gone for the moment is that cold fear of the telephone ringing in the middle of the night, being all too often the news of death or injury to a local friend, whether in the security forces or as a civilian. Gone for the present is that awful moment when one hears distant shots, the rumble of a bomb or the multiple bangs of rocket launchers. Those which were close enough to us came from Fivemiletown, Tempo, Lisnaskea and so on. We even heard the one at Teebane, where there was the horrific murder of so many construction workers who were putting up buildings in order to protect the soldiers whom we send over from this country. There are feelings of great relief in Northern Ireland because of the ceasefire. But there has to be a certain amount of caution.
The people have lived under a daily threat for a long time. Many working for peace have stood up to be counted. Their families have not known when they would return from duty, even from milking the cows, a shopping trip or their workplace. That is fact. The terrorists are indiscriminate murderers of old and young, even the children, let alone the security forces. We must remember that. They still have weapons and may use them again.

57
Let us consider what has happened. On August 31st the IRA, and last week the Loyalist terrorists also, said: "We will not kill anyone for the time being". In the case of the IRA, it was: "We have not achieved our aims by violence but we want to talk and reserve the right to kill again as and when we please to do so".
In order to move forward we must understand one very important fact. It can be said that at least 80 per cent. of the population do not want a united Ireland; a very small minority of the remainder—a tiny minority of that minority—will happily murder to achieve it when they please. After 25 years the Government must not rush ahead of public opinion. How can things all change so much in seven weeks? Dick Spring yesterday said that he intended to lift the Irish Republic's emergency legislation. Yesterday's Sunday Times pointed out—it was a fairly well founded report, there having been contact with Joe Cahill, who is in America as presumably one of their ambassadors—that elements of the IRA are ready to continue the killing if they do not get their way by Christmas. Their way is a united Ireland. Even the Irish Government say that that will not happen for years, if at all.
Emergency legislation, whether British or Irish, only comes into operation to counter terrorism. If terrorism stops, the legislation does not have to be used. However, it would be foolhardy of either government to repeal that legislation. It can stay in place as a deterrent. After all, we must remember that the power of internment has been kept not only on the statute book in this country but also on the statute book of the Irish Republic continuously—as a deterrent maybe or, if not that, then ready to be used.
It must be remembered that the IRA has a history of splits —split after split. It happened in the 1920s, the 1950s and the 1970s. I am quite sure that it has happened on other occasions. If a split now occurs and emergency powers have been withdrawn, we in Northern Ireland will pay the price. Every pressure should be put on the Irish Government not to carry out such a hasty and ill-advised move at this stage.
It is worth looking at one or two of the issues which will arise in the near future and on which a continued ceasefire may depend. A united Ireland the gunmen will not get, at least not while the vast majority of Roman Catholics, whom they claim to represent, do not want it. The terrorist weapons are a real problem. Until seven weeks ago those guns were held locally and would have been used as and when soft targets, security forces or anyone else let down their guard. Those guns are still there. Must we continue to live our lives under permanent threat of death? They have said that if they do not like the process they will start shooting again. Consider our situation on the ground. That must be taken into account.
Other weapons such as bombs cannot be handed in. Bombs are not made up until they are required. Mark 15 barrack buster bombs, which are intended to kill as many people as possible —into the dozens—are made for use. Semtex, which goes into them, does not degrade over a period of time. It is a different situation from that
58
of the 1950s and earlier when gelignite was stashed away and became useless after a short period of time. This is a real issue and cannot just be brushed away.
Another issue concerns the prisoners. Some people believe that we should not be talking now about the prisoners. But they are doing so. We cannot deny it. Prisoners have to become an issue. The British and the Irish Governments must make it absolutely plain. The prisoners are convicted criminals. Many of them are murderers. An amnesty is out of the question. I personally believe that after a reasonable length of time—be it five years of peace—early release could be considered for the less serious offenders; but not for mass murderers. Should there be any breakdown of the ceasefire, those who are released could be re-arrested to serve the remainder of their sentence. That would not be internment and the world should understand that. At least we should not be cut to shreds in the world generally. It would merely be a sentence suspended.
I should like to thank the Prime Minister for his reassurance that the Union is safe provided that the majority wish it to remain. As I said, there is no chance of the majority voting otherwise. I also congratulate the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable on their moves cautiously and judiciously to normalise day-to-day life at home in the Province. Border checkpoints basically are open. There are fewer military patrols and security measures appear to have become much less hard. I should like the Government to move further in that direction—not to go too fast, but to open more border roads that were closed and not only the ones that had checkpoints on them. I also ask the Government where possible to encourage the RUC to do its duty without military help. That is not always possible in all areas but if we do not encourage it, it will not happen as and when it should.
We must understand that at the moment a system of rent-a-mob is being used by Sinn Fein. They tried to take over a border watchtower a couple of weeks ago and have ambushed several urban patrols, once in particular endangering the lives of soldiers and policemen in Belfast. It is not possible to say that the military should just leave the streets.
We should be wary of Gerry Adams' call for no policing in Republican areas. That is Gerry Adams speaking and not the people. The people need protection from the henchmen whom he represents. Incidentally, to have people such as Mr. Peter Bottomley, MP, calling for a change of name does not do much to help.
A well-respected journalist, David McKitterick, wrote in the Independent on 30th September:
"They used an iron bar on Gavin Smyth's legs. The 16 year-old was forced to roll over three times so that they could break his legs from every side".
I know that in West Belfast increasingly over the past few years, with improved conditions, the people readily call the RUC to household break-ins—ordinary decent crime (ODC as it is called). We should understand what Gerry Adams is on about. Gerry Adams would like the police force to be his crooks. We simply cannot allow it.
We must remember that the IRA's ceasefire talked about guns and bombs. It did not talk about racketeering, intimidation or about planning for a

59
breaking off of the ceasefire. They said: "We are ready to do it at Christmas if we do not get what we want". Do we really believe that they will wake up on New Year's day and say: "Come on, we have not got what we want so we had better plan something". No—just like with every ceasefire that they have ever had, the plans are in the bottom drawer. The weapons are accessible even if they have been moved—and there is intelligence to say that that has been done. They will come out with a well drawn-up plan and we must not be caught wrong footed.
Great progress is being made in relaxing security measures. But I would plead with the Government not to reduce or withdraw measures which cannot be reinstated at the shortest notice. One has to ask what Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein are trying to do. I fear that John Hume has done a deal in the name of the SDLP. I am not sure also that his party will like it and such people as Joe Hendron and so forth. He may have said that his party will not fight all the seats in the next council or national elections. That would leave no alternative for many decent nationalists but to vote for Sinn Fein if they wished to vote at all, accepting that invariably people are aware of how other people are voting, not only in Northern Ireland but in this country also. And Gerry Adams may obtain a mandate out of that. I hope that that is not the case and I hope that John Hume is not carrying out a betrayal of that party which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, started, with the best of intentions at the time.
We are told that there may be exploratory talks by Christmas. I would ask the Government to give us some idea of when the talks with the terrorists will take place. How will the Government ensure that the law abiding people remain reassured as to the content and not feel isolated? I accept that the talks cannot be totally public. But it will be the most important and difficult task for the Government to maintain credibility. It is like an elastic band and if it is too stretched it will break and the consequences will be dire.
I wish to mention briefly the economic side—the so-called carrot. The USA, the European Union and the Government, among others, are to throw lots of money at us. I for one will not be disappointed. But we must be careful. Great care must be taken if that happens to see that it does not become manna from heaven for the Mafia-styled tactics of the terrorist organisations. They are still intact, as everybody agrees, and the IRA has not said otherwise. Where does protection money go? Are they still beating people up to obtain it? The answer is yes.
The security related industries and the employees in those areas feel extremely apprehensive—I include the home-based forces as well. There are bound to be redundancies. But please do not forget those who contributed to law and order and peace. They stood to be counted through terrible times. Some people would not even sell flowers to go on the graves of such people.
Some say that Britain won the Second World War but lost the peace. In Northern Ireland we have a saying that bread once eaten is quickly forgotten. Do not let that happen in this case. Many people working in such jobs
60
have short contracts. It is important to take care of those who paid the high cost in such ways as having to move house and leave traditional employment through intimidation and other terrorist activities.
In conclusion, let us not bury our heads in euphoria and in haste betray the integrity and courage of the people of Northern Ireland. The courage and character shown over the past 25 years will serve us well as long as the Government take heed of the earnest wish of the people for permanent peace and of their willingness to move surefootedly under control.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I first spoke in your Lordships' House on Northern Ireland on 2nd February 1972 and I began with the words,
"in the grim atmosphere of to-day".—[Official Report, 2/2/72; col. 886.]
It is good that now the atmosphere is less grim and more hopeful. I welcome the progress that has been made. I should like to pay tribute to all those in Northern Ireland who have refused to be intimidated; who have never despaired, and who have persevered in holding out the hand of friendship. Cross-community work, ecumenical work, efforts to meet the needs of prisoners, victims, displaced and divided people, have never ceased, even if at times they were checked by rampant violence.
Today, dialogue and listening are more than ever needed. Cross-cultural interpreters are necessary between groups who are sometimes divided by a common language. Those who have shared the heat and burden of the past 25 years have still greater contributions to make. After so much bereavement, injury and loss following after the conflicts of past centuries, it is inevitable that there should still be deep fears and mistrusts, some of which were mentioned in the debate. They need to be dispelled and who better to dispel them than the community groups, the voluntary bodies, the public servants and people of all sorts who have worked on in hope over the past 25 years.
Because of the residue of fear, distrust and suspicion mentioned by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I should like to speak about confidence-building measures. Almost all the various entities, within and even outside Northern Ireland, can do something to build up confidence. Her Majesty's Government made a good start, as mentioned by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal in his opening remarks. There will be plenty more for the Government to do provided that the ceasefire continues and no one attempts to create provocation by either civil disobedience or other means.
Paramilitary groups can immediately contribute by refraining from intimidation and especially from brutal attempts at do-it-yourself law enforcement. Northern Ireland is perhaps the most church-going part of western Europe. The Churches there, together with their fellow believers in the Republic and in Britain, have a great opportunity before them. Will they rise to the challenge? Will they seize the fleeting moment to overcome the negative emotions of the past and lead us all into mutual forgiveness for the wrongs and injustices both of recent years and of previous centuries? Are the traditional

61
Churches willing to learn from the experience of experimental Christian bodies, in particular the ecumenical communities, prayer and study groups and the integrated schools? This year's ceasefire statements contained hints of olive branches, as the noble
Lord, Lord Fitt, mentioned. But I suggest that much more needs to be done to create a forgiving climate as a first step towards political agreement.
I come now to the political parties and to their relations with government. The theory in recent times has been to work for a package agreement—nothing was to be agreed until everything was agreed. I would ask for exceptions to that approach, and in particular for a distinction to be made between confidence-building measures and the necessary elements of a permanent settlement. I imagine that there will be further talks about talks. Will Her Majesty's Government use this exploratory stage to ask the political parties what confidence-building measures they can suggest and which of those they would feel able to agree jointly? If that could be done I believe that it would help to lessen the apathy and cynicism with which political parties are all too often regarded. It would also show ordinary people that this peace process is something different from previous talks and negotiations. Tangible benefits are needed both during the negotiations and after a permanent settlement has been reached. It would be good if the political parties could be involved in producing some first fruits of co-operation.
It is relatively easy to draft ideal solutions and model constitutions abound—several hundred were listed during recent negotiations in South Africa. However, we are dealing with violent conflicts whose roots go deep into history. What is needed is a resolution which deals with the causes of contemporary conflict and which enables all parties and sections to emerge as winners. The best constitution will be the one with which the maximum number of people can feel at home. This will, I think, be an arrangement which respects the identity needs and gives adequate living space to all. The test, therefore, by which the conduct of all concerned can be judged during this very important interim stage and throughout substantive negotiations is: does what I am doing or saying move us towards resolution or away from it? If resolution is the goal, am I being constructive or negative?
I trust that this debate will be judged positive and will nudge us just a few inches closer to a satisfactory resolution. No one should be surprised if it takes a long time to resolve so bitter a conflict—here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees—but resolution is, I am sure, what we all desire.
6.31 p.m.
The Marquess of Donegall: My Lords, it is in the nature of a debate such as this that so much of what one was going to say has already been said that I shall not have to detain the House very long. But I should like to thank my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for initiating the debate. I should like to congratulate my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on his determination and, above all, on his patience in attempting to bring about a just peace in
62
Northern Ireland. I should also like to congratulate my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who seems to me to speak with the voice of moderation but who never gives way on essential points of principle. We should also be grateful to the right honourable Member for Lagan Valley who leads his party wisely in what is, for it, a very difficult situation.
If I have reservations for the future it is because I feel that in the coming months there may be—I repeat may be—great difficulties and dangers ahead. We have to accept that Sinn Fein/IRA—I bracket them together because they are more or less the same organisation even though they like to pretend that they are entirely different—are an evil conspiracy. They are also an illegal army with a cache of arms hidden in various dumps, a good many of which today are south of the Border and therefore the responsibility of the Irish Government. In fact the Garda have uncovered some of these dumps but there are still enough left to create mayhem if anyone wanted to use them. Therefore, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mason, when he said that top of the list of what should be done is the surrender of all illegally held arms.
One asks oneself why Sinn Fein/IRA ever agreed to the ceasefire. I think that the Downing Street Declaration to some extent isolated them and I would also guess that they were under some sort of pressure in their own bailiwicks—the nationalist areas, especially West Belfast, where many people had been murdered by the Loyalist paramilitaries. The crux will come when the time comes to talk, if they do start talks. My concern is what the reaction of Sinn Fein/IRA will be when, faced by political realities, they do not get what they want. In that context I cut out of yesterday's Sunday Independent, which is an Irish newspaper, a report. A gentleman called Mr. Mitchel MacLauglan, who is the Sinn Fein northern chairman, said at a meeting in Londonderry that if they do not get what they want—he does not say it quite in these words but this is what he means—the Irish people would then have the right to continue the conflict. For "Irish people" he means Sinn Fein/IRA, who represent only 5 per cent. of Irish people throughout the island.
There is also the question of who, if there are talks, will talk for Sinn Fein/IRA. I am quite sure that Gerry Adams will want to be in on the act and we should have no delusions about Gerry Adams. Though he may be greeted by his friends and admirers in America and be acclaimed as a peacemaker—who can tell: perhaps in future years he might qualify for the Nobel prize—he is a terrorist: nothing more and nothing less. There were many people in and around Belfast who lost their lives and just as many who have been maimed and crippled for life at the behest of Gerry Adams. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said that he did not like seeing Senator Kennedy put his arm round Gerry Adams. Nor did I. I did not see it actually, but I did see Mr. Reynolds shaking hands with him on the steps of the Dail, and I did not like that either.
The Government, in their quest to bring about a just and lasting peace in Northern Ireland, have another cross to bear—the Irish lobby in the United States Congress. They have always been a hindrance to peace

63
and co-existence on the island of Ireland, never more so than now. Most Americans are totally ignorant about Ireland—her history, her geography and her politics. One has only to talk to the tourists who come over to seek out where they think their ancestors might have been born. I do not think for one moment that President Clinton knows anything about Ireland, but I fear that he may get his information from the most disreputable politician on either side of the Atlantic Ocean.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, would the noble Marquess agree that the so-called four horsemen in the US Congress have done a very great deal over many years to reduce the flow of American money into the IRA's coffers?
The Marquess of Donegall: My Lords, I am not sure that the present American Government are doing very much. The previous American Government tried to stop it, but whether President Clinton is, I would not be so sure. Perhaps I generalise too much but I do not think that the present American Government are helping very much.
If, despite all these conundrums, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, can in the end bring about a lasting peace which is at least tolerable to most of the people of Northern Ireland, their tenure of office will indeed be a landmark in Irish history.
Before I sit down I should like to pay tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary which is one of the finest police forces in the world—some would say the finest— and also to the Army. Both the RUC and the Army have suffered many casualties, some of the constables and reserve constables having been shot in front of their families. We hope and pray that we shall now have peace and that there will be no more casualties among the police, the Army or the civilian population.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, all of us, without question, must give an unqualified welcome to the proclaimed cessation of violence by the IRA (though not yet by the INLA, as the noble Lord, Lord Mason, reminded us) and by the Protestant paramilitaries. This is the least that the people of Northern Ireland deserve. Nobody, Protestant or Catholic, had any business resorting to terrorism in the first place. The fact that they have stopped murdering people—at any rate, for the time being—is a cause for satisfaction. If the abandonment of violence is indeed to be permanent and if the terrorist leaders are to turn themselves into constitutional, democratic politicians, then they will have no need of Semtex, Armalite rifles, heavy machine guns, mortars or surface-to-air missiles; and clearly the surrender or destruction of the stocks of arms on both sides can alone produce a real feeling of security and give credence to the claim by Sinn Fein-IRA leaders that "it is over".
We seem now to be moving towards negotiations which will include Sinn Fein-IRA and all the paramilitaries and it appears that these may start quite soon. The Government are being chivvied by Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Adams to get a move on, but I am
64
sure that they are right to be cautious, as the Lord Privy Seal made plain in his admirably clear and substantially reassuring speech.
We all know the IRA's objectives, often proclaimed and spelt out in bloody acts of terrorism over 25 years. They say unambiguously that they want a united Ireland ruled from Dublin and the British presence, civil and military, removed wholly and permanently from Northern Ireland. The Irish Government's aims are also not in doubt, being spelt out in their constitution and the pursuit of these aims being a legal imperative.
But what will be the objectives of the British Government? These are anything but clear. To negotiate implies some willingness to give and take. What, I wonder, are we willing to concede to secure an agreement and what do we hope to obtain in the negotiations over and above an end to violence? Are we in fact prepared to concede in negotiation what we were not prepared to concede to direct acts of terrorism? I very much hope not.
Perhaps I may suggest two areas in which I believe we should stand absolutely firm in the negotiations. The first is the rule of law. Those who have been convicted by courts of law of offences should surely be treated no differently from other criminals, for we should all expect equal treatment from the law. There have recently been reports put about that there will be no amnesty, but special arrangements for the parole of prisoners. I should like to know if these reports are correct. I hope they are not.
Secondly, and of paramount importance, there is the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. I was interested to see, in Saturday's Daily Telegraph, an account of a speech at the Conservative Party Conference by the Scottish Secretary, Mr. Ian Lang. He is reported as saying that the future of the Union will be put at the heart of the next general election campaign; that Mr. Tony Blair's commitment to create a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly would,
"loosen the bonds of the kingdom, leading ultimately to its disintegration"
and to have concluded:
"Let others fly their flags of convenience. Our flag is the flag of the Union … and we will fly that flag forever".
Turning from Scotland to Northern Ireland, I do not recall Sir Patrick Mayhew using language remotely like that. On the contrary, the Government chose to give a foreign government, and one that actually laid claim to the territory of Northern Ireland, a substantial say in policy for Northern Ireland—and, like the Lord Privy Seal, I was unhappy about that—and, in the Downing Street Declaration, to make the curious announcement that they have no selfish economic or strategic interest in Northern Ireland.
This detachment is a far cry from Mr. Lang's declaration. Yet Northern Ireland, no less than Scotland, is part of the United Kingdom, and, if we loosen our bonds with Northern Ireland, this will, I am quite certain, begin the process of disintegration of the United Kingdom which Mr. Lang fears.
At any rate, I hope that the Government can reassure us that they will maintain the Union in its full integrity in accordance with the undoubted wishes of the great

65
majority of the people of Northern Ireland. They will, I am certain, not forget the brave soldiers and policemen who lost their lives fighting terrorism, or the men, women and children who were murdered by terrorists. To the survivors, as the noble Marquess has just made clear, it must seem bewildering that the Government's policies have led to the metamorphosis of Mr. Gerry Adams from being the spokesman of an outlawed murder organisation to becoming a purported international statesman who is lionised by the media and received by the Vice-President of the United States. But they will expect British Ministers not to be taken in by specious arguments but to be steadfast in the defence of the interests of the people of our United Kingdom— all of them, including both the Protestant and Catholic communities in Northern Ireland. I trust that they will not be deceived in their expectations.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, last Tuesday, when this debate in your Lordships' House was announced, the first thing I did was to put my name down since, as your Lordships will be aware, I have a long and continuing interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland. The next thing I did was to open a newspaper and find a rather frightening advertisement asking, "Why are you a bore?" It was an advertisement to encourage all of us perhaps to become shorter in our speeches and more articulate. It was an advertisement for a speaker's course.
Normally such an advertisement and such comments might well inspire a great deal of what has gone on in my career in your Lordships' House. Those of your Lordships who have had to present Northern Ireland legislation will have been aware of Appropriation Order No. 2. I can only describe the consequences tactfully as a Calgary stampede as your Lordships clear the Chamber. I hoped that that would not be the picture with this afternoon's debate, especially because of the kindness shown by my noble friend the Leader of the House, the Lord Privy Seal, in giving us the chance to discuss affairs in Northern Ireland especially at this time.
That advertisement was as good a motto as one might apply to years and years of Irish history. There are more experts on Irish history than in the whole population of Ireland. I have listened and I have tried to learn over the years from these experts about all these years of Irish history, depending how far one wants to go back.
For me the history of Northern Ireland, or Ireland, became a little less boring on 5th October 1968 when I took a look at the electronic media and noticed a civil rights march in the Waterside district of Londonderry. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, if I may say so, actually starred in the events of that day. The events were commented on, discussed and described in great detail in an excellent booklet called Disturbances in Northern Ireland. That was a report from a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Cameron. He is still alive and well. He is the father of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, who for several years graced the Front Bench and who has now distinguished himself in the judicature in Scotland. That was the title
66
of the report which was presented to Lord Grey of Naunton, the Governor of Northern Ireland, in September 1969. It contains many fascinating paragraphs and lessons. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is mentioned more than once. He stars in the paragraphs, as does the honourable Member for Foyle, Mr. John Hume, no fewer than four times.
The chapter entitled "Causes of the disorders", in particular paragraphs 152, 153 and 154, goes a long way towards explaining the causes of the present troubles, as explained by my noble friend Lord Colnbrook. There are lessons to be learned by those of us interested in Northern Ireland. They were mentioned by my noble friend. They teach us to be cautious about the language we use in your Lordships' House or anywhere else. Each word spoken or gesture made can be risky and give rise to offence. My noble friend Lady Denton knows that the phrase "exploratory voyages" is burnt into the psyche of the fisheries division of the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland because of something I said within 20 minutes of appearing in my office in Northern Ireland. It caused a major panic.
On another occasion a presentation was made before me. A type of wildfowl called the Greenland white-fronted goose was mentioned. Alas, the typist made an error and missed out the letter '1' in "Greenland", and I talked about "the green and white-fronted goose". That, too, I am afraid caused offence. I have given two insignificant examples of what can give offence. Such matters all of us in public life, whether here or in Northern Ireland, can easily rectify. With those examples in mind, my admiration for Ministers and officials in the Northern Ireland Office is unbounded. It grows and continues. Day after day, month after month, year after year, those people seek political progress.
During the past 15 to 20 years I remember various concepts arising. For example, there was rolling devolution, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the continuing campaign, "Ulster says no". Hindsight and experience are two valuable attributes but they are two-edged weapons. Whatever happens, those of us who may then be in our dotage in your Lordships' House, and those who will come after us, will see the Downing Street Declaration as providing a firm platform and foundation for political progress in the affairs of Northern Ireland, Ireland and what my Irish friends call "these islands".
We should try to disregard what I call megaphone diplomacy. Much of this afternoon's debate has focused on paramilitaries. The basis of the negotiations being carried out by the team in Northern Ireland is, above all, our regard and support for the democratic parties—the silent, decent majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland who want to, and do, take part in democratic discussions.
Your Lordships will be familiar with the six counties of Northern Ireland. It is not inappropriate that today I found a clean necktie which was given to me by a district council in Fermanagh. It is one which is well known by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. Many of your Lordships will know, as I do, the lovely town of Enniskillen. Those of us who have anything to do

67
with Northern Ireland are familiar with an excellent newspaper which has a wide circulation in that county, in the west, and across the Border. It is called the Impartial Reporter. I am advised that between 14,000 and 15,000 copies go out each week. I know that it went to one of my noble friends who lived in Scotland. So he knew exactly what I was doing. It is a wonderful newspaper.
I read last month that a reporter from The Times paid a call upon Enniskillen and the Impartial Reporter. The newspaper takes a broad view. It no longer says, "Vote Unionist". It is widely respected and admired. The Impartial Reporter told us that since 1971, 83 members of the security forces had been murdered or had met violent deaths in County Fermanagh alone. A further 45 civilians had died. The newspaper did not say to which section of the community they belonged. That means that 128 people met violent deaths. Six admitted members of the Provisional IRA have met their deaths in County Fermanagh since 1971.
The newspaper pointed out the real fear felt by Loyalist Protestant farmers who are in the minority in that county. Their lives are at risk. I think it was my noble friend Lord Brookeborough who referred to people being murdered while on their tractors just because of the Church that they attend and their allegiance to the Crown. All of us were appalled by the events of November 1987 in Enniskillen and what is known as the Poppy Day massacre. I shall mention three groups in connection with that happening. First, we all remember Mr. Gordon Wilson and what he said after he lost his daughter as a result of the explosion. Mr. Wilson is a shining example of what can be achieved in Northern Ireland. The Irish authorities have made him a senator in the Dail. When Mr. Gordon Wilson had discussions with members of the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein they virtually snubbed him and treated him with disdain. That is an example of one of the aspects of the problem.
Secondly, at the end of St. Stephen's Hall your Lordships will see a list of those Members of the House of Commons, sons of Members of the House of Commons and members of staff who were killed in the First World War. Among them your Lordships will find three Members of Parliament. One of them is Lieutenant Thomas M. Kettle. He was elected in 1906 as a Nationalist Member of Parliament for East Tyrone. He was killed in action on 9th September 1916. He was fighting with the Royal Dublin Fusiliers. He was a Nationalist and a member of the Gaelic League. He may have had respect for us but I doubt whether he would have had any great love for Unionism or for us.
Thirdly, during one of my holidays abroad I went to the beach-head cemetery at Anzio just south of Rome. I had some family connections there. My noble friend Lord Westbury was extremely lucky in that he was not captured or injured there. There was an enormous number of graves of servicemen from my regiment. I gave up counting when I reached 30 members of the Irish Guards and the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers who were born in the counties of Donegal, Leitrim, Sligo, Mayo and Cavan. They were all citizens of the Irish
68
Republic who went there to fight tyranny in Europe. I wonder what those three groups of people (Mr. Gordon Wilson, Mr. Thomas Kettle and all those other brave soldiers, sailors and airmen who fought in the Second World War) would think of the whingeing reply of the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein to the events of Enniskillen, Warrington and Birmingham.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House for granting us the opportunity to discuss the momentous events in Northern Ireland. I have enormous admiration for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and his courage and persistence and no little tact. Above all, I am grateful to the Secretary of State and the team, including my noble friend the Minister. If I have bored your Lordships I apologise. But I do not believe that today's subject could ever bore any of us.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, although many people in Northern Ireland have never heard a bomb explode or a shot fired in anger, a great many others all too often have. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has movingly reminded us, hundreds of families in the Province have lost friends and relatives. So one is naturally enormously happy that the burden of fear and apprehension has been lifted from their backs for the time being and that people can at long last now relax a little in the way described by my noble friend Lord Cooke and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough.
But as many commentators have reminded us, truce does not equal peace. A peace process does not necessarily guarantee eventual peace, whether it be peace with honour or any other variety. After all, no one seriously believes that the IRA has agreed to the truce because it considers itself to have been outmanoeuvred or defeated. Quite the contrary. Having well and truly intimidated and softened up the opposition, it sees talks, backed up by an unspoken threat of renewed violence if it does not substantially get its way, as a logical next step in achieving its ambitions, not overnight but within a relatively short timescale. It will be assisted in its endeavours by the fact that the truce and the nervous expectancy and publicity leading up to it has enormously boosted the prestige of the extremist groups, in particular the Republican groups.
Let us remember that Sinn Fein obtains about 10 per cent. of the votes in Northern Ireland. That is the same percentage as the British National Party and the National Front obtain in East London. Until about one year ago both groups of extremist parties—both consorting with men of violence and both believing in ethnic and cultural exclusiveness, although of a different kind— were regarded with contempt by most people. That applies in particular to the Irish group because it was responsible for so many deaths both directly and indirectly.
The position has not changed as regards the English extremists. However, the Irish extremists now shake hands with Prime Ministers and are feted and lionised by American senators, congressmen and Hollywood film stars and directors. One Hollywood star was

69
reported as exclaiming, "Shaking hands with Gerry Adams was a rare and wonderful opportunity". Simon Jenkins wrote in the Spectator.
"Mr. Adams's reception in a land of the free was sickening almost beyond belief".
Who could disagree?
The point is that all that adulation by important and glamorous people is bound to boost Sinn Fein's electoral support. One fears that the extreme Republican position has also been strengthened by the deplorable assertion in the Downing Street Agreement that Britain has no selfish, strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland. Can one imagine for a moment President Mitterrand or M. Balladur saying the same kind of thing about Corsica, Brittany or any other part of France where there has been separatist violence and terrorism? Of course not; the French are far too proud.
There would have been no harm in simply pointing out that Britain had no economic interest in the Province, any more than it has an economic interest in Merseyside or the former Durham coalfields. It might have been useful to demonstrate to ignorant outsiders that Britain is not occupying a reluctant Province against the wishes of its inhabitants for the sake of its oil wells or platinum mines.
However, the whole tenor of the statement went far beyond that, and, as I know from my correspondence, it caused great offence to large numbers of people in Northern Ireland, many of whose families have served the Crown on various battlefields for three generations or more and some of whom have paid the ultimate price. The statement made the Province sound like a kind of white man's burden—as though it were not part of the United Kingdom but more like Palestine in the quarter of a century leading up to 1947, with Britain trying to hold a ring between the Arabs and the Jews and being shot at by both sides for its pains, all the while being cursed by the Americans from the sidelines.
Apart from the effect of such phraseology upon the morale of the loyal majority of the Province, words such as this have a defensive, even embarrassed, ring about them. That must confirm the IRA's suspicions that the British governing classes have lost the stomach for the fight and lead the Americans, amazingly uninformed as they are, to believe that the "Brits" have something to be ashamed of.
Speaking of the Americans leads me to make a specific suggestion to Her Majesty's Government. Writing in the Spectator on 10th September Boris Johnson draws our attention to the extraordinary spectacle of the Irish Foreign Minister, Mr. Dick Spring, pacing a lawn at Martha's Vineyard in discussion with President Clinton. Their subject was the fate of British citizens living in the British Isles. No British Minister or Ambassador was present, or even a civil servant.
Most regrettably, the Americans seem to have been given a tacit go-ahead to interfere; and this despite the fact that even educated Americans are amazingly ignorant of countries outside the Western Hemisphere, as I know from my travels there. Most Americans genuinely believe that 95 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland is Gaelic speaking, ultra-Catholic, anti-British Republican. In that misconception they are,
70
of course, aided and abetted by the drama departments of the BBC and ITV companies, most of whose TV and radio plays until recently gave much the same false impression.
If it is wrong that Americans should interfere, it is even worse that they should do so from a position of ignorance. I strongly echo the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that a Border poll should be held as soon as possible: we should not wait for any referendum that may emerge in a few years' time in consequence of discussions on possible new constitutional arrangements. The publicised results of the poll would bring home to the Americans and others the realities of the situation. As the Government are aware, no new legislation would be required for such a poll.
Despite the regrettable remarks about no selfish, strategic or economic interest, I am sure that most members of the Government are sincere when they profess devotion to the Union. But they must realise what a formidable grouping they are up against. It espouses what Andrew Marr, writing in the Independent on 31 st August, calls,
"a pan-nationalist agenda for Ireland".
That grouping includes not only the obvious people but also a number of others; for instance, cynics in the British establishment and the media whose not-so-secret message to unionists (with a small "u") is, "We do want to lose you and we think you ought to go"; a certain type of modern Conservative who believes that money is everything and that patriotism and a sense of nationhood are old fashioned and tiresome irrelevances; many powerful Americans, including Senator Edward Kennedy who some years ago proposed that the Protestants in Ireland who did not want to accept a united Ireland should be repatriated to England or Scotland—ethnic cleansing, as it were; and, last but by no means least, organisations with militarist titles in the Republic of Ireland. I refer not only to the Irish Republican Army but to the Soldiers of Destiny.
Some noble Lords may wonder why I use that term rather than the commonly used term, Fianna Fail. There are two reasons. First, consistency: when we are talking about the French Socialist Party we do not talk about le parti Socialiste, or the Freie Demokratische Partei when we are talking about the German Free Democrats. Secondly, and more importantly, it is to bring home to people what that party has historically always stood for. In its 1927 election manifesto it promised to annex Northern Ireland: by force obviously since there was no other way in which the Province could conceivably have been annexed. On obtaining an overall majority in 1933, the party led by de Valera realised that such a frontal assault was not feasible. Nevertheless, it set about trying to eliminate from the South everything with remotely British connotations. It made it clear in the 1937 constitution that it had similar long-term plans for the North.
We are now being told that the party has changed its spots, and it is true that there are a few encouraging straws in the wind. The long-standing boycott of Remembrance Day services by the Irish political establishment has, I believe, recently been abolished,

71
and that must be welcomed. That is one example. But if there really is a change of heart, it should demonstrate its good faith, first, by abandoning all demands for any quid pro quo in revoking the infamous Clauses 2 and 3 of the 1937 constitution, in the same way as Chancellor Kohl rightly abandoned territorial claims on Poland after considerable criticism. As the noble Lord, Lord Mason, emphasised, there should be no question of scrapping the 1920 Act.
Secondly, it should be agreed that any cross-Border agreements should be voluntary: I was very glad to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark make that point. Not only should they be voluntary but they should also be reciprocal, for in the past few years the concessions have been all one way. That insidious ratchet effect has operated against the Union for far too long.
7.11 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for enabling us to have this debate. I echo the well-deserved tributes to my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for their wisdom in promoting the declaration and also in refusing to be rushed into acceptance of the IRA ceasefire.
My concern is that we should recognise clearly that we are looking at a negotiating tactic by the IRA designed to secure the maximum political credibility and credit with their supporters in the US, in Ireland itself and in the world at large to enable them to extract concessions while still retaining the ability and choice to revert to violence or to threaten to do so at any time because they retain their weapons and their firepower.
Gerry Adams himself, as has been pointed out, incautiously admitted in the US that a new IRA leadership in a few years' time would not be bound by present agreements and could choose to return to what they are pleased to call military action. That is what they will say once their political initiatives are exhausted. Meanwhile, fund raising for the IRA continues, as does recruitment. One wonders what message Joe Cahill took to the US. We have heard nothing of his activities.
I am concerned about three aspects of the present situation. The first is that, while military action may have been suspended, violence against members of the Catholic community by the IRA bully boys continues. Those lawless acts are not repudiated by Sinn Fein. As many noble Lords have said, we owe it to all the citizens of Northern Ireland to protect them from people who have no status to judge, still less to punish.
My next anxiety is the ambiguity which has been allowed to surround the status of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness. Both have been active members of the IRA. They now purport to be nothing but members of Sinn Fein, a political party which, while speaking for the IRA, yet presents itself as negotiating with it over a period of nine months. The inference is that they are neither part of the faceless men of the army council nor have they any power except to persuade. If that is the case and Sinn Fein cannot answer for the army council nor commit it, then we are dealing simply with a small
72
political group which has so far commanded only about 10 per cent. of the vote in the north and 5 per cent. in the south. Although in the new circumstances, they may well secure significantly more support in the south, they still cannot hope to command a majority. Why, therefore, do they and the IRA believe that it is worth coming to the talks and apparently suspending paramilitary activity? It is because they expect to secure concessions with the Armalite still held behind their backs.
Gerry Adams is often compared with Nelson Mandela and the IRA with the ANC. That is a false comparison since, in South Africa, there was no access to democratic power through the vote, while in Northern Ireland the vote has been available to all. Indeed, Gerry Adams could have sat at Westminster.
The true comparison is with the North Vietnamese politburo, which successfully extracted concession after valuable concession from Henry Kissinger at the Paris talks by claiming that they were the doves of the politburo who wanted peace but who could prevail over the hawks only if they could demonstrate that they could secure concessions. The truth is that they were neither doves nor hawks. They were a united politburo brilliantly able to exploit the Western habit of give and take in negotiation—only the North Vietnamese never gave; they negotiated to win.
Sinn Fein and the IRA are using the same tactic. It will allow them to appear to be reasonable men whose position is being undermined by the unreasonable refusal on our part to concede what they want. That will enable them to internationalise the situation and to bring American and Irish pressure to bear to push us further. It is essential that HMG and the Irish Government should identify and expose that disinformation campaign early before it can gain credibility.
I share the hope expressed today that we may call their bluff by insisting on a major handing in of weapons before any negotiations, as distinct from probing talks, are even considered. Not that that will necessarily prevent the resurgence of an armed IRA, as has been pointed out by many authoritative speakers. However, it would expose the truth about their claims to be peacemakers.
My third anxiety, which I share with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, concerns the future of the Army in Northern Ireland. I hope that a clear distinction will be drawn between withdrawing the Army, should conditions prove to justify it, from its more visible role in support of the civil power and withdrawing troops from Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and we have army units and an army presence in all parts of the UK. To withdraw from Northern Ireland is to accept tacitly the image which the nationalists wish to present of colonialist army occupation. I hope that no Treasury consideration and no ill-informed pressure from the American or Irish lobbies will be allowed to dictate such a move. It would be a fatal political error as well as a betrayal of all the people of Northern Ireland.

73
My last anxiety is as regards the dangerous ambiguity which surrounds the whole concept of Northern Ireland in the Joint Declaration. At one moment it is one of two parts of the island of Ireland. At another it is an element of:
"the people of Ireland, North and South";
at another, it is part of the Union. If the British Government agree that:
"it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self-determination … to bring about a united Ireland",
then what is the status of Northern Ireland? Above all, what has become of Northern Ireland's status as a component part of the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? I feel unease about the many small hints in the Joint Declaration which almost suggest that it is unreasonable of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland not to be part of a united Ireland in deference to the wish of a minority.
Of course, there are always those wise and well informed members of the Clinton Administration to consider, while they are in turn considering the need to secure the Irish vote in the US. Perhaps I may suggest that we should draw a parallel between Northern Ireland and Florida and offer to send a British delegation to Florida to decide upon the proper handling of the Cuban problem after, of course, full consultation with President Castro.
My chief anxiety is that, in the political phase of the battle with the IRA which we now appear to be entering, we should ensure that the truth reaches the world and expose at once every manoeuvre by Sinn Fein to purport to speak for the people of Ireland, instead of being little more than a mouthpiece of the IRA.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, understandably, this has been a low key and only very cautiously hopeful debate coming in the immediate aftermath of the cessation of Loyalist violence and only six weeks after the IRA ceasefire. Every contribution has been important in creating common cause in this House. The debate has been enriched by the thoughtful and well-informed maiden speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Downshire, to whom I should like to add my congratulations.
It is a joyous moment for all the law-abiding inhabitants of Northern Ireland. Those like myself who love Northern Ireland as well as the Republic of Ireland from many years of close contact and friendship especially rejoice with them. As a Queen's Counsel of the Northern Ireland as well as the English Bar and a mere junior at the Irish Bar, there is one group whose courage, independence and integrity I should like to pay tribute to: the Northern Ireland judiciary. Its members have been particular targets of the IRA and have been attacked and murdered on a scale quite unknown in any other part of Europe, but they have been completely unflinching in their devotion to their arduous public duty.
As noble Lords across the House have said this evening, we all pray that the peace process will lead to a new deal for Northern Ireland in which violence is
74
rejected for all time as a means to political ends, in which the values of both main traditions in Northern Ireland are mutually respected and where all inhabitants of both islands are able equally to enjoy the same basic human rights, irrespective of where they live—whether as European, Irish or British citizens. Everyone who has spoken today agrees that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom unless the majority of the people freely consent to change.
It is a nice irony of history that your Lordships' debate takes place on a Motion moved by the Leader of the House the Lord Privy Seal. The noble Viscount is, of course, the great great grandson of the third Marquess of Salisbury. It is just over a century ago when it was the noble Viscount's great great grandfather who, as Leader of the Conservative Opposition, played such a major part in the rejection by this House of Gladstone's second Irish Home Rule Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, said, the dramatic painting of the Marquess speaking against that Bill hangs outside this Chamber in the Bishops' Corridor.
Many people today on both sides of the Irish Sea, including, I dare say, the noble Lord the Leader of the House, may regret the fact that this House rejected Gladstone's second attempt at constitutional self-government in Ireland within a federal union of both countries. If he will permit me to say so without impertinence, the noble Viscount is a living proof, as his speech today indicated, that the hereditary principle does not mean atavism.
When I read the passionate, prejudiced, partisan, dogmatic and immoderate debates on Ireland in this House of a century ago, I am reminded of the wisdom of an American judge, Judge Learned Hand. He warned that,
"the spirit of liberty is the spirit that it is not too sure that it is right".
It seems to me that that warning is especially appropriate when we who are not Northern Irish discuss Northern Irish affairs.
Our two nations are confronted by problems which are deep-rooted in the violent and sometimes terrible history of the proud peoples of the ancient nations of Ireland and Scotland as well as England: problems linked with fiercely-held feelings of identity with clan, with culture, with language, with religion and with nationhood; problems aggravated by centuries of violence, injustice, exploitation, discrimination, hatred and bigotry; problems which are not amenable to simplistic solutions and quick political fixes.
The history of relations between Britain and Ireland is, to borrow from James Joyce, a nightmare from which we are trying to awake. The problems afflicting Northern Ireland are those which affect everyone on both sides of the Irish Sea, not only in Ulster, but also in London, Edinburgh and, I daresay, in Dublin. There is surely a need for plural systems of democratic, effective and accountable government based on modern concepts of citizenship and the rule of law.
The leading editorial in last Friday's edition of The Times rightly observed that the Prime Minister cannot afford to go to the conference table with the threat of renewed violence hanging over him. Equally, the Prime

75
Minister cannot surrender the peace process to semantic argument over the precise nature of permanence. Mr. Major recently told us that he does not trade in adjectives. So he should not be unduly troubled by the difference between the word "permanent" and the word "complete". If the shrewd Mr. Molyneaux can accept the prospect of the Government sitting down to their first official negotiations with Sinn Fein with the issue of permanence unresolved, so surely can Mr. Major and Sir Patrick Mayhew with more than a twitter of wit.
No fair-minded person would accuse the Government of acting with reckless haste if they now begin the process of direct negotiation. The risk is rather that further delay would be rightly interpreted in Ireland as what is called in Irish "cnaimhseail"-ing, or grumbling for grumbling's sake. As my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham said, the Government ought now to change gear so that talks might begin by the year's end.
When it comes to the substance of negotiations in the coming months, it will be important for all parties to avoid adopting the rigid and inflexible positions in line with their traditional and sometimes outmoded ideas about constitutional and political structures. In Ireland, the written constitution created by de Valera in 1937 proclaims a deeply religious conviction and faith, though, happily, since the referendum in 1972 it is no longer one which gives special privileges to the Roman Catholic Church. Less happily, the Irish constitution still lays claim to the entire national territory. In some respects, its attitudes on personal morality sit uneasily with the European Convention on Human Rights, which the Irish Government, like the British Government, have so far refused to incorporate directly into domestic law. I do not share the pessimism of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt—although I understand it—about the ability and willingness of the Irish Government and of the Irish people to amend their constitution including Articles 2 and 3—the Clause 4 of their constitution.
On our side in the United Kingdom, the unwritten Victorian constitution is based upon Dicey's English dogma of an omnipotently sovereign Parliament, on Whitehall's unitary and centralised state, on a concept of subjecthood rather than citizenship, and on preventing the Queen's courts from reviewing the constitutional legality of Acts of Parliaments even when governments wear the clothing of parliamentary sovereignty to breach fundamental human rights.
If the Governments, Parliaments and citizens of both countries are ever to achieve a sensible and lasting settlement which is acceptable to both communities in Northern Ireland and to the citizens of both countries as a whole, I suggest that it will be necessary to be boldly imaginative and open-minded, drawing upon the common law and parliamentary traditions of both islands while making more direct use of values and standards enshrined in the European convention and in the constitution and laws of the European Union.
As my noble friend Lord Home emphasised, it will also be important to review whether the full panoply of emergency powers really remains necessary in the new circumstances of the Province and whether the European
76
convention can be made part of the law of Northern Ireland and, I would add, of Great Britain, and, further, the Irish Republic.
Perhaps I may break off briefly here to ask the Minister a question which I very much hope she will be able to answer this evening, or at least at some time in the near future. Will necessary funds provided by the European Union to ease the negotiations in Northern Ireland be treated by the Government as additional funds for that purpose and not be substituted by the Treasury for existing expenditure in the Province?
There can never be a return to the bleak 50 years following the Government of Ireland Act, in which the Westminster Parliament failed to exercise its sovereign powers and in which the Westminster Parliament permitted Stormont, as has been said, to infringe the civil and political rights of the Catholic minority, condoning religious and political discrimination, and diluting their voting power by abolishing proportional representation for local elections.
That is in the past. What matters now is to create the framework within which Northern Ireland will be democratically and fairly run, fully respecting and securing the rights of the Catholic minority and of the Protestant majority—a system of governing by consensus in which public powers are shared and not abused. The Government will have the support of my party and of the whole House in pursuing that important goal with courage, with energy and with all deliberate speed.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, it is always a privilege to address this House on the subject of Northern Ireland. It has been a particular pleasure today because of the range and quality of the speeches which we have all listened to. I hope I may, with respect, point to one, the maiden speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Downshire, a speech which I personally found to be of interest and of great content, both of which are adjectives one cannot normally ascribe to maiden speeches.
I endorse, as I have on so many earlier occasions, what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said about the quality of the judiciary in Northern Ireland. I speak from the same degree of personal knowledge as he, as I have practised in the courts in Belfast in the same way. Perhaps I can deviate for a moment to commend the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on introducing a lighter note when he said he had seen an advertisement headed, "Why are you a bore"? The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, who is always my mentor on these occasions, kindly produced the advertisement for me. Plainly the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has benefited from the course as the advertisement promises it will work like magic to give one poise, self-confidence and greater popularity.
The noble Marquess used the phrase: "there may have been a sea change". That is what we all hope for. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, like her predecessor in this House, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, has always emphasised the need for patience, and in particular a non-partisan approach to Ulster's problems.

77
I know that I can trust her to agree that we have never tried to make a party point or take any form of political advantage from the miseries and anxieties of other people. Those miseries and anxieties were described yet again so movingly by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh.
It seems that there is a new spirit abroad. It is a very tender infant and it needs to be succoured with care and looked after with patience. I think we all agree with that. The Leader of the Labour Party generously said at Blackpool recently that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, with their ministerial team, deserve full credit, which we wholeheartedly give. With respect, I reiterate that this evening. They are not the only ones who deserve credit. Other noble Lords have spoken of John Hume. He has been quite vigorously criticised in your Lordships' House on earlier occasions such as this but he has deserved credit. He was doing lonely work; he was likely to be criticised, and he was; he was thought certain to fail and he did not. I think a decent regard for his public service is something that one ought to mention.
We on this side of the House agree that caution is to be the watchword, but reasoned not fearful caution, otherwise we shall get nowhere. We on these Benches are particularly pleased—I think the noble Lord, Lord Lester, indicated this—to endorse the lifting of restrictions on publicity. Many of us on this side have thought in the past, and said publicly, that the ban on speaking, except through an actor's voice, gave only benefit to the apologists of terror and terrorism. It was a great propaganda coup in the United States of America where not everyone thinks well of us. The hardest, most difficult times that Gerry Adams has had in the past five years have been from television and newspaper reporters who have made him answer in his own voice, not hiding behind the shield we foolishly gave him. When those questions are put to him, often he has no reply and the thinness of his defence is exposed by the fact that journalists and newspaper reporters can put questions to him and say, "Listen to me, Mr. Adams. You just answer now".
When Mr. Blair stood for leadership of the Labour Party he stressed, almost as his first observation, that the problems of Northern Ireland and the pursuit of peace and reconciliation would be one of the first priorities of a Labour government under his prime ministership. That remains our full position. We endorse, as we always have, the Downing Street Declaration. It is historically not correct to point to it as being the declaration that the Government of the United Kingdom had no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland. That was long past. It was first delivered, if I remember rightly, by Mr. Brooke, when he was Secretary of state for Northern Ireland, and was subsequently endorsed on a number of occasions by the Prime Minister long before the Downing Street Declaration was ever proposed. We are happy to re-emphasise to our friends and colleagues who live in Ulster that Labour Party policy is that there can be no change in the constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland without the consent of its people.
78
I pay my own small tribute, if I may, to the way in which Mr. Molyneaux, with internal political problems of his own, has sought to be flexible and sought to deal with a changing situation. There are many, many problems to be addressed, such as the constitutional legislation of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and the powers, functions and nature of devolved government in Northern Ireland. I respectfully underline and endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, which have been made on earlier occasions as well as this evening, that if one gives people no power, one will attract no one of quality into government. We must look towards parity of esteem and equality of treatment for both traditions.
I hope I may mention my next point as I do not believe it has been mentioned this evening. I believe that it is foolish and myopic to believe that because there are two religious cultural traditions in Northern Ireland, each of those two is a monolith. It is quite the opposite in fact; they are not monolithic, they are internally diverse in the Protestant tradition as well as in the Roman Catholic tradition. As has been said by noble Lords earlier this evening, not all Roman Catholics have a particular view any more than all Protestants have a particular view. I think in the past, because of the polarisation which terrorism has imposed upon Northern Ireland, we have been too slow to recognise the internal diversity of different traditions. We must look to cross-Border co-operation, and if there is to be any constitutional amendment of the arrangements, to see that both governments are in a position to bind themselves to protect those altered arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, pointed to the surprising fact to many of us that half the population in Northern Ireland lives in wards either composed of 90 per cent. Roman Catholics or 90 per cent. Protestants. In fact, only 7 per cent. of the population live in areas where there is no such overwhelming majority.
We have to look to the policing of Northern Ireland. I want to repeat that no one can fail to pay tribute to the daily courage, endurance and decency of the policeman on the street in Northern Ireland. Those are only words, but they mean something.
Over the next few years we have to consider a different basis of recruitment to the police service in Northern Ireland. I agree that, as has already been said, we have to move, with deliberate speed and caution, to minimise the function of the armed services in protection of the civil power. In every conversation that I have had either with the armed services or the Ulster police service I have found that both agree with that objective.
In his key Coleraine speech almost two years ago the Secretary of State said:
"When terrorism is seen to have genuinely ended, there will indeed be profound consequences for the maintenance of law and order and for the administration of justice. Freed from the threat of death at every corner, the RUC would be free to give fresh priority to the quality and accessibility of its service. Normality could return. The emergency legislation would have served its purpose".
Those are matters of profound and long-lasting importance to Northern Ireland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom.

79
The emergency legislation, with extended detention, non-jury courts in serious criminal cases and internal executive exile has never been welcome, although our stance has always been that some of those features have been unfortunate necessities. We need to scrutinise that apparatus to see whether it can be dismantled or at least significantly redesigned. The problems of Northern Ireland have significantly distorted the legal process in England and Wales as well as in Northern Ireland. We need to be very careful about taking draconian powers, as we are being urged to do in the present Criminal Justice Bill, in relation to police stop and search when no reasonable suspicion is involved.
The role of the police authorities can usefully be extended. The more open they are, the better support the police service in Northern Ireland will have. The complaints system needs to be improved and brought up to date. No decent policeman and no decent police service has anything to fear from the improvement of a police complaints procedure.
No one can pretend that there are no problems that will not endure for the next 20 to 25 years. No one can look at the unemployment statistics, particularly in the younger age groups, without a sense of deep gloom. Unemployment of more than 25 per cent. is the best recruiting sergeant that terrorism has ever had.
I return to the maiden speech in which the term "sea change" was used. There are modest, reasonable hopes for a sea change. Perhaps the wind is kinder now, but no one on this side of the House deceives himself or herself that change will be brought about quickly. Caution is the watchword. Whether within government or without, anyone in Northern Ireland who looks for decent support will not look in vain to these Benches.
7.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, I have never doubted this House's interest in Northern Ireland. Each time I return to London there is a queue of people looking to be updated on the situation in the Province. I also know, and now personally understand, how once having had the privilege of serving in the Northern Ireland Office the affection and regard you have for the people of Northern Ireland is with you for life.
It does not surprise me therefore that we have had such an informed and thought-provoking debate. I am appreciative of the many valuable and constructive contributions made today. So much has happened over the past few months that it is extremely helpful to hear the wisdom of this House.
In particular, I too pay tribute to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Downshire. I hope very much that with his knowledge of the Province we can look forward to future participation in Northern Ireland debates.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, rightly says that in this House the concern for the people of Northern Ireland has always risen above party politics. I am grateful for that, and I am sure that the people of
80
Northern Ireland are too. I am also grateful for the Labour Party's support for the Downing Street Declaration.
Your Lordships have covered much ground and raised many points. Were I to answer every one in detail tonight we would be here until midnight. With the House's permission, I shall deal with the main and recurrent issues and reply in writing to all the other points that have been raised.
Time and time again your Lordships expressed anxiety about the position with respect to weapons in the hands of paramilitaries. Her Majesty's Government have no hesitation in saying that no one who is committed to peaceful and democratic methods has any need to hold arms. We want to see the gun removed entirely from politics in Northern Ireland. The practical steps to achieve that will necessarily be part of the exploratory dialogue.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She may not be able to answer the point, and if she cannot I shall understand. I was concerned as to whether giving up arms was to be a prerequisite to the starting of negotiations. In other words, would it have to precede negotiations or would it be part of those negotiations?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as I said just now, it will necessarily be part of the exploratory dialogue.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked for further information about the joint framework document. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked whether it would include details of Strand One concerning relationships within Northern Ireland. The discussions that are taking place on the preparation of the document are, of course, confidential and it would not be right to go into detail. However, I can tell your Lordships that the document does not focus on the detail of Strand One, which is a matter for discussion between Her Majesty's Government and the Northern Ireland parties and has been the subject of discussion between my honourable friend Michael Ancram and the three main Northern Ireland parties. The framework document concentrates instead on Strands Two and Three; namely, North-South and East-West relations. The purpose of the document is to provide a common understanding of the elements of a settlement which will attract widespread acceptance.
I listened with interest to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, about publication of the joint framework document. No decision has yet been taken by the two governments, but it is an issue which will be considered as the document nears completion.
Many noble Lords raised the question of the timing of exploratory talks. Our judgment of the right time to enter exploratory talks with Sinn Fein will be made in the light of circumstances. We have laid down no preconditions for their beginning other than that there should be a genuine and established cessation of violence. The reason for a time lapse between a genuine cessation of violence and exploratory dialogue is to enable commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods to be demonstrated. I assure the

81
noble Lord that we are not grumbling for grumbling's sake. But we believe in a step at a time. That is a view that I have heard from most noble Lords today.
I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, that the statement and actions by my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have reassured those supporters of the Union that decisions on any settlement will be made by the people of Northern Ireland, and that no ceasefires have been bought. No price has been paid for them. There have been no secret deals, no secret assurances; and, to repeat a statement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State,
"no nods, no winks, no tricks with mirrors".
I was delighted, as I suspect was the whole of your Lordships' House, that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark took part in the debate. I agree wholeheartedly with his view that the search for peace cannot be delivered by Government alone, but everyone has a role to play; and, as the right reverend Prelate said, may God be on the side of the peacemakers.
I know—I heard the fact again tonight—that the statement that the British Government have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland has given much cause: for concern in some noble Lords' minds. I believe that I can do no better than to repeat the explanation of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister when he said,
"We shall not impose our views on the majority in Northern Ireland but that, of course, does not and cannot mean that we are indifferent to their concerns and their future. We support the Union; and we protect its people. We support their rights with our cast iron constitutional guarantee. We support their economy and we support it generously. We deploy 18,000 of our troops in Northern Ireland because of our concern about the situation there, and we want to ensure that the people in Northern Ireland about whom we are concerned can have a safer and more prosperous future in which democracy can thrive. None of that is selfish; all of it is our responsibility".
Since my right honourable friend made that statement, matters have moved quickly. But there can be no doubt of our responsibility in that area.
The question of emergency legislation was raised. The need for the Emergency Provisions Act has always been kept under review. We have stated that its provision will remain in force no longer than is necessary. But it is obviously too soon to speculate about the future of the Act which protects the law-abiding public from terrorists of all persuasions. We are guided in those matters by professional assessment of threat.
As the noble Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, knows, decisions on operational deployments and the nature and level of security force activity to prevent crime and protect the community are influenced by that prevailing threat. The security forces will, under the chief constable's direction, continue to act against those responsible for crimes with full vigour and with the Government's full support. If a genuine and permanent cessation of violence takes place, there will be major consequences for the maintenance of law and order and the deployment of troops. But there is no question of military support for the police being reduced while that support is needed.
82
I noted, too, with interest, the relevant issue raised by my noble friend Lady Park that so far as concerns troop deployment Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.
Again, nervousness has been expressed about joint authority. I am delighted to tell the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, that both Governments have confirmed that joint authority is not on either Government's agenda. At the inter-governmental conference on 15th April, Dick Spring stated,
"Joint authority is not being considered".
Apart from the question of practicality, the Government do not believe that any agreed outcome from further talks would embrace any sharing of political responsibility for Northern Ireland by the two Governments. However, the noble Lord rightly pointed out many economic benefits for some sectors to work together. We must avoid overlaying political matters on activities which bring mutual benefit and often jobs to the people of Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, rightly paid tribute to the Northern Ireland judiciary. We would all concur. We are proud of the record of service that the judges in Northern Ireland have given to the Province.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked whether there were to be exceptions to the "nothing to be agreed until everything is agreed" approach for the purpose of confidence building. Participation in the talks process through which the parties will reach agreement on institutions will be the best confidence building measure. The issues would be agreed.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough raised the issue of amnesty. Perhaps I may assure him that the criminal law will continue to be applied vigorously with the intention of bringing those responsible for terrorist crime before the courts. Those convicted of crimes must expect to serve their sentences in accordance with the law. The Forum for Peace and Reconciliation which is to be established in the Republic of Ireland was mentioned. That is entirely a matter for the Irish Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, raised the issue of responsibility for controlling the talks. Both Governments hope that the joint framework document which they are preparing will provide the impetus for the resumption of multilateral talks involving the two Governments and all the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. We shall certainly do all we can to encourage the progress of those talks towards agreement on a widely acceptable political settlement addressing all the relevant relationships. We are persuaders for agreement.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and several other noble Lords raised the question of local authorities. Perhaps I may assure my noble friend that the Government wish to see greater power and responsibility in the hands of locally accountable representatives. But for any such arrangement to be stable and durable, it must enjoy widespread acceptance and operate within a framework of stable relationships. We believe that the best way to achieve that lies with the talks process, but meanwhile we consider every possible

83
means to encourage people to be involved in their communities, including public appointments. We believe that it is important to encourage young people in particular to re-look at politics and to participate in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked me for a guarantee that the European Union funds would not be a question of additionality. All aspects of additional funding in the present circumstances are under close consideration. As he will know, I am really saying that it is a matter for Treasury. I shall write to the noble Lord when the details are known.
Several noble Lords praised the RUC. It is praise well deserved. I stress that the RUC is open to all. I very much hope that it will now be possible for more Roman Catholics to play a full-time role in policing. I believe that that would be an important move.
The noble Lords, Lord Mason, Lord Lester, and others mentioned Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution which make territorial claim over Northern Ireland. I refer your Lordships to the Joint Declaration in which the Irish Prime Minister confirmed that in the event of an overall settlement, the Irish Government will, as a part of a balanced constitutional accommodation, put forward and support proposals for change in the Irish constitution which would fully reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland. The discussions on the joint framework document between the governments include constitutional issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised the issue of the incorporation of the European Court of Human Rights. A common position on the incorporation of the European Court of Human Rights and other human rights issues will emerge during multilateral talks and it would be wrong to pre-empt that.
However, I wish to reply to noble Lords who raised the question of a Bill of Rights. While it would be wrong of me again to pre-empt future talks, I am well aware of the different parties' support for the principle of a Bill of Rights. On the other hand, as will be well appreciated, the issues are far from straightforward. The point that I should like to make is that there will be a chance for all the participants in the talks, including Her Majesty's Government, to evolve a common position on the human rights issues during multilateral talks, as there will be on a broad range of other issues.
These are all points which concern your Lordships. What must remain our highest priority is the views of the people of Northern Ireland. A majority of the people living there want to stay within the union. To quote my right honourable friend the Secretary of State,
"we are glad of it. It is a strength and it is an inspiration".
I stress too that this is not an exclusively Protestant view. We also recognise that a significant minority aspire to a united Ireland. We have guaranteed the right of Northern Ireland's people to decide their constitutional future democratically. The principle of democracy was set out in the Downing Street Declaration, and on a recent visit to Belfast the Prime
84
Minister reaffirmed that the outcome of the three-stranded talks process would be put to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum.
So much has been achieved since the Prime Minister courageously delivered that Downing Street Declaration; courageous, because no British Prime Minister has built his or her reputation on solving the Irish issue but never has there been greater need for a solution. I salute the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, who made that declaration with him. I also pay particular tribute to my two colleagues, Sir Patrick Mayhew and Michael Ancram, who tirelessly work towards finding the answer which restores permanent peace to a very special island. All those major players are of course assisted ably and unstintingly by a team of officials who live, breathe and, I suspect, sleep the problems.
As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and the right reverend Prelate said, many have played a part in getting us so far. Yet we must acknowledge that it is a task with a long and difficult path ahead. Everything must be allowed to come to the table, everything must be examined and decided. There will have to be a swallowing of pride and much more by all participants. As my noble friend Lord Colnbrook pointed out, we shall all need patience. The resolution of the current situation has to be comprehensive and final if we are to achieve political stability in Northern Ireland. As we have learnt today, none of us who has not lived in Northern Ireland for the past 25 years can have any real conception of the pain, suffering or courage involved. We witness the major tragedies, but we can never begin to imagine how it feels to give birth to a baby whose father has been murdered—and many have; to sit or to walk next to a victim who is shot; to be married to a policeman or policewoman or a member of the security forces who may be killed for simply doing their jobs: protecting others.
Do not, I beg you, my Lords, underestimate the achievements of the police and security forces. If you were to see the list of weapons they find regularly, you would have a real measure of the number of lives that they have saved.
Last week I spoke in Belfast to the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists. They told me that at the height of the troubles, to get to the Royal Victoria Hospital they had to put their uniforms on at home to get past the paramilitaries. At the end of the shift they had to stay at the hospital until no more bullets flew past the windows. But no one ever called in sick.
We have seen a great victory for the people of Northern Ireland, who proved that violence did not and could not work. As the right honourable Member for Lagan Valley, Jim Molyneaux, said on Saturday, "Democracy has finally won".
Now we have hope. Belfast is already a different city, we shop without our handbags being searched; we visit hotels without going through the security hut; we drive home without frequent stops at checkpoints. But while that is tremendous news, we shall never stop in our determination to stamp out violence; and punishing people with beatings is violence. Ask the young victims and their mothers. The RUC will never slacken in its

85
protection of the people and, as the noble Lord suggested, we shall continue our vigorous security policy. Nor would we hesitate to react strongly and quickly to any renewed threat of violence. We shall work towards peace with all our efforts; but we shall not be unprepared, should our hopes and those of most of the people of Northern Ireland be dashed. For we shall never forget that it is this Government which carries the responsibility for Northern Ireland. We shall work ceaselessly to find a settlement. We shall give the decision process to the people of Northern Ireland. That is democracy.
My Lords, we shall continue to need your understanding, your help, your analysis, your judgment and your prayers as we work for the permanence of peace. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994
8.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th July be approved [25 th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the regulations standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The regulations were approved in another place, following the debate on 19th July. My honourable friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside wrote to honourable Members who had raised points in that debate and copies of his letters have been placed in the Library.
The draft regulations to be made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 transpose into national law for Great Britain the provisions of the EC directive on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna adopted by the Council of Ministers in May 1992.
The directive was a significant milestone for the conservation of the most endangered habitat types and species in the European Union and these draft regulations indicate the Government's determination to give proper effect to its requirements. The challenge has been to integrate the new requirements of the directive into what we already have.
The regulations introduce new provisions arising specifically from the directive but also embrace existing provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and other Acts, with modifications where necessary. The draft order, therefore, constitutes a single body of legislation for sites and animal and plant species of European importance covered by the directive. The existing law, in so far as it applies to non-European sites and species outside the scope of the directive, remains in force unamended.
The draft regulations follow the public consultation which took place last autumn. All those who responded to the consultation have received a letter explaining the contents of the regulations and a copy has been placed in the Library. The letters from respondents plus a
86
summary analysis of their contents have also been placed in the Library. In addition, a summary of responses to the public consultation on the amendments to the general development order effected by these regulations is in the Library.
A cornerstone provision of the regulations is the introduction of new duties on Ministers and the nature conservation agencies to exercise certain of their functions in order to secure compliance with the requirements of the directive. In doing so they must use such of the provisions in existing nature conservation legislation and in these regulations as may be necessary to secure the protection of sites and species as required by the directive. A similar duty is imposed on authorities operating in the marine environment, to which I shall return later. All government and public bodies have a new duty to have regard to the directive's requirements in the exercise of any of their functions, and Part IV of the regulations imposes specific duties on certain statutory bodies in respect of certain functions.
The regulations provide for the selection and designation of sites which will become special areas of conservation (SACs) as required by the directive. The habitats directive applies a similar protection regime to SACs and special protection areas (SPAs) classified under the 1979 EC Wild Birds Directive. The regulations thus modify the protection regime applying to SPAs and provide a comprehensive legal protection system for all European sites which will in the future contribute to the Europe-wide network (known as Natura 2000) of designated nature conservation sites.
The regulations also give effect to the requirement that the Government must submit a proposed site list to the European Commission. Following discussion at community level a European Union-wide network of sites of Community importance will be adopted by June 1998; the regulations require the Secretary of State to designate such sites in this country as SACs within six years. The Government is receiving advice from the nature conservation agencies through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on their site proposals based on the directive's scientific criteria. We shall consider this advice and intend to publish a list of sites for consultation very shortly.
The Government are committed to preliminary consultation with all owners and occupiers and other affected interests on the sites before submission to the Commission takes place. Full and detailed discussions about definition and management of sites will continue before the Community list is agreed. On land, all candidate sites will have been notified and confirmed as sites of special scientific interest before the Community list is agreed. The vast majority are already confirmed SSSIs.
The Government have been committed for many years to the conservation of nationally and internationally important sites. It has a whole range of policies to achieve that objective. The SAC network is, therefore, a development of an existing conservation programme. I want to dispel from your Lordships' minds any notion that we are starting from scratch.
The regulations provide for the establishment of a register of European sites which will be open to public inspection. The entry of a site on the register will be notified to owners, occupiers, local authorities and any other interested bodies which the Secretary of State may direct. The register will be the formal means to record the sites subject to the provisions of the regulations.
The register will include existing Birds Directive SPAs and new SPAs as they are classified, and SACs, first when they are agreed at European level as sites of Community importance and, eventually, when they are formally designated.
The regulations provide that existing legal measures applying to SSSIs and nature reserves are available with certain modifications for European sites. The Government remain committed to the voluntary principle of land management. It is expected that where management is necessary most of the conservation needs of designated sites will be delivered through voluntary management agreements negotiated between owners and occupiers and the nature conservation agencies.
For European sites, the regulations continue the existing provisions of Sections 28 and 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 but make certain modifications relating to notification of and consents to operations which are likely significantly to affect the sites' conservation objectives. The nature conservation agencies will be able to amend their existing SSSI notifications for European sites. They will be unable to give consent to a notified operation if that operation would adversely affect the integrity of the site. They must inform the Secretary of State if there is a risk that the owner or occupier will persist with the operation.
The Secretary of State can then make a "special" nature conservation order prohibiting damaging operations indefinitely unless a management agreement (subject to existing arbitration procedures) is negotiated or unless he instructs the agency to give consent on grounds of overriding public interest. Existing consents on protected sites must be reviewed in the light of the directive's requirements and may be withdrawn or amended as appropriate.
The regulations also allow the making of by-laws to control third party activities and will enable powers of compulsory purchase, similar to those that exist in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, to be used if necessary as the only cost-effective means of safeguarding the conservation value of the land.
The regulations introduce a new framework for the conservation of European sites in the marine environment. All Ministers, government departments and public bodies with functions relevant to marine conservation must, under a new duty, exercise their functions to secure compliance with the requirements of the directive. Identified relevant authorities, such as sea fisheries committees, harbour authorities and local authorities are given a new power to join with one another in the drawing up of schemes of management for these sites.
The Government expect these authorities to work together voluntarily to establish such schemes founded on the advice which the nature conservation agencies are under a duty to provide. However, Ministers may, under the regulations, give directions to these bodies in respect of the establishment of a scheme of management and will do so if it seems to them necessary to secure the conservation of the site. Such directions could cover the nomination of a lead agency, a timescale for the preparation of a scheme or even the inclusion of certain conservation measures in a scheme.
The regulations introduce, in respect of the species covered by the directive which occur in the UK, a number of technical changes to the existing species protection provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The 1981 Act provisions were designed to implement the Bern Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats into British law. The directive, in its turn, was based on the provisions of the Bern Convention and therefore the need for change to existing domestic provisions is relatively small.
Part IV of the regulations contains detailed application of the provisions of Article 6 of the directive in respect of a number of existing legislative regimes for consents, permissions or authorisations of plans and projects or development which would be likely to have a significant effect on a European site. The regulations introduce a general approach to the assessment of such effects. They stipulate the exceptional circumstances in which consent can be given to a plan or project if an assessment shows that it will adversely affect the integrity of a site. Such circumstances are defined as where there is no alternative solution and where the plan or project is necessary for imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature.
Where a site hosts the very rarest of the habitat types and species, which are defined in the directive as "priority" habitat types or species, the only allowable considerations are those relating to human health or public safety, other environmental factors of primary importance or, subject to the Commission's approval, other reasons of overriding public interest.
All these provisions apply to the granting of new consents, permissions, etc., but the regulations also introduce a new requirement to review existing unimplemented or partially implemented decisions which are likely, if carried out, to affect European sites and if necessary to take action to remove harm.
The regulations specifically apply these general provisions to a range of existing controls, including the granting of planning permissions, deemed planning permissions and the availability of permitted development rights through the general development order. For England, Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 9 on nature conservation will explain the effects of the regulations fully to local authorities, developers and any other interests. Other guidance will be issued for Wales and for Scotland.
I believe that these draft regulations represent a thorough implementation package to comply with the requirements of the habitats directive. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th July be approved [25th Report front the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Ullswater.)
8.20 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("this House regrets that the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th July include, insofar as they concern Scotland, provisions which, inter alia,

(i) allow for an increase in the area of land covered by Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs); and

(ii) revoke existing consents for potentially damaging operations within SSSIs and consents for planning in the countryside generally;

and declines to approve the regulations until they have been examined against the test of subsidiarity as set out in Article 3(b) of the Treaty on European Union.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I start by apologising to all your Lordships for the tardiness with which I have tabled this amendment. However, it is only in the past few clays that some of my worst fears about the damage which these regulations and the European directive upon which they rest may do, at least in Scotland, have been confirmed. I should perhaps say that I speak entirely personally and in no way seek to portray the official views of the Scottish Landowners' Federation or Scottish Natural Heritage. I should also declare an interest, in that I own land in Scotland which is likely to be affected by the directive. Apart from one question which I shall put to my noble friend, I do not believe that my personal financial interest will be touched by these regulations. I am more worried that various scientific and regenerative schemes which I sponsor may be put in jeopardy.
I fear that it is inevitable that I shall have some fairly straight questions for my noble friend the Minister, in view of what I regard as the Government's folly in signing up to this particular directive. However, for what it is worth, I should like to exonerate my noble friend from any blame whatsoever, since he was doing other things at the time and is new to some of the finer and more dangerous nuances that I shall discuss. Likewise, I feel sure that his brief will not be of much help to him or to me. So I can but trust that this evening's proceedings will leave our very old friendship entirely intact.
Indeed, my noble friend's position is even more awkward than that, because not only will he hear what I expect may well be my lone voice urging him to abandon these regulations entirely; he will also have other noble Lords criticising the Government for not going a good deal further than they have done. He will thus be caught in what I always think is the unnecessary crossfire between the environmental lobby and the occupiers of land.
I know that there are many noble Lords who believe that our environmental problems are so worrying that surely any legislation which seeks to tackle those problems must be good. I do understand that view. But, as a Member of your Lordships' Select Committee on
90
Europe and in particular its sub-committee on the environment, I do not share it. We last debated this matter on 21st January 1993, when we discussed the Select Committee's Report on the enforcement of European environmental legislation and when I foresaw precisely the position in which we now find ourselves. If my noble friend could take the time to read what I said then (at cols. 987 to 990), I feel that he would understand my frustration now, even if he is not free to share it.
I still doubt, as I did then, whether European legislation is the right vehicle for international environmental regulation. My reasons still hold good— such as that Euro-legislation is made at national level, whereas in Germany, Spain, Holland and Belgium responsibility for the environment is vested at the local level of government. There is also the problem that most other member states simply have no intention of obeying Euro-rules with the same enthusiasm that we British do.
That gives me the opportunity to ask my first two questions of my noble friend. First, what evidence is there that any other countries of the European Communities are treating this directive with relish similar to our own or that they will be similarly obedient to it? Secondly, how much has each of them budgeted to spend in its pursuance?
Turning now specifically to Scotland—though I feel that what I have to say may apply as much to the rest of the United Kingdom—I contend that we do not need this directive at all. To support that contention I need to remind your Lordships of a little of the history of Scottish Natural Heritage. When the SNH Bill appeared in your Lordships' House, it proposed to give SNH much the same sort of coercive power which is now to be found in these regulations. At the time, sites of special scientific interest were broadly unpopular in Scotland and many of us felt that an independent system of appeal against them should have been introduced. After a certain amount of to-ing and fro-ing with the other place, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde brought forward a far-sighted government amendment which set up a new advisory committee under the auspices of SNH to which aggrieved landholders could appeal if they felt that their land was being designated on less than valid scientific grounds.
The amendment was accepted in your Lordships' House by a massive majority and confirmed by the other place. But there was an outcry from the leftish-greenish environmentalists, who claimed that the new advisory committee would be overwhelmed with appeals and that the work of SNH would be gummed up to the end of the century. I fear that they were even so uncharitable as to suggest that that was indeed the intention of the wicked landlords in your Lordships' House. How wrong they were. There have been only two appeals to the advisory committee and both have been decided in favour of SNH. However, there can be little doubt that the existence of the advisory committee has done much to curb some of the SNH's over-zealous designators of SSSI's, and it is safe to say that the SNH Act of 1991 heralded a new era of harmony and co-operation in Scotland.
Much of the credit for that of course must go to SNH's chairman, Sir Magnus Magnusson, and his team, with whom even deer forest owners were now looking forward to collaborating voluntarily in setting up the new natural heritage areas envisaged by the Act, which seemed to most of us the sensible and modem way forward.
But then along comes this wretched directive, which I fear will restore all the old antagonism and distrust between SNH and those who own and work the land, at least in Scotland. I regard the situation as tragic and I am afraid that I also regard it as somewhat sinister. It is as though some hidden hand failed to grab the power it sought through the SNH Bill procedure but has now succeeded in doing so through the back door of Brussels.
It is against our custom to criticise civil servants generally, let alone to name them individually, but I have discussed my worries with a number of noble friends in this House and with honourable and right honourable friends in the other place and find that I am not alone in reaching that conclusion. With one exception, convention further restrains me from naming my friends in question because they are today all Ministers of the Crown and therefore should not be drawn into controversy of this sort about a department in which they no longer work. However, I fancy that my noble friend Lord Hesketh (I am sorry to see that he is not with us), who has laid down the burdens of office, may know what I am talking about and may have some sympathy with it.
That brings me specifically to the amendment itself. I fear that the directive and these regulations will have at least six damaging effects, of which I have indicated two in the amendment. In discussing those defects, I would point out that we are being asked to agree to these regulations without knowing precisely, or at all, what their effect may be. We do not yet know what areas will be designated as special areas of conservation (SACs) by the Secretaries of State on the advice of our conservation bodies, so we do not know the magnitude of the problem that we may be facing. We can, however, see the principles—or lack of them—which underlie this particular piece of subservience to Brussels, so I shall address myself to those.
First, the regulations will result in a large increase in the area of land to be covered by SSSIs, at least in Scotland, and thus by the new Euro-designation of SAC. I say that because, after half a dozen Written Questions, my noble friend Lord Arran was able to tell me, in a letter dated 25th March this year, that SACs will only be declared on land which has already been fully confirmed as an SSSI, allowing consultation and possible review by the advisory committee in Scotland to run their course. My noble friend Lord Arran admitted also that those new sites which will make up the new Euro-SACs could involve several hundred owners and occupiers. I now learn that entire river systems may be designated because Brussels fears for the future of the Atlantic salmon. So we are clearly talking about very large new areas.
That seems to be particularly inappropriate. SNH has already designated all the land which it considers necessary to protect our natural heritage, amounting to about 10 per cent. of the Highlands. Can my noble friend tell us therefore—this is one of my more important questions—how much further land will have to be designated in Scotland and elsewhere? How do the Government justify handing over that land in effect to the diktat of the Brussels bureaucrats? Do the Government think that Brussels knows more about the natural heritage of Scotland, and indeed anywhere else in the United Kingdom, than SNH and other conservation bodies? If so, why?
My second point is that the regulations will force our conservation bodies to revoke consent for what are known as potentially damaging operations, which are rightly permitted within existing SSSIs with the consent of the conservation bodies. It will also force local authorities to revoke some planning consents which have already been granted in the countryside but upon which work may not have started. Here again, we have no idea of the scale of these extraordinary reversals of arrangements which have already been sanctioned by Parliament. Can my noble friend tell us how the Government have the brass nerve to justify them? Can he in fact give us any idea of the scale in question before we are invited to sanction the retrospective overturning of the will of Parliament, and by regulation at that?
My third point is that the directive introduces a new crime of what I call the "knock-on effect" in the countryside. One will be breaching the regulations if one carries out an operation which damages one of the new Euro-SACs nearby or even a long way away. Can I ask my noble friend whether the Government have given any thought as to the muddle in the world of planning which that part of the directive or regulation may cause? Who will decide whether a particular operation outside a Euro-SAC is likely to damage something Brussels judges to be important within it?
Fourthly, the regulations will weaken and perhaps nullify our present systems of appeal to the advisory committee in Scotland and to the Secretaries of State as ordained by Parliament. Can my noble friend tell us whether the advisory committee will judge appeals in future on the same scientific criteria it would have used before the directive came into force, or whether it will have to deliver its advice influenced by what the Secretary of State may have decided is scientifically important—he in turn having taken his marching orders from Brussels? By the same token, is not the judgment of the Secretaries of State going to be fettered by having to look over their shoulders at the regulations before deciding whether a specific development is or is not necessary for what Brussels describes as,
"imperative reasons of overriding public interest"?
My fifth point relates to money. Because the suite of Scottish SSSIs as sanctioned by Parliament is widely known to be complete, land-holders will not be co-operative about the new Euro-SACs which are shortly to be forced upon them. That means that the new management agreements will be more expensive than those which already exist. It also means that the power of compulsory purchase will be more likely to have to

93
be used in future. Both those unwelcome developments will cost money. Furthermore, I gather that SNH's budget has had to be substantially increased to cope with its extra workload, a large part of which comes from— and has already come from—the directive. Can my noble friend tell us how much extra taxpayers' money the Government budgeted to see the regulations through? I see no estimate in the regulations themselves. That is perhaps because we do not appear to dare to count the cost of our membership of the European Community on any front. So can my noble friend help us here with a figure, perhaps to the nearest paltry million pounds or so?
While on the subject of costs, I was surprised to see that the regulations opine that they will cause no extra burden for business. If so, perhaps I may ask my noble friend the one question in which I could have a direct personal interest. Will I be allowed to carry out one of the Government's new native pinewood schemes on land which is not at present an SSSI but which will in future form part of an SAC?
My sixth point is that the regulations will do exactly what the leftist conservationists accused your Lordships of doing when we created the advisory committee in Scotland. They will gum up the work of SNH to the end of the century and they will gum it up with work which is by definition superfluous to sustain our natural heritage. I deplore the antagonism against SNH which they will generate, and let me assure your Lordships that I am not alone in that. They will make it impossible for SNH to do many other things for conservation, not least to retain the positive support of landowners for our future together.
And so I come to subsidiarity. As I said earlier, I know that there are some noble Lords who believe that the scale of our environmental problems is such that all member states should be subservient to the Commission in all environmental matters. I regret that the Government appear to share that view. But I hope that I have said something to show that that theory does not necessarily hold good, in this country at least, when we are considering our own unique natural heritage.
In my view there cannot be much doubt that the directive should fall under Clause 3b of the Maastricht Treaty—the subsidiarity clause. After all, when the Government unfortunately signed up to the Habitats directive in 1992 we had not ratified the subsidiarity clause. The Government assured us constantly, through all our debates on Maastricht, that subsidiarity was to be our glowing shield against any further erosion of our sovereignty to Brussels. It may help your Lordships if I again quote the clause in question:
"In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community".
There can be little doubt that any reasonable objectives of the Habitats Directive have already been amply achieved in this country. So can my noble friend tell us how they can be better achieved by the
94
Community—if your Lordships will forgive the Euro-speak—by reason of their proposed scale or effects?
I fear that my noble friend will have some difficulty in answering that question, at least to my satisfaction. So I propose that we do not pass into British law these regulations, which reflect yet another unnecessary, interfering, expensive and misguided directive from Brussels and which risk doing much harm to our natural heritage. I beg to move.
8.38 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest as the owner of a small estate in Scotland, while other members of my family have an interest in a rather larger one. The regulations are in accordance with the European directive and I understand are also consistent with action being taken in other European member states. I give them a guarded welcome. Perhaps I am not as starry eyed about them as I should be because I have some anxieties. Although they are of relevance generally, some are particularly important in Scotland where the total area of designated sites is likely to be proportionately greater.
Members have stated that the Government, while complying fully with the directive, will do so with the lightest possible touch. That certainly is welcome. But it only applies to the present Government and to the present Ministers. There are still anxieties that the regulations will introduce a much greater measure of compulsion to the management of designated sites and that there may be an erosion of the voluntary principle which is currently working well in achieving objectives for the natural heritage. Implementation of the regulations may divert the resources of Scottish Natural Heritage and of English Nature from other important conservation work, as indeed they already have. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on these concerns and also on a number of other specific issues.
The regulations make significant changes to planning law. Development which is liable to affect the integrity of European sites will not be permitted unless there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest. For sites hosting priority habitats those reasons are clearly set out. However, for non-priority habitats and species, a careful balance will have to be struck between the natural heritage interest and the economic and social interests. This matter is open to many possible interpretations and it is important that there should be a consistency of approach throughout the United Kingdom and indeed throughout the European Community. It should not be left to the interpretation of individual planning authorities. I would ask the Minister to explain how the balance between these interests is to be achieved, a consistency of approach ensured and what detailed guidelines will be given to planning authorities, including those in Scotland, on this matter.
Permitted development rights for such things as farm roads and drainage will be removed for developments likely to have a significant effect on European sites. That is wholly acceptable for potential developments on the sites themselves, but I fear will create great uncertainty and potential risk for farmers and

95
landowners when applied, as it does—I think the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has already mentioned this—to developments on other land. For instance, in the case of a river, drainage high in the catchment area may affect water flows and the integrity of a site which could be some miles downstream—possibly many miles downstream—and of which the potential developer may be totally unaware. In that situation it is, I suggest, unreasonable to expect the developer to know that permitted development rights had been removed and that he must obtain the approval of the planning authority in accordance with Regulations 60 to 62. I would ask the Minister to explain whether guidance will be given to owners and occupiers of other land where European sites may be susceptible to damage from what is presently permitted development on that other land; and if so, how this might be achieved. I would also ask what notice will be given to, for example, owners of sites higher up in the catchment area that they have to be careful what they do because of the possibility of doing damage to sites lower down. How will they be informed?
Again in relation to Regulations 60 to 62, these regulations do not state that a planning authority must take into account economic and social factors in reaching its decision. The directive does require those factors to be considered. Would the Minister confirm that Regulations 60 to 62 are subject to Regulations 47 to 49 and that for non-priority sites planning authorities are obliged to take into account economic and social factors in reaching their decisions?
Part of the regulations deals with the protection of species whether on designated sites or not. The number of species is not large, but I am uneasy that Regulation 39 appears to allow the possibility of prosecution for accidental damage to a breeding site or resting place of a European protected species. This is notwithstanding the provision in Regulation 40 that damage which is caused as the incidental result of a lawful operation and which could not reasonably have been avoided will not be penalised. Would the Minister confirm that there is no intention to penalise a genuine accident where, for example, the person carrying out the operation was unaware of the existence of the breeding site or resting place in question?
There is considerable interest and some concern in Scotland at the likely designation of some river systems as habitats of the Atlantic salmon and of other species. Salmon fishing is of great economic importance, directly and indirectly, to the economy of some rural areas. I would hope that the Minister could confirm that the measures to be introduced by way of management agreement and otherwise will not include restriction on rod and line fishing or the prevention of fishing improvements to the banks and bed of a river, but will rather focus on seeking to improve spawning beds, water quality and the habitat of such rivers generally.
Finally, it is of the greatest importance for the success of these measures that owners and occupiers are fully consulted and can be in sympathy with the objectives. I know that the Scottish Landowners' Federation has had very constructive discussions with the Scottish Office
96
and Scottish Natural Heritage on implementing the regulations, but the Minister might nonetheless wish to confirm that there will indeed be full consultation with owners and occupiers and that the regulations will be implemented in the most sensitive way possible.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, this is a welcome opportunity to debate a very important matter and I pay tribute to the Minister for the able way in which he has outlined the regulations. I should make it clear that I feel unable to make much observation on what happens north of the Border and therefore I shall restrict my remarks to the original Motion. In doing so I must, like the previous two speakers, declare an interest as an occupier and manager of land within an English national park.
I am always concerned at new regulations, particularly on top of existing ones and especially on countryside matters. But a European standard linking habitats and species is desirable even if it is not comprehensive and even if it doubles up on existing law. I share the concern already expressed that in some cases special areas of conservation may extinguish existing consents and existing permissive uses. I have always thought that it was wrong for nature conservation to be put in such obvious conflict with matters which may, after all, be regarded as part of daily life and certainly part of conventional land management. Who will be responsible for compensation on rescission of existing consents, or will there be none? How does one prove loss when it is measured in terms of an irritation factor and decline in private management commitment? That is an off balance sheet matter which we would do well to consider.
The existing system established under the Wildlife and Countryside Act is effectively restated in these measures. Like the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, I am concerned about the "penumbra effect", as I would call it, where off site activities that might just be considered damaging to an SAC will be caught in the list of proscribed activities. This creates uncertainty. It may be capricious in application depending on the view of a particular official and it certainly does not engender confidence in terms of countryside management. I believe that every land manager is entitled to know where he stands in law and not be subject to administrative uncertainty. But the burden of proof never seems to fall on the regulator; it always falls on the person who is regulated. This damages land manager commitment. Consultation, as was mentioned by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is all the more important. I would be particularly pleased to hear further from the Minister exactly what consultation will be undertaken.
I turn to the question of management agreements under paragraph 16 of the regulations and what follows thereafter. I preface my remarks by saying that land management, particularly good land management, follows attractive prospects. Where as legislators we fail in taking account of this, land management in SACs will fail also. But that is not inevitable unless those factors are not taken account of.

97
Where designations ring fence an area to the exclusion of a land manager's instinctive objectives, poor management almost invariably follows. I draw the attention of the House to the National Audit Office report entitled Protecting and Managing Sites of Special Scientific Interest in England which was published in May 1994. It states therein:
"Insufficient or inappropriate management is the main cause of deterioration of sites of special scientific interest in England".
I know of no effective regulation or sanction against poor management. It can be monitored but it cannot be eliminated. So we have to get away from the notion that agriculture and forestry and other conventional activities in the countryside are inherently harmful, because they are not. We have to understand that the management of land is a tool which is deployed as part of achieving some longer-term objective. It is necessary to comprehend that where activities involve net cost or are awkward and difficult, without eventual benefit to a supplier of goods, those goods simply cease to appear on the menu. Habitat management in farmed areas is a good of just that sort.
Moreover, habitats are not static but are in a constant process of evolution and transition. What habitat management does may simply be to interrupt the natural process and no more than that. My personal preference would be to see all land farmed with biodiversity in mind and all prescriptive regulation abandoned. Good management and environmental consciousness are part of a frame of mind fashioned by economic necessity and personal conviction, not something procured by administrative diktat.
But it would be wrong for me not to say that there are now welcome signs of a more focused approach to encouraging management through agreements that do in fact set targets, with a broad measure of freedom as to how they are achieved. That freedom may mean that there is some damage to working environmental capital in the process of creating balanced, fixed environmental capital. It is a balance sheet that we are all familiar with. I call to mind the old adage of country folk which is, "Live your life as if you would die tomorrow but farm your land as if you would live for ever". That approach indicates that we need a short-term fix but as part of a long-term strategy.
So if management agreements are to be a functional long-term strategy—and they are a main plank of how these special areas of conservation are to be managed as far as they are in private sector ownership—much more needs to be done to consult and to give a power of representation and appeal to land managers. Clear targets need to be set and not yet more regulations. I draw to your Lordships' attention the old farm grants administered by the Ministry of Agriculture in the 1970s. They were successful because of simplicity and clarity of purpose. The farmer did the work and was paid retrospectively when an officer had been round to see that it had been done satisfactorily. Why then are we still talking of five-year or 10-year agreements and of cross-compliance in an ever more complex web of paperwork? It is enough to turn anybody off.
98
We should be looking at a much greater dialogue with land managers in an effort to understand why in the real world certain activities are carried out and how farm units operate, particularly in the more sensitive and agriculturally deprived areas. We have to understand how managers deal with the natural processes and what happens when they fail. The empirical evidence is there for anyone who cares to look. I suggest that it is appropriate that we and the conservation agencies start looking before this traditional source of knowledge goes to its grave or gets fed up because, if land managers have a stake in policy making and in its implementation, they are more likely to give it time and commitment. But if they continue to be largely ignored, management skills will be in limited supply both for sites of special scientific interest and special areas of conservation. That means setting targets which are sensible and not those which seek to procure the preservation of species on the outer margins of their range. That is something with which I have had some personal involvement.
But for the present, my final point is that the management of habitats remains grossly underfunded. English Nature has said to me that it does not have funds for certain purposes. Other agencies have also said that they have no funds for those purposes either. Sooner or later that will have to be rectified and with it the rather negative approach of blanket designation and the imposition of management prescriptions on what I might rather crudely describe as the "hit first, ask questions later" principle. It is at best a lazy way of administering a vitally important matter for the future of our countryside and for biodiversity. It has to change if these new regulations and the existing ones already in place are to have a lasting benefit. For these reasons I fear that I can give the regulations as they stand only four or five points out of a total of 10.
8.57 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, the habitats directive is potentially the most important piece of legislation for the conservation of biodiversity to be adopted in the foreseeable future. The significance of the habitats directive is that member states must recognise in statute, for the first time, their responsibility for the protection of wildlife and wild places in the European context.
The habitats and species in question are to be maintained and/or restored to "a favourable conservation status"; in other words, when the species population and range is stable or increasing and there is a sufficiently large area of habitat available to maintain its population on a long-term basis. In the Wildlife Trust's response to the DoE consultation paper on the implementation of the habitats directive, the many on-going degradations of marine habitats which the habitats directive is designed to prevent, were pointed out.
One example of this is the annual destruction of reefs supporting slow growing and nationally important sea fans sponges and other soft corals by mobile fishing gear in South Devon. Also, a recent survey by the Cornwall Wildlife Trust indicates that over 2,000 porpoises are killed each year by gill nets in the Celtic Sea which lies between Cornwall, Brittany and Ireland.

99
Great meadows of sea grass —the only flowering plant able to survive underwater—continue to suffer from wasting disease, possibly related to pollution. Sea grass swards have already disappeared from estuaries in Cornwall. It would be reprehensible if this opportunity to protect our wildlife resources was missed.
The seas around Britain are richer in marine habitats, communities and species than for any country on the European Atlantic coast. In English waters this richness and diversity includes the kelp forests of the Farne Islands and the Western Channel, the invertebrate and seaweed communities of rocky coasts of South West England and the mud and sandflats of the central North Sea. Our estuaries and seas support millions of seabirds and waterfowl, whether as visitors to our shores or as residents, often in internationally significant numbers. Our coasts provide vital haulout, and breeding areas for seals and feeding areas for many species of whales, dolphins and porpoises. Over 120 species of fish occur in coastal waters. Some are rare or endangered. Others are food for seabirds, seals and cetaceans as well as for people.
The nature conservation interests of our seas are considerable. Already 300,000 hectares of seabed in England below mean low water have been identified as being of particular importance for nature conservation, with probably in excess of 200,000 more hectares required to provide essential ecological support.
Man's use of the marine environment which supports that treasury of wildlife has, however, been considerable, and in most cases is not sustainable. Our coastal waters provide harvestable resources of minerals such as aggregates and sand; sources of food such as fish, crustaceans and molluscs; and a renewable source of energy in the form of tidal power. Since early times, the sea has carried our ships and our trade, and nowadays it also provides recreation, enjoyment and inspiration for millions of people.
There are some points which are critical if the realisation of the habitats directive is to work towards conservation of the marine environment. I ask my noble friend the Minister: why are measures for marine and terrestrial conservation not equal? Conservation measures to protect wildlife and habitats on both land and sea need strengthening. It is clear that measures for marine conservation lag behind those for conservation on land.
Instead of putting marine conservation on a equal footing with that of land, the draft regulations perpetuate their inequality. Although the habitats directive states explicitly that activities having a negative impact on special areas of conservation, but taking place outside their boundaries, should be controlled, the regulations make a special exception in the case of marine sites. One striking example of that is the facility to introduce by-laws to maintain the integrity of SACs. Nature conservation agencies can use those powers both inside and outside SACs, but not in the case of marine SACs.
It is essential that conservation measures are taken both inside and outside the designated protected areas due to the very nature of the marine environment, with few boundaries and many of its species being extremely
100
mobile. Not taking those measures will seriously compromise efforts to reach conservation objectives in the marine environment.
One of the main aims of the regulations is to promote nature conservation. Despite that, the regulations do not give the Secretary of State for the Environment a lead role over directions concerning SACs. That will create conflict, confusion and delay over the management of SACs. Priorities for fisheries, transport, mineral extraction and other activities can be in serious conflict with nature conservation objectives. A lead role for the Secretary of State for the Environment is not unusual in the case of terrestrial protected areas; for instance, the direction of Section 29 orders under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to assist the conservation of SSSIs which should be introduced for marine SACs.
I refer to draft Regulation 35. If or when the situation arises, how is MAFF to decide between a conservation issue on the one hand and the acquisition of resources such as oil, marine aggregates or detrimental fishing practices on the other? I ask my noble friend the Minister: can there be ministerial intervention if a conflict of interest occurs?
A mandatory management scheme is needed for all SACs. Statutory conservation agencies should be given a clear duty and powers to designate and implement the management of SACs. The regulations do not require the preparation of a management scheme for each SAC. Under such circumstances, how will it be possible to assess whether the conservation objectives of the site are being achieved, and what monitoring is required to provide a coherent programme for the restoration of sites?
Management schemes for SACs are voluntary at the moment. If all user parties are not in agreement with the voluntary scheme, the scheme will not be effective in securing wildlife protection. A mandatory management scheme is a far superior method of making compliance with the management compulsory.
It is clearly vital that the principle of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations should be approved. The provision for SACs at sea is a major step forward in conservation for the marine environment. But in essence the regulations for the directive do not fully address the problems concerning the conservation of biodiversity and sustainability in the marine environment. Even if implemented perfectly, there is a need for further measures.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, all over Europe wildlife habitats and species of birds, animals, plants, insects and fish are disappearing or threatened. In our country, wetlands, heathlands, lowland wet grassland, heather moorland, peat bogs, estuaries with their mudflats and species such as the corncrake, the bittern, the marsh fritillary and the early gentian, vanish. The same is true of other European countries.
At the risk of being regarded by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, as one of the Left-ish, greenish conservationists of whom he disapproves, I have to say that I regard the Community's habitats and species

101
directive as a welcome and necessary measure and, as the Minister has said, something of a milestone in European conservation.
The Government's regulations which we are now considering will, I hope, be approved, but your Lordships should be aware that they have been a disappointment to conservationists. They had hoped that the Government would take the opportunity to introduce primary legislation which would produce much needed improvements to wildlife conservation and countryside management in this country. As it is, the Government appear to have done as little as possible to fulfil their Community obligations, to have adopted a minimalist approach and to have contented themselves with amending existing legislation.
I must say that I was startled to see a report in The Times on 1lth October that the Government were giving guidance to local authorities, telling them to reduce protection for wildlife—Bournemouth, for example, being told that it should not lay down presumptions against developments on SSSIs or greenbelt land and local wildlife sites but should merely take ecological and environmental importance into account. I should like to ask the Minister whether that disturbing report is correct. If it is, the Government's attitude, at a time when they claim to be increasing protection for wildlife, seems to be hard to understand.
It is sad that the Government are not doing more, but we must nevertheless be grateful for small mercies, welcome the advances which are being made and inquire how precisely the new arrangements will work. I therefore wish to ask the Minister one or two questions of which I have given him notice, although I am afraid only short notice. If he cannot answer them all tonight I should be grateful if he would write to me.
The Minister has explained the scope of the directive. I wish to ask first about the procedure for selecting sites for special areas of conservation. I understand that the list of proposed sites must be sent to the Commission by next June, only eight months away. The Government and the statutory agencies are committed to full consultation on proposed European sites. When will the selection process be complete, and how long is being allowed for this consultation? Can it be done in time? It is clearly important that European sites should also be large enough to ensure that listed habitats and species are maintained in what is defined in the directive as "favourable conservation status". I believe that Plantlife is right in urging the Government to designate as SSSIs all sites where Annex II(b) species occur for the botanical importance of sites to be fully recognised and attention given to the needs of all nationally rare plants and site selection.
Article 6 of the directive implies a general presumption against development in or affecting SACs which needs to be made clear to planning authorities and everyone else concerned. Will the Government do this?
I turn to the wider countryside. It is clear that for most and perhaps all the listed species and habitats which occur in the United Kingdom the protection and management of SACs will not be enough to obtain favourable conservation status. Species such as the otter, to name only one, travel great distances and are not
102
confined to particular sites. Consequently, new and more effective policies are needed for the wider countryside. The Government appear to be relying entirely on existing countryside schemes but most of these —such as the environmentally sensitive areas— are purely voluntary. We surely need something stronger to achieve protection and management on the scale required.
The chief executive of English Nature has, I understand, called for a review of all existing countryside schemes to target funds effectively towards achieving all the aims of the directive. Do the Government recognise the need to bring in new policies and incentives for the wider countryside? If so, how do they propose to do this? Do they agree that a review of the existing schemes, as proposed by Dr. Langslow, is needed?
In Article 6(2) the directive imposes a firm duty on the Government to prevent deterioration of important wildlife sites. This is badly needed and has been welcomed by English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales. English Nature states that it reinforces its plan to achieve a positive management of all SSSIs. However, the Government's regulations appear to introduce no new measures to prevent the deterioration of important habitats through the owners' neglect, and the Wildlife Link report, SSSIs: A Health Check, identified neglect as the greatest long-term threat to SSSIs. Can the Minister say whether the Government will introduce new measures to encourage positive land management, with adequate financial incentives?
Can the Minister also explain why the word "deterioration" in the directive has been replaced in the regulations by the word "damage"? Damage requires a conscious act whereas deterioration can, and usually does, occur as a result of inaction. That appears to be a significant misrepresentation of the directive and if that is so it needs to be remedied.
In Regulations 2, 3 and 40 the Government have also inserted a new derogation not to be found in Article 16 of the directive exempting death or injury as an:
"incidental result of a lawful operation".
That appears to be a very large loophole. Will the Minister explain why this derogation has been added and how the Government justify it?
The directive and the regulation placé additional duties and responsibilities on the statutory agencies. In order to meet these obligations, English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales and Scottish Natural Heritage will need additional resources over and above what they now have. It will clearly be unacceptable to have resources reallocated into SACs if that is to lead to damage being caused on SSSIs not designated under the directive or to reduce other necessary work done by the statutory agencies. I hope that the Minister will assure us that these additional resources will be forthcoming.
Regulation 55/5 provides a loophole covering planning permission granted or deemed to be granted by a public general Act of Parliament. This would, it appears, exempt damage caused by projects such as the Cardiff Bay Barrage or the Channel Tunnel. However,

103
there is no such loophole in the directive. Is the Minister satisfied that this regulation does not put Her Majesty's Government in breach of the directive?
We, like other members states, are required to report every six years on the implementation of the directive, including conservation measures taken and the impact of those measures on the listed habitats and species. To do that, do we not need a national inventory and monitoring scheme covering SACs and SSSIs? I hope that the Minister can tell us what the Government have in mind in order to carry that out. Even if we cannot have complete inventories immediately, we must surely work as rapidly as possible towards them.
We all know the sad story of the marine nature reserves. After years of effort, only two, Lundy and Skomer, have been set up. But the regulations about the marine environment, about which the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has just spoken so persuasively, are based once more on the voluntary principle and seem to require agreement among a number of bodies. It is true that the Minister has reserve powers under Regulation 35. But clearly it would be disastrous for proposals for marine SACs to get bogged down in interminable discussion without agreement. I believe that the Minister covered that point in his opening remarks by saying, as I understand it, that, if necessary, Ministers could and would give directions to those concerned. I understand that the Countryside Council for Wales has suggested a time period of perhaps two years during which a management scheme must be drawn up ready for implementation. That seems sensible. Will the Minister assure us that something on those lines will be introduced, or, alternatively, that the reserve power will be used after a reasonably short interval? Will he tell us also how many marine SACs are being considered for designation and how they are to be protected?
Article 10 of the directive refers to the,
"ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 network",
specifically the management of features of the landscape which are of major importance to wild flora and fauna such as rivers, field boundaries, ponds and small woods. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us how the Government propose to implement that article.
I hope that the Government will press on with the implementation of those regulations. They are clearly of very considerable importance and conservationists in this country will be watching carefully to see how matters progress.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, to say that this is a disappointing document which we are asked to approve is to put it mildly. The Government appear to be in a kind of tired, cynical mood. If a proposal appears from Brussels, they conform reluctantly, doing the bare minimum, like a child recognising rebelliously that his mother is stronger than himself but being determined to do nothing which could be construed as enthusiastic. There no longer seems to be any power of discernment. There is no ability to separate the good, of which there is much, from the bad, of which there is, unfortunately, a little. They will not give a lead in what is worth doing.
104
The preservation of habitats is definitely worth while and this country, which prides itself on being less bad than others in this respect, should be giving a lead. This should have provided an opportunity to increase our efforts in this field. We should not have this minimal, if barely that, compliance.
At the end of last year the Government-commissioned countryside survey of 1990 was published. It revealed a decade of decline in our wildlife. The 1990s and the next decade should be better. After all, now that we do not allow farmers to farm, what other suggestions have we for the countryside?
The Government should be introducing far-reaching stick and carrot schemes. While there is no such thing as absolute ownership of land, which we all hold in trust either from God or the community or both, as all good farmers and landowners know, it is helpful to encourage and reward those who do well.
When I saw that this debate was coming up, as a spokesman who is not leftish and greenish but left and green, I started to ask the various conservation bodies for briefs. There was a meagre response at first. It soon became a flood. It is clear that there is probably not a conservation body in the country which is not deeply disturbed by the regulations; which does not have considerable fears about what has been left out and what is fudged; and which does not have detailed questions to ask.
At this time of night, one can scarcely begin to deal with a series of briefs which are two to three inches thick. Some of the questions have already been asked in the debate, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the various bodies have doubtless tried to extract answers from the department. Therefore, I shall content myself with three fairly superficial questions, but, in imposing on myself that self-denying ordinance, for which your Lordships will no doubt be grateful, I must warn the Government that, if they do not answer very fully the questions which they know are being asked, whether or not they have been asked in this House this evening, this is an area which noble Lords on all sides of the House will feel must be explored in some depth in the coming Session.
As I said, I have three specific questions. They all deal with how far we can go with the regulations and how we can improve them. I wish that I had time to refer to some of the previous speeches. I rather gather from the look on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that he will probably be doing that himself. As always, I should have liked to analyse the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. However, I shall just pick up one remark that he made. The noble Earl seemed to think that the countryside should be left to the traditional expertise of landowners, influenced by economic considerations. But that is exactly what it has been left to and that is exactly why nature conservation is in such a terrible state at present all over Europe.
I turn now to my three questions. One follows up the questions posed by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, in his most admirable speech concerning the special areas of marine conservation. How many are the Government considering for designation and what

105
actions do they propose to implement to ensure their protection? The noble Lord, Lord Moran, also mentioned that question.
Secondly, what are the Government proposing to do to stop the continuing drain on peat? One only has to go to the local garden centre, as most noble Lords do from time to time, to see the many firms which boast of the peat in their composts and the number of peat products on sale. The true cost of peat to the biodiversity of the planet is vast. A swingeing tax on peat products would no more than represent a tiny portion of the very real cost to the future of our planet.
Thirdly, I should like to pose a question which the CLA is asking. It is one which strikes a chord in my memory. Occasionally I am asked whether, as a Member of the House of Lords, I have ever achieved anything. I reply that I did once. With the help of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, always a thoughtful and helpful Minister, I once succeeded in making the possession of an opium pipe not an absolute offence. Therefore, if any noble Lords have among their curios a Victorian or oriental opium pipe, they will not automatically be convicted of a criminal offence if found in possession of one. Thanks to me and to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, they will be able to explain that their grandfather brought it back from the Far East and that they never actually use it.
In the same way, it should be possible for the owners of European specimens of rare and protected species which were collected and preserved more than 20 years ago not to be open to prosecution. Is that, or is it not, the case? The position does not seem to me to be entirely clear. If it were, the CLA would not be asking that question.
Apart from those questions, those posed by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the questions which have been asked in tonight's debate, there are also those which are being asked throughout the whole conservation world. If the Government do not give satisfactory answers to such questions, I can assure the Minister that we shall return to the matter again and again because it is a subject which must be pursued. Having said that, we in this party give lukewarm support to a lukewarm document and, needless to say, we completely oppose the Motion tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, for introducing this order and the Motion. For my part, I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in being somewhat less grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for introducing his amendment, but I am sure he will understand the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and I would oppose this amendment if he decided to take it to a Division.
I have first to declare an interest as the president of the Campaign for Protection of Rural Wales which is interested in this particular matter. I hope your Lordships will allow me to continue in spite of the fact that I think that this is rather a poor document in respect of Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, may think it
106
is a poor document in respect of Scotland and I, for other reasons, think it is a poor document in respect of Wales.
The problem as I see it with this order is that it is really a Bill. It is a statutory instrument which has 75 pages. As such, unlike a Bill, it cannot be amended and it must be agreed to, or not agreed to, by your Lordships this evening without—given our self-denying ordinance of voting on statutory instruments—any dispute. I say it should have been a Bill because there are a number of what I would respectfully call Henry VIII provisions in the order, but because it is an order they are the son of Henry VIII, who was, I think, Edward VI, so I will call them Edward VI orders. The Edward VI orders, to which I would refer your Lordships, are in paragraph 22 of the document we have in front of us—which concerns the power to make a special nature conservation order. There the document gives powers, if it is approved by your Lordships, to the Secretary of State to specify all sorts of things by order. In paragraph 28 there are provisions for by-laws. It states that the,
"appropriate nature conservation body may make byelaws".
Paragraph 32 indicates powers of compulsory acquisition. I just instance these as provisions which normally would be debated in a Bill and, such is the procedure of your Lordships' House, would be referred to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of this House before your Lordships agreed we would have an opinion from that committee. So the Edward VI provisions in the order we have before us seem to me to be something which your Lordships would wish to reflect on.
The second point I have to make is that, as other noble Lords have said, there is in the directive a distinction between deterioration and damage. The habitats directive requires member states to make it an offence to permit the deterioration of breeding sites or resting places of annexed species. The annexes are all in the directive. The Government's regulations, which we have in front of us, replace the word "deterioration" with the word "damage". Damage, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has quite rightly pointed out, requires a conscious act whereas deterioration can occur, and indeed frequently does occur, through inaction. That is a serious derogation, in our view, from the words of the directive.
The third point I would make—I do not wish to detain your Lordships for long—is on the voluntary principle that the noble Viscount mentioned in his introduction. In many respects we are an overpopulated island. There are many areas in Scotland and Wales which are not overpopulated, but the broad swathe of England, South Wales and the industrial belt of Scotland are overpopulated. In order to preserve habitats for the species outlined in the directive we need active management rather than passive management. That is where we take issue with the Government. Active management means saying to people, "Let's try and do rather better". Passive control means saying, "Do not do this or that". There is a difference here between ourselves and the Government that needs to be explored.

107
My last point is that Article 17 of the directive requires member states to draw up a report on its implementation every six years. That report:
"shall include in particular information concerning the conservation measures referred to in Article 6(1) as well as evaluation of the impact of those measures on the conservation status of the natural habitat types of Annex I and the species in Annex II and the main results of the surveillance referred to in Article 11".
If the Government are to fulfil that obligation it seems to us to be essential to implement some form of qualitative inventory and monitoring scheme in relation to what is happening at present. Then, having established the inventory, it will be necessary to monitor the development of what is contained in the inventory in relation to the species and habitats listed in the directive.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in welcoming the fact that the Government have at long last acceded to the legal requirement to implement a directive. I also join with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in saying that this is the minimum that was required by the directive, and all conservation bodies, including my own (CPRW), believe that this is the minimum that the Government could have done. I believe that the Government could have done very much better.
9.33 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for devoting such attention to these draft regulations this evening. I consider that they make a highly significant addition to our existing body of legislation for nature protection and will ensure that we play our part with our European partners in preserving biodiversity and conserving our most endangered habitats and species. In giving effect to the legislation, we are among the leaders in Europe.
The existing SSSI system and the protection enshrined in it will continue to be the bedrock of nature conservation in Great Britain. We are proud of this approach, which works and wins the co-operation of the vast majority of those most concerned with the stewardship of our countryside. We are extending the co-operative approach to the marine environment, and our nature conservation experience and expertise is recognised throughout Europe. The measures agreed across the European Union through the habitats directive ensure that those sites and species recognised to be most at risk at this international level are protected on a common basis.
Perhaps I may turn to my noble friend's amendment. My noble friend has indicated the reason why he tabled the amendment to the draft regulations. Before I respond to the points made, I recognise that my noble friend is no enemy of conservation but in fact a stalwart supporter. It is with that knowledge that I shall do my best if I can—I wonder whether I am able to do so—to reassure him as regards many of his anxieties.
My noble friend asked whether other member states were implementing the directive. I understand that member states are actively engaged in implementing the directive and that some have already done so. Of course,
108
all member states are legally bound to implement European law, and Community rules ensure that laws are applied universally and uniformly.
My noble friend also asked me how much was budgeted by member states for pursuance of the directive. I cannot answer for other member states. However, in due course I shall give figures on what this country will be putting forward, especially SNH.
The amendment specifies two specific matters. The first concerns the increase in the area of land covered by sites of special scientific interest. It may prove necessary before the sites can be designated as European sites to notify and to confirm as SSSIs some areas of land which are not currently already notified as SSSIs. However, to qualify as European sites those areas of land would be among the most important of areas in nature conservation terms and they are areas which would in due course have been notified as SSSIs in any case.
My noble friend stated too—the matter has been commented on by others, including the noble Lord, Lord Williams—that the regulations revoke existing consents for potentially damaging operations within SSSIs and consents for planning in the countryside generally. There are two issues here. Regarding the first, approval of the regulations will not result in the wholesale revocation of existing consents for potentially damaging operations within SSSIs. The regulations provide the statutory nature conservation agency with a power to review existing consents but only within the European sites. Under the regulations, it is open to landowners and occupiers to reapply for consents that are withdrawn or modified. The landowners and occupiers may require the agency to refer the matter to the Secretary of State if consent is further refused. However, in deciding the matter, the Secretary of State must also have regard to the requirements of the directive.
In the great majority of European sites, a sensitive, sustainable management and use of the area which has continued over many years and maintained the high conservation value for which the site is recognised is expected to meet the aims of the directive and existing management agreements will continue unchanged.
With regard to the second of the two issues, the regulations also require the review of planning consents. That issue has been raised by others. However, it is not the planning consents in the countryside generally which are to be reviewed but only those existing permissions which are likely to have a significant effect on a European site and which have not already been fully implemented. In the vast majority of cases, the high nature conservation value of the site will already have been recognised and the sites will have been well protected under the planning system. Accordingly, relatively few permissions should need to be reviewed and in even fewer cases should further action need to be taken. Modification, revocation or discontinuance should be exceptional.
The modification, revocation and discontinuance orders are subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State. Anyone affected by such an order has a right to be heard before the Secretary of State decides whether to confirm it. Should the permission be modified, revoked or discontinued, the existing rights to

109
compensation under the town and country planning legislation would apply. A developer would not need to stop work while the planning permission was being reviewed.
My noble friend also asked me whether the role of the advisory committee would be compromised. I do not believe that the advisory committee on SSSIs in Scotland is affected by the habitats regulations. The Government will not propose to the European Commission for designation any site on land (SAC) which has not been notified and confirmed as an SSSI. The role of the committee will, therefore, not be pre-empted by the habitats regulations.
The establishment of the advisory committee in Scotland balances the legitimate concerns of owners and occupiers of land with the importance of maintaining the integrity of the SSSI system on a GB basis. My noble friend has already indicated that only two cases have had to be referred to the committee which reflects the considerable success which Scottish Natural Heritage has had over the past two years and also an increasing understanding of and support for the SSSI system.
My noble friend asked me how much money SNH would receive. SNH received further budget increases in 1993–94 of 6.5 per cent. and in 1994–95 of 10.5 per cent. Its 1994–95 budget is £39.9 million. These increases were given to SNH to meet new priorities which have emerged since it was established. The implementation of the habitats directive is just one of those, but there is also the implementation of the agreed recommendations of the Secretary of State's working parties on the Cairngorms, Loch Lomond, the Trossachs and environmental education.
I believe that the main anxiety of my noble friend is whether the test of subsidiarity should be applied to the regulations. I am quite firm about this and I believe other noble Lords are also. Nature just does not respect national boundaries. The preservation, protection and improvement of the environment is an area of concern which needs to be addressed on a European level. On that basis, the habitats directive has been accepted by this Government and I believe, quite rightly, we are bound to implement it. I remind the House that the regulations are based largely on our existing highly effective legislation and that the voluntary principle continues to be an underlying principle of this Government's approach to nature conservation. These regulations represent the minimum that is necessary to implement the directive.
Perhaps I may write to my noble friend on the remaining question that he asked about the native pinewood regeneration. I am conscious of the time that I have already taken.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, wanted to be reassured about the voluntary principle. This, I have to say, is the essence of the Government's approach, to act through co-operation and consent, and that voluntary principle still underpins the approach to conservation which can be truly successful only through the consent of those involved and of the wider community. However, we recognise that there may be some occasions when that is not possible and the regulations
110
provide a legislative framework within which Ministers, conservation agencies and other statutory bodies must act in order to fulfil our duty to secure the integrity of the site.
The noble Lady also asked whether a balance would be struck between natural heritage interests and social and economic interests. The regulations employ the framework set out in Article 6 of the directive for assessing proposals affecting sites. The Secretaries of State will normally call in for decision planning applications which are likely significantly to affect European sites. In such cases, the Secretary of State will decide whether a development should proceed on overriding public interest grounds and will give due consideration to the need to strike a balance between the natural heritage interest and social and economic interests. The guidance will be undertaken by Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG9 on Nature Conservation which will shortly be reissued. That will provide guidance to local authorities on control of the development affecting the sites. Similar planning guidance will be issued for Scotland and for Wales. That will be important for local authorities when they draw up their plans.
My noble friend Lord Pearson, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun were concerned as to whether guidance would be given to owners and occupiers of adjacent land who might be affected by the designation of these sites. All I can say is that the Government plan to provide extensive publicity to owners and occupiers of European sites and others affected by that designation. Owners and occupiers of land who are concerned that an adjacent European site may be susceptible to damage from what is presently permitted development on their land can always check with the statutory nature conservation agency or local planning authority on what the implications of the proposed development will be for the European site. Perhaps again I may refer back to Planning Policy Guidance Note 9 on Nature Conservation.
The noble Lady also asked whether Regulations 60 to 62 would mean that permitted development will not be available for developments which will adversely affect the integrity of the European site. A developer who wished to proceed with such a development on grounds of overriding public interest would need to make a planning application. The decision on that application would be subject to Regulations 48 and 49 and considerations of overriding public interest will have to be taken into account in determining the application.
I believe that Regulation 40(3) (c) states that a person shall not be guilty of an offence under Regulation 39
"if he shows that the act was the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided".
The words that are used in the regulations are pretty explicit. I believe that the noble Lady herself understood what they mean. I can give no further assurance than that I believe that to be the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, were concerned about river systems if they were designated as habitats of the Atlantic salmon and whether there would be intentions to restrict rod and

111
line fishing. In practice, the management of a river for salmon fishing purposes is likely to be compatible with the nature conservation interest a SAC designation seeks to conserve. I cannot give an unqualified assurance, but my reading is that that would be the case. It would need to be looked at on a site-by-site basis. I want to reassure noble Lords that there will be full consultation at all stages, as I indicated in my introductory remarks.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, gave a "four or five out of 10" sort of welcome for the regulations, and the noble Earl asked about compensation for existing consents. The management agreements are subject to agreement with English Nature. If they are changed, they then may be subject to compensation. That is the basis on which they are drawn up at the moment, and I see no reason why these regulations would alter that.
Noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Moran and Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked about the deterioration of sites and quoted the NAO report. I believe that the monitoring as indicated in the regulations and the directive will be the duty of the conservation bodies. If anything is detected which will damage or destroy the site, a management agreement could be negotiated. I believe that in most cases the SSSIs will be managed on a voluntary basis, without the need for a management agreement. There is always the power to make a management agreement and at the end of the day even a special nature conservation order under Regulation 22 can be made. I should like perhaps to come back to that point a little later.
My noble friend Lord Addison drew our attention to measures for marine and terrestrial conservation. He started by suggesting that they were not being applied equally. I understand that. The reason for it is quite simple; namely, that there is already a different basis for management and control on the land and the sea and ownership does not always apply to uses of the sea as it does on land. Therefore we have adopted the cross-sectoral approach from existing jurisdictions. We expect the new marine conservation measures to be effective. All bodies with jurisdiction will have the duty to act in ways which conserve the areas.
That sectoral approach to control marine SSSIs means that it is appropriate for the relevant Secretaries of State or the Minister of Agriculture to give directions to the bodies over which they have jurisdiction. All Ministers must take account of the obligations of the directive in considering whether directions are appropriate and Ministers will intervene by directions if necessary in order to conserve the site.
We expect that in a majority of cases there will be a scheme of management drawn up. The nature conservation agencies will be responsible for monitoring the conservation status of the sites and advising the relevant authorities and Ministers as to the sites' conservation objectives. However, I still feel that we ought to take care that we do it on the voluntary principle and not be too mandatory about using the power to make agreements.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, started with an attack on the Government for downgrading our conservation status and mentioned the report in The Times which
112
indicated that. My Lords, the report in The Times was just mistaken. The Government are not downgrading the importance of nature conservation. In fact they seek clarity in the development plans. In practice that will strengthen the nature conservation policies of a plan.
The noble Lord also said that the countryside measures should be much stronger and that we had perhaps missed an opportunity in these regulations of not putting that into practice. I believe that the countryside measures are being taken forward. They can be taken forward only on the basis of consent. It is very important to respect those who live and work in the countryside. But the biodiversity plan mentions a number of initiatives which the Government are taking on the wider conservation and countryside measures in England, Scotland and Wales. I believe that I have answered the noble Lord on the incidental results of the lawful operation. But he asked whether we may be in breach of the directive with the Cardiff Barrage Bay Act and the Channel Tunnel Bill. I believe that careful attention was paid to both those Bills and the nature conservation interest, together with other national interests. There are no public general Acts which otherwise give planning permissions. Ministers will take the requirements of the regulations into account when promoting the new Public Bills.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, took me to task for not taking the opportunity to amend the 1981 Act. I believe that it is just as important to put the regulations—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, form a considerable document—into our law; it builds upon the 1981 Act. For instance, it puts the SPAs into legislation for the first time.
Perhaps I can answer just one of the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, because I believe that I have talked about the marine ones. He asked whether we should stop draining the peat; whether we should put a swingeing tax on it to prevent it being drained away. The Government recently published for public consultation proposals for safeguarding peatlands important for nature conservation while allowing legitimate commercial interests to be pursued. That provides an appropriate framework for reconciling the various legitimate interests which still exist.
In regard to inherited specimens, if people possess inherited specimens of European protected species from their forebears, they need not be concerned about the provisions of Part III of the regulations. They will be regarded as being legally taken because they pre-date the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked whether the Henry VIII provisions—he retitled them the Edward VI ones—needed to be considered as though this were primary legislation and subject to Committee procedures. When the noble Lord looks at Regulation 22 he will see that Schedule 1 indicates what would be necessary for procedures in connection with orders under Regulation 22. It indicates that there may be local inquiries, and arbitration may be put forward by the Secretary of State. Suggestions put forward by the noble

113
Lord of it being a draconian measure should not be taken without reading Schedule 1, which indicates the procedure.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I can interrupt the noble Viscount to say that I was not suggesting that it was a draconian measure. The Government have introduced these measures— draconian or otherwise—for a long time. I was suggesting that it is odd, to say the least, to have an order of this size which gives extra powers to a Secretary of State—whatever the qualifications of Schedule 1, which I have read—to make delegated legislation under an order. I accept that it may be possible under an Act of Parliament; but under an order that is extremely rare.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point but perhaps he did not hear some of the words that I used in my opening speech. A lot of the words in the regulations are taken from the 1981 Act and are repeated in the regulations in order to form a body of legislation which can then be referred to rather more easily than using purely secondary legislation to implement a directive on to the 1981 Act. That is where Regulation 32 on compulsory purchase orders falls because it repeats in a different form of words or perhaps in a different place the existing regulations in the 1981 Act. I am sorry that the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Moran, are questioning the concept of deterioration and are not seeing that the damage to the sites would not be protected in the way that the regulations allow it to be done. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, indicated that protection of these habitats must be done on a continuing basis and that if damage is seen it is possible to come up with a management agreement which takes into account that kind of damage.
The noble Lord did not like the idea of a voluntary principle and wanted a more mandatory principle. I believe that we should start with the voluntary agreements, which is what is allowed for in the regulations. If those do not work there is the possibility of management agreements. If those do not work there are special nature conservation orders. It is a building of one upon the other.
The noble Lord asked how we would report on implementation every six years. Monitoring is done by organisations such as the British Trust for Ornithology and the register of the SSSIs in England, Wales and Scotland. I believe that it is possible for the nature conservation organisations to monitor the situation with regard to the SSSIs and therefore I believe that the report can be done. It may be that the inventory, as the noble Lord suggests, is not in the detail that he wants it; but I believe that the research and registration already apply sufficiently for the document to be worthwhile.
All I can say in conclusion is that I am very pleased to be able to debate these issues with the President of the Campaign for Protection of Rural Wales and I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment and that the regulations can be agreed.
Lord Moran: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, he has been very patient and helpful but I
114
wonder whether I can ask him to say something about additional resources for the statutory agencies. I know that this concerns both English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales because they will have new duties imposed on them and they want to know whether they have additional resources to do that.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I understand that the total budget for the three conservation councils has been increased by 7.6 per cent. for this year. I believe that that is sufficient for the implementation of the habitats directive. I shall look carefully at the other points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, and at the points raised in other speeches. If I have missed points, I shall write to noble Lords.
10.3 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on my amendment and in the debate generally. I was interested and saddened to hear what my noble friend Lord Addison had to say about the degradation of marine sites, about which I must confess I do not know as much as I think I know about land based SSSIs and future SACs. My point to my noble friend Lord Addison would have been that surely national legislation could do what he feels is necessary; and it sounds as though he is right. I do not believe that we should have to rely on a European directive in this respect.
As regards the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, it pains me to have to disagree with him on any European matter, especially on a European directive of this kind. Perhaps I may confirm for the record that I would never describe him as a Leftish, greenish conservationist, or whatever he feels that I may have thought him to be. I accept that the environment is being damaged in Europe and also here. My point again is that any wrongs can be put right in this country by primary legislation here. My fear is that this directive is unlikely to have the desired effect in the rest of Europe.
As to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I was grateful to him in a rather ghastly and fearful sort of way for his summary of the Henry VIII or Edward VI clauses in this Bill. I can only hope that if ever his party were to come to power—and I am sure it will not—those clauses would not be used in a way which would be more aggressive.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. May I remind him that this is not a Bill but an order?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. It is a point which he made very clearly; namely, that it should have been a Bill. But these are regulations and, rather like the Maastricht Treaty, we have no opportunity to debate their content. As I understand it, we have either to take them or to leave them. I would leave them, and, despite what the noble Lord said, he is going to take them. I hope he understands that I take them in a fearful sort of way.
The contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, together with those of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, were a little harsh on my noble friend

115
and on the Government generally. They said that the Government were dragging their feet and doing the very minimum on this occasion. I remind your Lordships that Article 10 of the directive says that,
"Member States shall endeavour, where they consider it necessary, in their land-use planning",
to introduce these Euro-SACs. It is because they consider it necessary that entire river systems are about to be designated to protect the Atlantic salmon and so on. I believe that the British Government, or British officialdom, are clearly guilty here of Mr. Christopher Booker's theory of British officialdom. I do not believe that the Government can be accused of dragging their feet.
As regards the reply of my noble friend the Minister, I am extremely grateful for all the points that he made. But I believe that he is being a little optimistic when he says that other member states will have these rules applied uniformly. I am surprised that he said that all these Euro-SACs would have been notified as SSSIs
116
anyway. I take his word for it, but as regards Scotland I would have thought that that would have already been done.
Concerning the revocation of consent, my noble friend said that the councils and nature conservation bodies will be able to amend the existing consents. My understanding of this directive and the regulations is that they will have to revoke consent in certain cases. Nevertheless, I am grateful to my noble friend for the remainder of his replies. I fear that he underestimates the size of the problems which these regulations will cause, but I accept that he does so in complete good faith. I hope that in the fullness of time I am proved wrong.
I believe that his answer to my point on subsidiarity is a trifle shallow. I do not believe that it goes to the root or the intention of the clause or, as many of us hoped and were assured, the way in which it would be used in future. Even so, given the lateness of the hour, I am nevertheless grateful to my noble friend and others who have spoken. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.

  LONDON DOCKLANDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: JOBS CREATED
  LONDON DOCKLANDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: JOBS CREATED
  FAMILY CREDIT: MARGINAL DEDUCTION RATE
  FAMILY CREDIT: MARGINAL DEDUCTION RATE
  BINDING OVER
  BINDING OVER