Sitting of 18 October 1994

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

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of a minimum wage on levels of youth unemployment in other OECD countries.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): Minimum wages destroy jobs, particularly among young people. Youth unemployment is far lower in the United Kingdom than in France or Spain, which both have statutory national minimum wages similar to that proposed by the Labour party.
    Mr. Luff: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. Is he aware that the right hon. Member for Kingston Upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has observed that any fool knows that a minimum wage— [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am quoting.
    Madam Speaker: Order. We are not making a good start today. It is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to quote. I am sure that he can do well without that.
    Mr. Luff: I shall paraphrase, Madam Speaker. The right hon. Member for Kingston Upon Hull, East has observed that any fool knows that a minimum wage would cause a shake-out in jobs. Could my hon. Friend give an estimate of the size of that shake-out?
    Mr. Oppenheim: There are a number of estimates, ranging up to 2 million jobs. I shall give my hon. Friend another interesting quote. John Grant, who was Minister with responsibility for the low-paid under the last Labour Government, recently wrote in The Guardian that it was a "pious hope" to expect better-paid workers not to want to increase differentials if a statutory minimum wage were imposed. That increase in differentials would have an enormous knock-on effect through the rest of the economy, severely damage our competitiveness and lead to a massive shake-out in jobs.
    Mr. Rooker: Has the Minister seen the report in The Birmingham Post today disclosing research that shows that, last year, increases for company directors in the west midlands averaged £50,000 a year? How can he preach to the low-paid that there should not be a statutory minimum
    126
    wage? Why are employers allowed to exploit the social security system, which has to spend £1 billion a year on family credit for low-paid workers?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I may surprise the hon. Gentleman when I say that I, too, would like low pay rates to rise so that people are better paid. However, that must be done on a sustainable basis. The only sustainable way to improve the lot of the low-paid is to improve the productivity, efficiency and competitiveness of our economy and to enhance the skills and education of our work force. Those are the policies that we have been pursuing during the past 15 years, with the result that pay at all levels has risen substantially—in marked contrast to the position between 1974 and 1979, when productivity stagnated and so did pay. The rich may have become poorer under the last Labour Government, but the poor certainly did not become any richer.

    Unemployment
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the number of unemployed since December 1992.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Portillo): Seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment has fallen by 405,700.
    Mr. Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his promotion and I thank him for his positive answer. Does he agree that those figures would not have been achieved if we had signed the social chapter and adopted a national minimum wage? Are not the Government seeking to reduce unemployment while the Opposition are seeking to become the natural party of unemployment?
    Mr. Portillo: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. It is extraordinary that the Opposition still talk about their aspirations for full employment, when all their policies are a slap across the face for the unemployed. The social chapter would destroy jobs and so would the minimum wage, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has just said. It is obvious that if there were a Labour Government they would be tough on jobs and tough on the causes of jobs.
    Mr. McAllion: Does the Secretary of State accept that just as important as the change in the number of unemployed has been the change in the way that the Government count the number of unemployed, which has effectively kept more than 1 million unemployed people off the register? Does he further accept that his policy of pursuing a flexible, deregulated market has simply resulted in millions of British people being denied the right to a full-time job at a living wage and in the British work force being turned into a casual, part-time, low-skilled work force that is not the envy of the world that it was when we had Labour Governments?
    Mr. Portillo: It is deeply to be regretted that the hon. Gentleman cannot welcome a fall in unemployment. It is clear, by any measure, that unemployment has fallen. For example, if we use the internationally accepted standard for the measurement of unemployment, the International Labour Organisation standard, it is clear that unemployment has fallen. Why does the hon. Gentleman not welcome that? Why must he always carp? Why must he always claim that the figures have been fiddled? He

    127
    knows, from every constituency in Britain, that unemployment has been falling. Why does he protest against part-time jobs, which allow so many women to return to work with flexible hours that enable them to meet their children from school? Why does the hon. Gentleman set his face against the legitimate aspirations of those women?
    Mr. Dunn: Given that unemployment has fallen by 400,000 and that Britain has the highest number of people in work of any major European Union country, are not the Opposition being small-minded and damaging Britain's standing in continuing to talk down our success?
    Mr. Portillo: It is always deeply regrettable when the official Opposition party runs the nation down. That is not good for attracting investment to Britain. Fortunately, people can see that Britain is an attractive place in which to invest. They can see that the Government's policies are producing low inflation and growth. Fortunately, therefore, we had the news yesterday of 3,000 Samsung jobs in the north-east and the news today of the 1,450 new jobs at the Rover Group.
    Mrs. Clwyd: As the Secretary of State sets out from planet Portillo on the Starship Enterprise to explore the final frontier and to go where no Tory has ever gone before, what explanation would he give to a Vulcan of his claim that the level of unemployment has fallen by 405,000 at the same time as 500,000 people, who were in work or looking for work, have disappeared from the figures? Has he just blasted them into the stratosphere?
    Mr. Portillo: I find the hon. Lady's jokes rather laboured. It is time for the hon. Lady to return to earth, where she will find that unemployment has fallen by 405,000 and that many more people are staying on at school or are in education. If the hon. Lady is regretting that more people are staying on at school to improve their skills, she is even further away from earth than I thought that she was.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend of the opinion that there is still plenty of spare capacity in the economy and that we can look forward to further falls in unemployment?
    Mr. Portillo: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the crucial factor is that we continue to sustain low inflation year after year. If we do that, we can have prosperity and new jobs year after year. As long as we pursue our policies we can look forward to a long period in which jobs are created and unemployment will fall. The only thing that could put an end to that would be if, by chance, the Opposition were elected to power.

    Restart Interviews
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been awaiting restart interviews throughout Greater London on 1 April in each of the past two years.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Restart interviews are available within four weeks of their becoming due having been notified immediately, and therefore no waiting lists are necessary.
    Mr. Dowd: In that case, why did the chief executive of the Employment Service provide me with those
    128
    figures? They were available only for Greater London. Can the hon. Lady explain why, given that they refer to individual claimants, they are not available for each office? Will she confirm that the figure of fewer than one in 20 people going on to find work as a result of restart interviews has not changed since the scheme's inception?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. The figures that he has received are almost certainly of those waiting to embark on restart courses. Secondly, 32.2 per cent. nationally and 28.1 per cent. of those in Greater London go on either to a job or to an Employment Service programme as a result of their restart interviews. Will he welcome that?
    Mr. Evennett: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Employment Service on its good work in Greater London? Many young and older people have been found jobs by that excellent service. In particular, will my hon. Friend congratulate the Employment Service office in Erith, which does a first-class job for local people?
    Miss Widdecombe: I have great pleasure in echoing my hon. Friend's thanks. Of course, restart interviews are by no means the only initiative available to the unemployed. The long-term unemployed also benefit from training for work, job interview guarantee, job plan workshops, job clubs, restart courses, community action, learning for work, 1-2-1, pilots, job finders grants and work trials.

    Unemployment, Dorset
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in unemployment in Dorset in each month since January.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Paice): Unadjusted claimant unemployment in Dorset is down by 5,474 since January of this year, and by 8,291 since January 1993, which is a fall of 25 per cent. I shall, with permission, Madam Speaker, arrange for the full statistical table to be printed in the Official Report.
    Mr. Bruce: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box and thank him for recounting the excellent news that the Government's regeneration agency, which is working on replacing defence jobs in my constituency, is doing such a good job. Will he take into account the fact that, over the next five years, we shall lose about 4,500 jobs from our economy? Will my hon. Friend look carefully at what more his Department can do either to persuade the Ministry of Defence not to move everybody away from Portland and Weymouth or to provide maximum help to regenerate jobs?
    Mr. Paice: For a long while, my hon. Friend has admirably looked after the interests of his constituents in the context of the defence reductions. He will know that Dorset training and enterprise council has already received substantial extra funds through the Konver initiative. He should take courage from the fact that the Dorset jobcentre now has 1,500 vacancies, which is 30 per cent. more than it had a year ago.
    Mr. Chidgey: Is the Minister aware that long-term unemployment in Dorset has been rising as a percentage

    129
    since April 1992? Will he address the concerns of the long-term unemployed in Dorset and elsewhere as a matter of priority?
    Mr. Paice: The Government have a range of programmes, ranging from training programmes and counselling schemes, to encourage and enable the long-term unemployed to get back to work. The Government do not take very much notice of a party whose only interest seems to be to create jobs in selling cannabis and condoms to kids.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend accept that the very welcome reductions in Dorset are due not merely to the Government's rejection of the social contract and the minimum wage, which would have damaged our hotel industry, but to the splendid efforts of industry in Bournemouth and in Poole in winning the "Britain in Bloom" competition yet again in Bournemouth and the "Best Beach in Britain" in Poole, much of which I hope was enjoyed by my hon. Friend and many others last week?
    Mr. Paice: I and my right hon. and hon. Friends greatly enjoyed seeing Bournemouth in bloom. We had a thoroughly enjoyable week which led us to be even more convinced that the Government's policies to get the economy going and get unemployment down are the right policies for this country.
    Following is the information:

    Unadjusted claimant unemployment in Dorset

    1994

    Number of unemployed

    Change on previous month

    January

    29,807

    1,393

    February

    29,471

    -366

    March

    28,292

    -1,179

    April

    27,092

    -1,200

    May

    25,948

    -1,144

    June

    24,711

    -1,237

    July

    24,753

    42

    August

    24,797

    44

    September

    24,333

    -464

    Note: As these figures are on the unadjusted basis they will be subject to seasonal influences.

    Youth Training
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many 16-year-old school leavers from Leeds, West were placed on training schemes in September.
    Mr. Paice: Some 2,900 young people were on youth training in Leeds in July, which is the latest date for which figures are available.
    Mr. Battle: Is the Minister aware that 169 youngsters still seek a training place today, 79 of whom have no income and are not on benefit, and 19 of whom live in Bramley and Armley in my constituency? Does the Minister know that if a youngster misses a single interview with the careers service he or she is crossed off the list for a guaranteed scheme? What will happen to such youngsters? Are the Government prepared for some youngsters to become "disappeared persons" who have been consigned out of the training and labour market?
    Mr. Paice: The Government do not want any young people to be deprived of the opportunity to go on a proper
    130
    training programme if they do not have a job or have not gone into full-time education. In fact, at the end of August only three young people in the whole of Leeds were awaiting places on YT courses.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that, not just in Leeds but throughout the country, the youth guarantee has proved to be a shambles and a disgrace? Is he aware that, according to the Government's own figures in the labour force survey, 122,000 16 and 17-year-olds were out of work in the spring of this year? Why should any hon. Member, or any 16-year-old school leaver, believe that the guarantee will be honoured this winter? Will not 16-year-olds, too, be out of work and without benefits?
    Mr. Paice: The guarantee is always honoured, and we have made sure that training and enterprise councils have enough resources to honour it. At the end of August, only a third of the number of young people who were awaiting places at the same time last year were awaiting them. As for the labour force survey statistics that the hon. Gentleman has given, he should be aware that that figure also includes a number of other groups that we do not categorise as unemployed—for instance, those who are undertaking full-time education courses but who may be looking for jobs at the same time.

    Wages Councils
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of the abolition of the wages councils on the pay of those in occupations which were previously covered.
    Mr. Oppenheim: The 1994 new earnings survey shows that, in the main, average earnings of workers in sectors that were covered by wages councils rose between April 1993 and April 1994, although it is still too early to make a full assessment.
    Mr. Prentice: Is the Minister proud of the fact that Britain is the only country in the European Union without legal pay protection for the very poorest? What advice would he give people in north-east Lancashire who see sweatshop pay rates being replaced by slave-labour rates, such as the £80 a week that is being offered by Mr. Joe McBride of Northern Textiles? Should people be grateful for those grotesque wage rates?
    Mr. Oppenheim: First, it is not correct to say that all European Union countries have minimum wages or wages councils. Secondly, no one will condone poor employers or bad employment practices. If Opposition Members think that there is some easy way of securing higher wages just by political diktat—without improving the competitiveness, productivity and efficiency of the economy, and without enhancing the skills and educational base of the work force—they are perpetrating an unfair myth on the British people.
    Dame Jill Knight: Is my memory playing me false, or is it true that, during the 1970s, the Labour party, when in government, abolished quite a number of wages

    131
    councils? If it is so wrong for the Conservative Government to have done that, why did the Labour party do it then?
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. Between 1974 and 1978, the Labour Government abolished no fewer than 11 wages councils, covering 600,000 workers.
    Ms Short rose—
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Ms Short: I was just attempting to speak, if hon. Members will allow me.
    We know that the Minister is new. He is probably not aware that those wages councils were very tiny and behind the times. Let me point out to him that evidence of average wages in a wages council sector tells us nothing about low pay in that sector. I know that he is new: he may not be aware of the research undertaken by the low pay network campaign against poverty, which was published in August 1994, which examined nearly 6,000 jobs in what were previously wages council sectors and found that one third of all vacancies paid less than the wages council rate—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I must hear a question from the hon. Lady.
    Ms Short: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I asked whether the Minister was aware of research, of which he should be aware. In retailing, pay is 42 per cent. less than the wages council rate. Does the Minister realise that his strategy of encouraging low pay in Britain damages women workers above all? Does he not yet understand, after 15 years of economic failure, that the encouragement of low pay leads to poor training and poor investment, and that a national minimum wage would benefit low-paid families—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] It is a question. Does the Minister understand that a national minimum wage would benefit low-income families, and encourage employers to train and invest instead of competing by cutting wages?
    Mr. Oppenheim: I may be new, but I have seen the low pay network campaign report. I do not know how thoroughly the hon. Lady has read the report. If she has read it thoroughly, she will know that the report is based solely on surveys of unfilled vacancies in jobcentres, which tend to be at lower levels than pay for people in work. Not a single person in work was surveyed for that particular report, so on a statistical basis the report is flawed.
    As for the abolition of wages councils under the last Labour Government, I do not know whether the hon. Lady thinks that 250,000 road haulage workers represent an insignificant industry. The only way in which we shall increase pay levels is by increasing the productivity of the economy. Since 1979, productivity has increased significantly, as has pay at all levels. That is in stark contrast to the late 1970s, when both productivity and pay in the British economy stagnated. We shall be able to help the low-paid only when we have a more efficient, competitive economy.
    Madam Speaker: Order. All hon. Members today—both Back Benchers and Front Benchers—have been far
    132
    too long with their questions and answers. I want brisk questions and answers in future. I call Sir Donald Thompson. I can rely on you, I am sure.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Can my hon. Friend tell me how many jobs wages councils have created?
    Mr. Oppenheim: None, sir.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of unemployed people in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Portillo: In September, seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment stood at 2,566,000; down by 405,700 since December 1992.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Secretary of State realise that such an intolerable level of unemployment would be even worse if the Government adopted his crazy idea of scrapping regional development assistance? Given the thousands of jobs created through regional development assistance to companies such as Samsung and Nissan in the north-east and NEC and Digital Equipment in Scotland, will the Secretary of State publicly recant and abandon any idea of scrapping regional development assistance? Otherwise, he should change his job description to Secretary of State for Unemployment.
    Mr. Portillo: I know that the hon. Gentleman has been busy composing early-day motions to undermine his Front Bench, but even so that is no excuse for what he has just said. I have never opposed regional selective assistance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] No I have not. In my job as Chief Secretary I did what all Chief Secretaries must do—I asked for it to be justified. I rejoice enormously at the 3,000 jobs that have come, through Samsung, to the north-east, but I know perfectly well that those jobs would not have come if Britain had signed up to the social chapter and we had had a minimum wage.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is not it clear that a major factor in our consistently improving employment prospects is our present excellent industrial relations within a framework of Conservative trade union law? Is not it equally clear that if we went back to the bad old days, as proposed by the Bill to be presented later this afternoon by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), that picture would quickly change for the worse?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. During the 1970s we lost 12.9 million working days a year on average. Last year we lost only one 25th of that—about 600,000 working days. Britain now has a marvellous reputation for industrial relations. I noticed that, at the Trades Union Congress conference, it was proposed that all the Government's industrial relations reforms should be repealed.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had since 21 July with the United States Administration regarding the effect of a national minimum wage.
    Mr. Oppenheim: None.
    Mr. Spellar: Can one presume that that is because Ministers might not like the answers that they would

    133
    receive? Ministers have been pleased to say how many jobs have been created in the United States—that is, of course, in the context of a national minimum wage.
    Mr. Oppenheim: I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in a national minimum wage in the United States. However, I do not know whether he knows that the level of the federal national minimum wage in the United States is £2.70, compared to the Labour party's proposals for Britain of £4. The gap is even greater when one bears in mind that pay levels in the United States are far higher than those in the United Kingdom. Successive American Administrations have allowed minimum pay to wither away by not raising it in line with inflation. The last example of that was the Clinton Administration, who came to power committed to increasing the minimum wage, but two years later have done nothing about it.
    Mr. Barron: The Minister said that the minimum wage would destroy jobs in this country. Can he comment on the survey by the low pay network campaign, which showed that since September 1993—after the abolition of the wages councils–27,000 jobs have been lost in the hotel and catering sector? I thought that abolition was supposed to make the number of such jobs grow.
    Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The survey was done at a time when the hotel and catering industry—which is a seasonal industry—sheds jobs. If the hon. Gentleman is serious about the minimum wage, it is incumbent on him to tell us how he would handle the question of whether there would be a lower rate for youth workers, as happens in the Netherlands. How would he handle the effect on public sector pay, bearing in mind the fact that Labour is now committed not to increase public sector spending? Above all, how would he handle the knock-on effect of differentials, which every trade union leader has told us that they would expect to rise?

    Part-time Workers
    Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the Government will introduce legislation to protect part-time workers.
    Miss Widdecombe: Part-time workers already have a wide range of employment protection rights.
    Mr. Donohoe: Part-time employees do not have the same employment rights as full-time employees, especially when it comes to industrial tribunals. Will the Minister give a cast-iron assurance that she will extend the same rights to part-time employees?
    Miss Widdecombe: Part-time employees already have important rights, including those relating to race and sex discrimination, health and safety, trade union membership and activities, unlawful deductions from wages and time off for ante-natal care. That is a very comprehensive package.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituency has the lowest level of unemployment in the United Kingdom? Many of those people are part-time workers. The best employment protection that they can have is for their jobs to be protected. Will my hon. Friend give the House a commitment that her Department, will continue to scrutinise European Community directives
    134
    and ensure that it uses its veto, where necessary, to protect the jobs of part-time and full-time workers in this country?
    Miss Widdecombe: I am happy to guarantee to my hon. Friend that we will do all that we can to protect part-time jobs and part-time job opportunities when they are threatened by kind-hearted but deeply economically misguided proposals for the further imposition of legislation.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister not know that, as a result of recent decisions in European courts, part-timers in Britain are already protected against unfair dismissal and redundancy? Will the Government now make that clear, if not by answering my letters to that effect, by introducing legislation in the next Session, so that we comply with European law and get rid of that discrimination?
    Miss Widdecombe: The Government always seek to comply with any directive to which we have signed up. That will continue to be our position. We will also continue to answer all the letters that the hon. and learned Member sends to our Department. Not one letter has gone unanswered. Perhaps he would like assistance in understanding the answers.

    Labour Market
    Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the strength of the link between falling unemployment and the structure of the United Kingdom labour market.
    Mr. Portillo: During the 1980s, we legislated to make it easier for businesses to give people jobs and to restrict trade union privileges. In the 1990s, unemployment is falling at an early stage of the recovery. I believe that those two facts are linked.
    Mr. Banks: Is my right hon. Friend aware of Opposition Members' support for the European Commission's proposal to allow all new fathers three months' paternity leave? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that proposal and many others like it from Brussels need to be resisted before further unnecessary and costly burdens are placed on competitive British business?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. I simply could not support the proposal. Of course many employers make arrangements with their employees and those can involve paternity leave, but the proposal made to us in Brussels last month was that all businesses should be obliged by law to give any male employee three months' paternity leave. That could have disastrous consequences for small businesses and I was not prepared to sign up to it.
    Mrs. Clwyd: The Secretary of State continually says no, no, no to Europe. Instead of telling Brussels where to stop, why does not he stop telling us to accept low wages, stop telling us to work excessive hours and stop telling us to use kids for illegal work, and why does not he stop turning us into the sweatshop of Europe?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady's rehearsals are certainly paying off, and practising as hard as she does is worth while.

    135
    I want to make sure that we do not destroy jobs in Britain and I am not prepared to have costs imposed upon Britain's employers which would make them less likely to take people on. I believe that people are generally poorer when they are not in work than when they are in work.

    Trade Union Reforms
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received calling for abolition of the employment and trade union reforms introduced between 1980 and 1993.
    Mr. Oppenheim: There have been no individual representations to abolish our reforms which have given trade unionists the right to secret ballots, the right to strike ballots, the right to refuse to strike and the freedom to leave their trade union without losing their jobs. All those reforms were opposed by Labour and by the trade unions, but last year the reforms contributed to the best strike record since 1891.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's trade union reforms are now so popular that even those who fought them tooth and nail recognise the valuable contribution that they have made to industrial relations? Does he further agree that there must be some lingering doubt in our minds as to the extent of the conversion of the Labour party so long as more than half its funding comes from the trade union movement?
    Mr. Oppenheim: There certainly seem to be some divisions among Opposition Members as to whether they support our trade union reforms. The reforms have made a massive contribution to the improvements in the efficiency and competitiveness of the British economy. Recent figures have shown that productivity rose by 5 per cent. and exports by 10 per cent. last year, and only today Rover has announced that it is creating many new jobs because of increased exports. Our trade union reforms have contributed significantly to that.
    Mr. Denham: Is the Minister aware that four out of 10 workers in the south-east of England are now in the so-called flexible economy of part-time work, zero-hours contracts, short-term contracts and enforced self-employment? Does the Minister recognise that without re-establishing basic employment protection, the future for those and many other workers is one of greater insecurity and uncertainty?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The recent labour force survey showed that only 13 per cent. of part-time workers actually wanted full-time jobs. The existence of a large amount of part-time work has allowed Britain to have the highest participation rate of the work force of any major European country. Part-time work is important for the many people who actually want it.

    Parliamentary Questions
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the cost of answering parliamentary questions to his Department during the past 12 months.
    Miss Widdecombe: An estimated £212,300.
    Mr. Banks: It is nice to know that hon. Members are keeping Ministers busy, even if the Ministers are not
    136
    capable of keeping the unemployed busy. Would not it be a nice gesture if the hon. Members who take money for asking those questions sent a certain proportion back to the Department to defray expenses? Alternatively, could not the money be put into a fund for the election campaign of the Secretary of State?
    Miss Widdecombe: I do not in the least begrudge the hon. Gentleman the rather large amount of taxpayers' money that has been spent keeping up with his own questions. He has asked about four times the average number of parliamentary questions. If he is concerned about the public purse, he may wish to reduce the number of demands that he makes upon it.

    Unemployment, Yorkshire and Humberside
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.
    Mr. Paice: In September, seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment stood at 221,300, down 30,100 since December 1992.
    Mr. Brown: In welcoming my hon. Friend to his new duties and his long-overdue promotion, may I congratulate him and the Government on those figures? Can he tell the House the extent to which unemployment has fallen in Brigg and Cleethorpes? Is not it true that, as a result of tremendous inward investment projects by Samsung and Kimberley Clark in my constituency, the unemployment rate will continue to fall in the Yorkshire and Humberside region for many months to come?
    Mr. Paice: I am delighted to confirm to my hon. Friend that those figures are replicated in his constituency. Unemployment has fallen in the past month, in the past year, in the past two years and in the past eight years.
    Mr. Gunnell: I agree that unemployment has fallen in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), which is due in part to overseas investment from Kimberley Clark. As one who was directly involved in attracting that investment, may I ask the Minister to accept that it owed a great deal to Labour-controlled Humberside county council and that Labour authorities have been fully co-operative in attracting all inward investment projects? Does he agree that their welcome has played a significant part in achieving many successes?
    Mr. Paice: I am happy to pay tribute where tribute is due. The simple fact is that if the Labour council has helped inward investment, a Labour Government certainly would not, because by implementing the social chapter and a minimum wage they would destroy any prospect of inward investment.
    Mr. John Greenway: I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to his new duties. Does he agree that the unemployment rate in the rural areas of Yorkshire is way below the average not just in the United Kingdom but throughout the European Union? Does he also agree that the Government's initiative to improve the rural economy even further, announced at last week's party conference, will be a great boost to jobs in rural areas?
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend knows of my great sympathy for rural areas; he is absolutely right. The

    137
    Government's White Paper on rural areas, which was announced last week, will lead to even further stimulus for a range of enterprises to improve employment opportunities in rural areas.

    Youth Unemployment
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with his EC counterparts on the issue of unemployment in the EU, with particular reference to youth unemployment.
    Miss Widdecombe: There have been many discussions, both bilaterally and in the Labour and Social Affairs Council, and Community counterparts are beginning to recognise that high labour costs and inflexible labour markets are among the key causes of high unemployment.
    Mr. McFall: Does the Minister accept that it is disgraceful that 16 million people are unemployed in Europe and that it is even more shameful that 20 per cent. of them are young people aged between 18 and 25? Will the Government give a commitment today to consider the future of young people in this country as important? Will they therefore make it their No. 1 priority in Europe and at least say that they will try to get young people back to work?
    Miss Widdecombe: It is because the Government are concerned about youth unemployment that we rejoice in the fact that our youth unemployment rate is well below the European average. The unemployment rate among under 25-year-olds in this country is 13.2 per cent. while the European average is 19.4 per cent. Our youth unemployment rate, together with that of Spain, is falling faster than in any other country. There are 84,600 fewer 18 to 20-year-olds unemployed in this country than there were last year. That is the way to lead Europe—by example.
    Mr. Rowe: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the folk she meets along the streets are whistling Samsung? This country leads Europe in attracting inward investment from all over the world. Does she agree that that success is a major contributor to the fall in unemployment, particularly youth unemployment?
    Miss Widdecombe: It is clear that the reason why we attract 40 per cent. of all investment in Europe carried out by the United States and Japan is our flexible labour markets. Those markets have not been achieved by some neo-classical endogenous theory, but by solid, practical, flexible policies, which have resulted in solid, practical jobs for our citizens. We shall continue to pursue those policies.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment with whom he has had recent discussions about discrimination in employment against disabled people; and if he will make a statement.
    Miss Widdecombe: Employment Department Ministers have had meetings with a number of organisations to discuss the Government's proposals to tackle discrimination against disabled people. Following
    138
    the consideration of the responses to consultations on those proposals, the Government will take decisions on the most practical way forward.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the Minister realise that a disabled person has a three times greater chance of being unemployed than an able-bodied person? It needs no further consultation to realise that fact, does it? Will the Minister now join the new Minister for Social Security and Disabled People—the last one having been sacked—and agree to support fully the legislation introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry)?
    Miss Widdecombe: It is because we recognise the importance of assisting people with disabilities that we have already put measures in hand, while the Opposition have merely talked. That is why 53,300 disabled people were assisted into work by our jobcentres last year; why our access to work scheme has been put into place with an increased budget that now amounts to £14.6 million; why we introduced the disability working allowance; and why we set up placing and assessment counselling teams. And that is why we set up a special consultation process, the 1,000 responses to which the hon. Gentleman dismisses so glibly. We shall analyse those and do them the justice that they deserve.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 October.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mrs. Campbell: Did the Prime Minister's predecessor break the code of conduct for Ministers when her son, Mark Thatcher, made £12 million from the A1-Yamamah arms negotiations?
    The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that my right hon. and noble Friend acted with complete propriety throughout her long and distinguished period as Prime Minister of this country. If the hon. Lady has any evidence to the contrary, I hope that she will produce it rather than peddling remarks like that.
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Devlin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday's announcement that Samsung is to bring 3,500 jobs to Stockton-on-Tees will be very welcome in the town, where we have long had high unemployment? Will he confirm the Government's continuing commitment to the sort of regional policies that have brought that about?
    The Prime Minister: I very much welcome the announcement by Samsung. It is extremely good news for the north-east. Throughout much of the past 30 years, there have been very high levels of unemployment in the north-east and everyone will recognise the importance of that substantial investment. I know that my hon. Friend

    139
    has campaigned for Cleveland for a long time and will be very pleased by it. It follows a series of other welcome investments—Motorola, Digital and NEC—none of which would have come to this country but for the economic policies that we have followed, the fact that we are not part of the social chapter and the fact that we are members of the European Union.
    Mr. Blair: Since this is our first chance after the recess, may I say how much we welcome the further moves towards peace in Northern Ireland and assure the Prime Minister of our continued support in achieving that peace.
    Last Thursday on BBC television, the Chancellor of the Exchequer specifically ruled out a referendum on a single currency. Did he speak for the Government?
    The Prime Minister: First, may I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new position. It carries with it very great responsibilities, and I wish him well in those responsibilities for as long as he holds them.
    On Northern Ireland, I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman had to say. It is and has been an intractable problem for many years. We have made some progress. There is no certainty that we shall be able to carry the process through successfully to a conclusion. I believe that there is a chance—perhaps a better chance than we have known at any time in the past quarter of a century.
    I intend to take the opportunities that exist, but I hope that I shall carry the House with me in saying that we must take them with care, with caution and in our own time. I believe that that is the only way in which we shall carry with us all the people of Northern Ireland, without which we shall not be able to carry the matter through to a satisfactory conclusion.
    As for the right hon. Gentleman's substantive question, at the moment no one knows what may be at issue in the intergovernmental conference in 1996. The question of a referendum on any issue does not arise and very probably will not arise.
    Mr. Blair: With all due respect, the Chancellor specifically ruled it out and therefore he thought that it did arise. Is not that the problem: that the Chancellor takes one view on Europe, the Employment Secretary takes another view and the Prime Minister hovers between the two? Does he— [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House will come to order.
    Mr. Blair: I repeat: he hovers between the two. Does he agree that a divided Government is a weak Government, and a weak Government is no good for Britain?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has already said that, were he to form a Government, it would be a weak Government, and that is precisely because he said that his Government would not be isolated in Europe. Irrespective of the issue, irrespective of the British interest, irrespective of the views of the House or the Members of the House, and irrespective of the views of his colleagues below the Gangway, the right hon. Gentleman would follow slavishly whatever Europe says. That is not a credible position for any Government in this country.
    140
    We will judge issues on their merits as they arise.
    Sir James Kilfedder: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being the first Prime Minister in more than half a century to achieve the cessation of terrorism in Northern Ireland? Is he aware that the people of Northern Ireland fully endorse his careful and cautious approach because, as he realises, until the terrorists hand over their dumps of Semtex explosives and arms, there is the real danger that they or a breakaway group could easily use them on some pretext; saying that the British Government had failed to deliver their promises?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland for many years, and has had to live through many tragedies affecting his constituents. I listen, therefore, very carefully to what he has to say about Northern Ireland.
    As I said a moment ago, we shall continue to be cautious. Armaments—especially Semtex and detonators, perhaps more than guns—are a crucial issue that will have to be dealt with as we advance the process.
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pike: Recognising the Prime Minister's commitment to the national health service, as restated last week, will he understand the worry that exists at national blood transfusion service centres under threat of closure, such as Lancaster and Liverpool, where the staff are drawing attention to the dangers of reduction in service if those centres are allowed to close? Will he intervene now and say that those centres must be kept open to maintain the level of service?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to have a proper blood service in all parts of the country. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health examines in detail the remarks that he made this afternoon.
    It should be recognised throughout the House and beyond that there is no one in the House who does not share an affection for the national health service, who does not wish to see it built up— [Interruption.] Many of the Opposition Members who are muttering sat in the House when the last Labour Government cut the hospital programme by a third. They should know that there are now 20,000 more doctors, an extra 3,000 patients treated every day, and one large increase in facilities costing more than £1 million for every eight days throughout the 15 years that the Conservative party has been in power. That is a formidable commitment to the national health service, and it is the commitment of this Government.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent news that there is to be a central computer for organ donors is welcome, not only to the 5,000-plus people awaiting organ transplants, but to their families?

    141
    Can he assure us that when the scheme starts it will be given as much publicity as possible to entice as many millions of people as possible to register?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly look at what my hon. Friend has to say. There is no doubt that a central register will help hospitals and bring a great deal of new hope to the people waiting for life-saving operations. We will, therefore, examine the issue of publicity and see that the scheme gets as much as possible.
    Mr. Clelland: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clelland: When millions of British families are suffering mass unemployment, poverty, a deteriorating environment and rampaging crime, is it right that so much attention should be focused on the marital problems of one very rich family?
    The Prime Minister: I have no intention of commenting on the subject to which the hon. Gentleman clearly refers.
    On the subject of employment and unemployment, the hon. Gentleman might welcome, with me, the fact that unemployment has now been falling consistently, in large numbers, for getting on for two years—including a further fall of 28,000 just a few days ago. That trend looks as though it will continue; it is a trend that has come about because we have now returned to a position of low inflation and high growth. Indeed, for one of the very few periods in the past 50 years or so, growth now exceeds inflation. That is the best guarantee, not only of more jobs, but of ensuring that those with jobs retain secure jobs in future.
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, on the subject of grant-maintained schools, Norfolk is in the lead? In those schools morale is high and, above all, there is overwhelming parental support. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will not return those grant-maintained schools to local authority control—unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who wants to turn the education clock back to the failed policies of the 1960s and 1970s?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly can offer my hon. Friend the reassurance that he seeks. The development of grant-maintained schools has been a great success. It has tremendous support from well over 1 million parents. [Interruption.] I think that the Opposition are saying that it is a disaster that 1 million parents are now getting what they want for their children. The Government do not
    142
    regard that as a disaster; the Government regard that as choice, which I thought was now one of the mantras of the new Labour party.
    Mr. Tyler: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Tyler: In the light of his previous answer, can the Prime Minister reassure the House that his Administration is now a sleaze-free zone?
    The Prime Minister: I am as concerned as any Member in the House or any person in this country that we should have the highest standards in public life. I approve of corruption no more than I assume does the hon. Gentleman, and I will not accept it. Our public servants and our public institutions are acknowledged to be among the best in the world. In order to maintain that reputation in administration and in politics, wrongdoing will have to be rooted out wherever it is, and I shall seek to ensure that it is.
    Sir Anthony Durant: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his skill in dealing with the situation in Northern Ireland. We strongly support the caution that he is exerting in the negotiations. Meanwhile, will he ensure that there are enough troops on the streets of Northern Ireland to reassure the people of Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. The details of policing on the streets are properly a matter for the General Officer Commanding and the Chief Constable, not for direct political decision. But for as long as it is necessary for the police, the RUC or troops to be on the streets of Northern Ireland to protect all its people, whichever part of Northern Ireland they come from, they will be made available.
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McFall: Does the Prime Minister agree that his noble Friend Lord Archer owes the public an explanation as to his share dealings? Will he therefore authorise a DTI report on those share dealings?
    The Prime Minister: I welcome the opportunity that the hon. Gentleman has given me to make the position entirely clear; I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is appropriate that I should do so.
    There are clear statutory procedures surrounding investigations of the sort that concern Lord Archer. When concern first arose about the Anglia TV share dealings, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade appointed independent inspectors to investigate the circumstances surrounding dealings in Anglia Television shares—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why did they not publish?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will wait a while the whole House will be able to hear the answer that his hon. Friend has requested.

    143
    When the inspectors' report was received, my right hon. Friend the President also took independent legal advice on their conclusions. It was therefore on the basis of the inspectors' conclusions and of the legal advice that my right hon. Friend sought that he decided that there was no further action to be taken under the insider dealing legislation. If there had been, action would have been taken.
    If I may deal now with the question shouted by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), there is no provision in the Financial Services Act 1986 for inspectors' reports to be published. Indeed, when the Bill was considered before Parliament it was made clear that inspectors' reports would not be published. Investigations are undertaken on that basis; evidence is given on that basis; and it would not be right to change the position retrospectively.

  BILL PRESENTED
    DEREGULATION OF TRADE UNIONS
    Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe, Mr. Alan Simpson, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Bill Etherington and Mrs. Alice Mahon, presented a Bill to amend, and make provision for the amendment of, statutory provisions and rules of law affecting trade unions, and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 October, and to be printed. [Bill 161.]

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

  Statutory Instruments, &c.

    INCOME TAX
    That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Estonia) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Guernsey) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Isle of Man) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Jersey) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Kazakhstan) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Mexico) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Russian Federation) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Estates of Deceased Persons and Inheritances) (Switzerland) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Vietnam) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Switzerland) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—(Mr. Burns.]
    Question agreed to.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Would Members who are leaving the Chamber do so quickly and quietly? It is far too noisy in here, and we have business to conduct.

Residential Care Homes
3.32 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to further regulate ownership, control and standards of private residential care homes; and for connected purposes.
I should like to ask the House to entertain the idea of a Bill which, even at this late stage, would enable us to amend the Registered Homes Act 1984 with certain specific changes. I want to introduce national standards for the care of all residents in private or local authority homes or receiving domiciliary or day care. I should like also to improve the registration of residential care homes, to extend the registration to domiciliary care and day units, and to set up an independent inspectorate with responsibility for inspecting all private and local authority homes at least four times a year. I want to specify the ratio of inspectors to beds, and to include all homes, irrespective of size, on the register. I want to stipulate the minimum requirements for the qualifications of staff and principals, and the ratio of trained staff to residents. It is not widely realised that this week the other place has taken decisions on part of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill which would have a direct effect upon residential care homes.
In the light of some of the dreadful cases that have recently come to our attention, the House has a special responsibility. We have only to consider the Frank Beck case and what happened to those in residential care homes in Buckinghamshire who were allegedly raped and subjected to the most appalling abuses, to realise that our legislation is far from perfect and that the sooner it is improved the better.
Nursing homes are currently registered differently from residential care homes. Under the Registered Homes Act residential care homes, whether private, voluntary or public sector, are registered and inspected by local authorities. But private, voluntary and a handful of NHS nursing homes are registered and inspected by health authorities.
Residential care homes are not required to employ nurses. By contrast, nursing homes must have in charge either a registered medical practitioner or a qualified nurse, and there should be sufficient staff on duty to provide skilled nursing to all residents.
Why am I asking for the minimum requirements of national standards? First, it is clear that there are great differences between one county and another in the interpretation of the existing law. Even on the simple business of inspectorates, a Royal College of Nursing survey found that in one health authority one full-time and two part-time inspectors were inspecting 167 homes with 4,110 beds. However, in another health authority that makes inspections a priority, a full-time and a part-time inspector were covering only seven premises with 269 beds.
As soon as we begin to read, even in the daily press, about the cases that consistently come to light, we realise why so many people are deeply concerned about what happens to some of the frailest and the most at risk in our population. Those who suffer from Alzheimer's disease, the mentally handicapped and those who, although
146
retaining their mental faculties, are not able to care for themselves, must be protected whether they are cared for in residential care homes or even in their own homes.
There has been a call to Parliament to institute the same sort of protection for those who go into people's homes to care for them and we should include that in our legislation. It is extraordinary that we demand that those who work in local authority homes should be suitably checked by the police to make sure that they are fit and proper persons while we do nothing to make sure that private units and agencies carry out the same checks on their staff.
One of the difficulties is that private care homes do not have the right to ask the police for that information. If they do, they will discover that it takes anything up to six weeks before any kind of information is forthcoming. In that length of time many people can be quite badly injured through being treated in unsuitable circumstances by unsuitable staff.
The Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill that is going through the other place contains regulations about fire and the care of people in private homes. However, the Department of Trade and Industry has proposed that the registration and inspection process should be subject to review, presumably—because it is being discussed during proceedings on the deregulation Bill—with a view to removing the few current controls.
I have strong reservations about the idea that self-regulation will do in relation to the circumstances that are discussed time and again. Self-regulation would not protect the disoriented person who died when left alone in a bath while the care assistant went out for a cup of tea. Care for the mentally handicapped would not be sufficiently regulated by self-regulation as many people have been subjected to physical and mental abuse.
What is needed is a totally independent inspectorate which, above all, is properly funded. Inspectors must be properly trained and must have the right to investigate the circumstances that are brought to their attention. There must be a proper ratio of the numbers of beds to inspectors and inspectors must have the right to insist on nationally agreed standards that are not imposed, but agreed by all those who are directly involved. Those nationally agreed standards should be available to all and easily checked. Looking beyond the work of the inspectors, I believe that it is clear that many local authorities are failing fairly disastrously in the job that they have been called upon to undertake.
Why do I ask for a minimum of four inspections a year? The simple reason is that members of the press told us that when they asked local authorities how many homes in their care had been inspected, they discovered not only that many of them were inspected only once during the year, but that many authorities were unable to provide accurate information and had no idea which of those homes were to be visited only on a biannual basis. That is not only frightening but it is very distressing for the people concerned and for their families.
Independent inspectors should have the right not just to look at what is happening in our homes, but to publish that information and to make sure that it is available to the families of anyone requiring care for their loved ones.
It is quite horrifying that the Government are suggesting in their new guidelines for the national health service that in future people can be moved automatically

147
from the NHS into private care homes without their agreement, yet their relatives would not have an automatic or simple way of checking up on the quality of care within the homes that their own relatives were in.
Inevitably, when one considers what a battle it is for many parents of mentally handicapped people or those who have elderly and frail relatives to deal with the problems of bureaucracy and the day-by-day problems that they encounter in the safe management of their own families, it is essential that the House should regulate not only private and residential care homes, but the way in which independent private agencies work.
There are no names on the Bill other than mine for a particular reason. I hope that the whole House will associate itself with it and that all hon. Members will take it as their Bill. I beg leave to ask for it to be considered.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.

Residential Care Homes
  RESIDENTIAL CARE HOMES
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody accordingly presented a Bill to further regulate ownership, control and standards of private residential care homes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 October 1994, and to be printed. [Bill 162.]
Orders of the Day
  Defence Estimates

    SECOND DAY
    [Relevant documents: The Defence Committee has reported on the Statement oh 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.]
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [17 October], That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994 contained in Cm. 2550.—[Mr. Rifkind.]
    3.44 pm
    Madam Speaker: Before I call the Minister, I have to inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I must also inform the House that a great many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I am therefore putting a 10-minute time limit on speeches between the hours of 6 pm and 8 pm. I appeal to those hon. Members who speak outside those hours voluntarily to limit their speeches so that we can have a good exchange and I can call as many hon. Members as possible.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I am very proud to stand at the Dispatch Box to open the debate on behalf of the Government today and to make my first full speech as the Armed Forces Minister. I believe it to be a great honour to have been entrusted with such a high responsibility and to have the chance to work with such exceptional and outstanding people.
    In briefly replying to the debate last night, I attempted to deal with most of the points raised. I hope to deal with more of them today. I shall ensure that those points that I do not deal with in any detail during my speech will receive a full written reply.
    I should first declare an interest. For a short but very happy period of my life I was a serving soldier. I have always been a great admirer of our armed forces and the ethos and culture that has brought them and us such distinction and honour over so many generations.
    In the 12 short weeks that I have served at the Ministry of Defence, I have been deeply impressed by two particular things—first, the great scale and diversity of tasks and operations upon which our armed forces are engaged; and secondly, what I believe to be the unequalled dedication and skill of the men and women who so ably guard the life of Britain and play such a crucial role in promoting our interests overseas.

    149
    The scale of tasks is, frankly, quite breathtaking. I want to try today to give the House a flavour of the breadth of that work. As this debate takes place, the Queen's ships are on operational patrols in the Adriatic, the Gulf, the Caribbean, the South Atlantic and in Hong Kong. Elsewhere, HMS Glasgow and the royal yacht Britannia are supporting the state visit by Her Majesty the Queen to Russia; HMS Middleton is in Poland as part of NATO's standing naval mine countermeasures force; HMS Hecla is engaged on a hydrographic survey in the Indian ocean; and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary tanker Brambleleaf is on her way to the West Indies in support of the West Indies guardship HMS Broadsword.
    The greater part of the Royal Marines spearhead battalion is now fully deployed in Kuwait. The House will be pleased to hear that 45 Commando group are undertaking reconnaissance patrols and already exercising their very considerable skills. At the same time, soldiers of the British Army are training in difficult conditions in the jungles of Brunei, exercising in Jordan, manning observation posts in Hong Kong and along the green line in Cyprus, and playing a leading role in the formation of the new South African army, and more than 600 troops are currently in Rwanda providing the most remarkable humanitarian aid and assistance. Since their deployment, the British contingent in Rwanda has delivered about 1,500 tonnes of aid and treated in excess of 50,000 casualties. That is a truly remarkable achievement.
    There are also 1,500 British soldiers exercising currently on the Suffield plains of Canada, training very hard indeed to maintain our absolutely essential ability still to be able to prosecute a high-intensity conflict. All that is in addition to major operational deployments, in the former Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland and the Falklands.
    The House will not forget the Tornados, Harriers and Jaguars of the Royal Air Force, and the Navy Sea Harriers, which are flying hourly in support of no-fly zones over both the former republic of Yugoslavia and Iraq. At the same time, the Hercules force continues the task that commenced on 2 July 1992 to resupply Sarajevo. That is an extremely demanding and very hazardous operation requiring quite exceptional skills and it is conducted by a few, specially trained and very brave crews.
    Indeed, it is perhaps worth noting that every operational front-line aircraft type of the Royal Air Force is now committed to tasks somewhere around the world with aircraft being operated from a total of 12 deployed bases.
    That is the backdrop against which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, in his speech yesterday, drew attention to Britain's place as a major player on the world stage. It is clear that one of the main reasons that that remains the case is that our armed forces and defence capabilities give us the capability to operate around the world. Their outstanding abilities are rightly held in the very highest regard. Their work should be the cause of the greatest pride for everyone in Britain.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister is setting out a formidable record, but does he agree that it is important that military standards are at least as high as civil standards? Is not he therefore worried about the Health and Safety Executive's report yesterday
    150
    about the weapons establishment at Aldermaston saying that had it to meet civil requirements it would have to be closed down as a result of its poor safety standards?
    Mr. Soames: The particular point that the hon. Gentleman raised will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement tonight, but as to the main part of his question, I have generally found standards in the military to be far higher than those in civilian life.
    I have already given a snapshot of the scale of our activities, and I should like now to mention some of the achievements of our armed forces during the past year.
    The Royal Navy plays a full part in developing important bilateral relations. This year, contacts with Russia and other central and east European nations have continued to have a high priority.
    Earlier this month, the first joint maritime exercise under NATO's "Partnership for Peace" initiative, Exercise Co-operative Venture, took place in the North sea and Baltic approaches. The destroyer, HMS Newcastle, and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, Olna, participated alongside ships from Russia, Poland, Lithuania and Sweden, as well as with NATO allies.
    This year also saw the renewal of the Royal Navy's close ties with South Africa, which included a marvellously successful visit to Cape Town by the frigate, HMS Norfolk, and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, Grey Rover, when some 69,000 people visited the ships during their two-day visit.
    The Royal Navy also plays a leading role in a number of other activities. That includes providing assistance in the important fight to counter drug-trafficking. While that is not a dedicated defence task, the services possess specialised equipment and capabilities, which can be and are of great assistance to the civil authorities. They have, in the past year, scored some remarkable successes in that area, helping to recover drugs with a value of more than £30 million.
    The prominence given in recent years to the Army's operational commitments, both overseas and in Northern Ireland, makes it easy to lose sight of its presence as part of the mainstream of our life on the British mainland. But we all saw last winter how quickly it was able to respond to local requests for help in the face of extreme weather conditions, notably in January when the Royal Engineers built Bailey bridges to counter the flooding around Chichester.
    The Army also plays a leading role in a task that receives little prominence at home, but does a huge amount to cement the most crucial and valuable relationships with other countries and their armed forces, which are extremely important to our national interests—the provision of military assistance to a large number of foreign countries.
    That is an activity which we do extremely well across all three services, and our reputation for professional excellence is unrivalled, especially in Africa and the middle east. We currently have eight permanent training teams established in eight African countries.
    An outstanding example of that work is South Africa's request for help with the amalgamation of the South African defence force with the armed wing of the African National Congress and other South African forces. To that end we have sent a 34-man team to oversee the integration

    151
    and training of the new national defence force. The primary role of the team is to validate selection criteria and training standards, to monitor training across all four arms of the South African national defence force—army, navy, air force and medical services—and to act as an honest broker in any cases where disagreements arise between the various services.
    Short-term teams are also much in demand to meet specific training requirements. For example, a small contingent of Royal Engineers was in Ghana for 11 weeks last spring to train members of the Ghanaian and Sierra Leone armies in minefield detection and clearance skills. Also, a 10-man team has been in Mozambique since February to validate the training of its unified national army.
    On the other side of the Atlantic, following the withdrawal of the Belize garrison, we continue to help train the Belize defence force, besides maintaining a substantial unit to provide training support to our own Army combat groups which will be undergoing jungle training there.
    Most recently, a short-term training team based in Puerto Rico played a major part in the Americans' pre-deployment training package for elements of the multinational force for Haiti. The 13-man team were involved in training the combined Caribbean Community and Common Market—CARICOM—contingent currently deployed in Haiti. That has been an outstanding success and greatly valued.
    Referring now to the Royal Air Force, Tornado and Harrier detachments have now flown a total of nearly 5,000 sorties to date in support of coalition air policing operations in northern and southern Iraq, and their numbers have of course recently been reinforced in response to the recent build-up of Iraqi forces near the Kuwaiti border.
    Royal Air Force transport aircraft also continue to provide aid and assistance to the United Nations. For example, 10 Hercules aircraft assisted in the initial deployment, at extremely short notice, of British troops to Rwanda; Royal Air Force Tristars continue to supply those forces. In May this year, two Hercules aircraft assisted in the evacuation of 154 civilians from the Yemen.
    Earlier this month, a Royal Air Force helicopter crew received the Shipwrecked Mariners Society's top air-sea rescue trophy, in recognition of their role in the rescue of 13 crewmen from a junk off Hong Kong during typhoon Becky on 17 September last year. That rescue took place in winds of more than 100 mph and 40 ft waves, and well demonstrates the almost unbelievable courage and skill of our search and rescue crews.
    In the first eight months of this year, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy search and rescue helicopters and the Royal Air Force mountain rescue teams have been called out to 1,397 incidents, in which 1,095 people were either rescued or rendered assistance.
    Mr. Bill Walker: As my hon. Friend is talking about the activities of the Royal Air Force, will he congratulate the officers and men, the ground crew and
    152
    the air crew who spend up to six months of every year overseas on duty? Will my hon. Friend consider the impact on family life and the dedication that is required?
    Mr. Soames: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I am delighted to pay tribute to the Royal Air Force in particular, but the same tribute should be paid to the Army and the Navy. I intend to say a little about that matter.
    Mr. Nick Ainger: On search and rescue, the Minister knows that I have a particular interest in my constituency and that I have written to him about the matter. Does he accept, however, that recent incidents, particularly in the English channel, have shown that the removal of search and rescue facilities from RAF Manston has significantly increased response times and that it is likely that lives will be lost as a direct result in what is, after all, the busiest shipping channel in the world?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He and I have indulged in prolonged correspondence. I find myself unable to agree with the view that he expresses. I am quite sure that he does not really believe that the Government would have made any such changes unless they were completely satisfactory. I am completely satisfied that the changes that have been made fully provide for safety.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State touched yesterday on our contribution to the process of extending security to the east, and I should like to elaborate for a moment on that.
    As a member of NATO, we are playing a prominent role in promoting the "Partnership for Peace" initiative. So far, 23 countries have signed, including Russia and almost all countries of central and eastern Europe. "Partnership for Peace" is designed to expand and intensify political and military co-operation throughout Europe, and it allows partner countries to decide their own level of involvement.
    One aspect of co-operation already under way is that of combined exercising. So far, there have been two PFP exercises, one land-based in Poland and one maritime exercise. A third is due to begin this Friday in the Netherlands. All three exercises involve participation by NATO allies, including the United Kingdom and states of central and eastern Europe, and are seen as tangible demonstrations of the very real partnership envisaged by PFP.
    Independently of PFP, the United Kingdom has made extensive efforts to establish bilateral defence relations with the countries of central and eastern Europe, and memoranda of understanding covering formal contact programmes have so far been signed with 12 countries. So far, we have jointly exercised, on a bilateral basis, with Poland—twice—and Hungary, and are examining the feasibility of exercising with the Czech Republic and Romania. We also have plans to exercise with Russia, and trilaterally with Hungary and Germany. Other areas of co-operation include assistance to Russia in the form of nuclear weapon super-containers to improve the safety and security of strategic disarmament, and the provision of expert advice on military resettlement.
    The United Kingdom is also playing an active role in the formation and training of the joint Baltic peacekeeping battalion. More generally, we attach the greatest importance to assisting with English language training for

    153
    military and MOD personnel in the central and eastern European states, and are actively examining ways of promoting democratic accountability and civilian involvement in their Ministries of Defence. All that amounts to a demanding programme, but I believe it to be well worth the investment in time and effort as a thoroughly worthwhile contribution to the peace and stability of Europe.
    As I have said, in the 12 weeks for which I have been at the Ministry of Defence, I have been fortunate enough to have already seen a good cross-section of the services in Bosnia, Germany, Hong Kong and the middle east, and here at home—particularly, of course, in Northern Ireland. Let me give the House some impression of what I have seen.
    One of the first visits that I made was to our troops in Northern Ireland. As the House well knows, the provision of support for the Royal Ulster Constabulary remains our largest and most important continuing peacetime commitment. I was therefore delighted to spend two days in the Province last month. The House will not be surprised to learn that, like everyone else who has visited the armed forces in Northern Ireland over the years—indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State paid his own moving tribute yesterday—I was profoundly impressed by the supreme levels of skills, commitment and motivation that I found among the forces at every level and in every arm.
    Over the past 25 years, those forces have done a truly remarkable job under the most onerous and difficult conditions. They are very highly trained and very well led, and they carry out their duties not only to the very highest standards of professionalism, but with much good humour, enthusiasm and complete dedication. No praise is too high for them.
    I was particularly delighted to have the opportunity to visit my old regiment, the King's Royal Hussars, and to join its members on the streets in Belfast. I was thrilled to find a very fine regiment indeed, which has adapted readily to a new but temporary dismounted role during a most distinguished and successful tour.
    My right hon. and learned Friend paid tribute yesterday to the outstanding job being undertaken by Britfor in the former Yugoslavia. I spent three days visiting the services in Bosnia at the end of September, and saw for myself the truly exceptional work that they have done in their peacekeeping role.
    I visited the Royal Air Force detachments deployed at a number of bases throughout Italy. I went from Aviano—where I saw the airborne warning and communication system detachment, which is making an extremely important contribution to deterring and detecting violations of the no-fly zone—to visit the Hercules detachment at Ancona. As I have said, the Hercules airlift—often in dangerous conditions—has made a truly vital difference to the humanitarian operation in Bosnia. It is no exaggeration to say that, without those sometimes hazardous flights into Sarajevo, thousands of people would have died of starvation and cold.
    My next stop was Gioia del Colle, the base from which the Tornados and Jaguars fly. The timing of my visit was auspicious; only the day before, the RAF had dropped its first bomb in anger in Europe since the end of the second world war. The House will not be surprised to hear that the operation was entirely successful. I was glad to have
    154
    the chance to meet not only the flight crews but the ground crews, without whose dedication and hard work such successes simply would not be possible.
    From Italy I flew on to HMS Invincible in the Adriatic and spent a fascinating night on board. She is a splendid ship, a supremely effective platform and a vital and considerable asset to Great Britain.
    The following two days I spent in central Bosnia and Sarajevo. It brought for me a new perspective on the prospects for that war-torn but very beautiful country. Just a few months ago, central Bosnia was in flames and its people were suffering the grossest horrors of a bitter civil war. The change today is nothing less than dramatic. The fighting between Muslims and Croats has all but stopped and very real and tangible progress has been made.
    Mr. Frank Cook: I have listened intently to the Minister's speech so far and I am most impressed with his catalogue of exemplary achievements. They are remarkable. Our forces are so busy. Relentless pressure is placed upon them. Why is it then that we are cutting back so relentlessly?
    Mr. Soames: I find that the most fatuous question. I do not propose to dignify it with an answer.
    UNPROFOR's mission has moved on from creating the conditions to allow aid delivery to maintaining those conditions. For the most part, there is free movement of convoys and most are not escorted. Yes, incidents take place and the peace is fragile and needs nurturing. But it is there. In Gornji Vakuf, where every building in the town centre was utterly devastated by small arms fire, rebuilding work is in progress, schools are reopening and the local administration is tackling the many difficult problems.
    Throughout central Bosnia, UNPROFOR, spearheaded by the British contingent, is not only keeping routes open and maintaining freedom of movement but persuading the locals to take control of their own lives and their communities.
    In all this, I cannot sufficiently emphasise the credit due to British forces. It is clear that the British contingent is the key mover in taking forward initiatives, albeit very slowly, to get the various factions together to discuss and work out the future of their country. That is not something that can be imposed from outside by using military force; it needs patience and effort. Our soldiers are providing just that.
    Therefore, it will come as no surprise to the House that the reputation of British troops has never stood higher in the United Nations—for their superb training, total reliability and great skill in peacekeeping, learnt over many years.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State yesterday rightly singled out the Royal Engineers for the exceptional work that they have done to restore the fabric of the country. But there are many other heros among British forces in Bosnia. For example, the statistics for the logistic battalion based at Split supporting the British forces are unbelievable. In only four months, they have covered almost 2.5 million km. The Army's DROPS vehicles are, in every two-month period, doing a normal two-year mileage. Despite that exceptional loading on vehicles, to say nothing on the men, a very impressive level of reliability has been achieved. That is a great credit to the logistic battalion, and the House will wish to pay it

    155
    a warm tribute for its remarkable work. Finally, Sarajevo. Busy streets and a bustling marketplace, which only last February was the tragic scene of a grotesque and cowardly mortar attack. Electricity was on and the trams were running.
    Of course, concerns, deep worries and anxieties remain. One only has to look up at the Bosnian Serb lines on the surrounding hills to understand why the people of Sarajevo are desperate for UNPROFOR to remain. Talking to some passers-by with General Rose, I was left in no doubt about the strength of their feelings on that matter and their deep sense of gratitude to General Rose personally.
    I wish to place on record in the House my profound admiration and respect for the remarkable job that General Rose is doing in the most difficult and trying circumstances. He has our full support. Much remains to be done. There will be no quick fix for the rebuilding of Bosnia, but I am confident that the United Nations approach of consensus is working and can continue to work.
    I have also visited our forces in Germany, which despite their decreased presence continue to demonstrate our solid commitment to the North Atlantic alliance. While in Germany, I visited the headquarters of the Ace Rapid Reaction Corps. That was a valuable opportunity for me to have a detailed briefing on the role and responsibilities of the ARRC and the United Kingdom's central contribution to that organisation.
    I was much impressed with what I saw. The United Kingdom commander of the ARRC, General Mackenzie, has done a splendid job in welding his team together and giving them a strong sense of purpose and common identity. It is no mean achievement and it is all the more impressive given the short amount of time that the headquarters has been established.
    More recently, I returned from a visit to Hong Kong and Brunei, where I was able to see in detail how our garrisons go about their business and get a feel for the reality of the tasks that they perform.
    I am pleased to report that morale is high and one cannot fail to be struck by the energy and dedication on display. From the Royal Navy personnel manning the patrol craft in Hong Kong to the crews of the Royal Air Force Wessex helicopters, among Gurkhas in both Hong Kong and Brunei and in the logistic support regiment, which plays a crucial role in supporting the Hong Kong garrison, there is a very real sense of purpose and dedication.
    I also want to pay tribute to the outstanding contribution made by civilian staff of the Ministry of Defence—both in support of the armed services and in the support that they provide to Ministers in the formulation and management of defence policy. They are employed in a wide variety of jobs that are essential to defence and to the working of the services at all levels.
    Some are right at the sharp end. We have, for example, civilians providing us with essential back-up in Bosnia. Civilian engineers helped to keep our forces operational in the Gulf during the 1991 conflict. Behind the front line, our scientists work at the forefront of technology in the brilliant Defence Research Agency.
    156
    Civilian seamen man the ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Civilian cartographers provide expertise that is essential—indeed, crucial—to military operations. Civilian police and security guards help to ensure the security of military establishments. Civilians—from storemen to engineers—play a central role in logistic support for the services.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can the Minister explain why one civilian—the distinguished permanent secretary, Sir Clive Whitmore—found it necessary to go to the then Prime Minister to express the disquiet of the Ministry of Defence about Mark Thatcher's activities in relation to commercial operations with Saudi Arabia? The House of Commons is entitled to some comment. I do not suggest that the Minister should answer now, as one cannot do so off the top of one's head, but in the winding-up speech there should be some considered statement as to why the permanent secretary found it necessary to go to the Prime Minister about such a subject.
    Mr. Soames: I thought that I saw the hon. Gentleman boiling up to a question. Sir Clive Whitmore has already denied the veracity of that story. Rather than the answer coming off the top of my head, the question came off the top of the hon. Gentleman's. Sir Clive Whitmore has clearly denied that such an event happened.
    Many civilian staff work in agencies in a commercially competitive environment and all are at the forefront of radical change in the organisation and management of defence. A small minority work in the Ministry's headquarters, where they formulate policy advice to Ministers and carry out the functions that are utterly essential to a Department of State. I want to dispel any impression that our civilians are some kind of fourth arm. They are absolutely integral to our defence organisation, and about three quarters of them work in areas headed by senior military officers of all three services. Without them, the defence machine simply could not function.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: We have heard that the Minister has been on his travels in the past 12 weeks. The Secretary of State announced in July that 17 Ministry of Defence bases in this country were to close. How many of those bases has the Minister visited?
    Mr. Soames: I have visited a number of bases not only in the United Kingdom but elsewhere, but I do not have the figures at my fingertips. I shall be visiting also a large number of bases in the future. The hon. Gentleman should consider carefully the sensible purpose of the debate which is to debate defence, and not try to make idiotic points.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: May I encourage the Minister to make an additional visit to the Rosehearty bombing range in my constituency where the villagers are anxious about a proposal to extend bombing times to between 10 pm and 12 midnight during the summer months? Will the Minister encourage the RAF to hold a public meeting in the village to explain the proposal in more detail to my constituents? Perhaps the

    157
    Minister would like to attend such a meeting. Does he agree that it would be arrogant and insensitive of the RAF to refuse to have such a meeting?
    Mr. Soames: I certainly would not agree with any such thing, but I should be very happy to receive the hon. Gentleman in my office—if he can spare the time to come and see me—to hear his views on the matter.
    Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to mention an area that many hon. Members asked about yesterday—the arrangements for dealing with staff at locations affected by decisions arising from the defence costs study.
    Mr. Tim Rathbone: May I raise one area that my hon. Friend has not touched on in his review of the excellent performance of our forces everywhere—the Territorial Army and the reserve generally? I hope that he will say a word about that subject before he ends his speech.
    Mr. Soames: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that matter. My hon. Friend and others have expressed their satisfaction at the outcome of the announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend. The Territorial Army continues to play a crucial role in our affairs and while I am not going to deal with that matter in great detail in this particular speech, I shall be happy to do so on another occasion.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend yet again. On the subject of the Territorial Army, he will know that my constituency houses the B squadron of the Royal Leicestershire Yeomanry. I do not expect an answer off the cuff, but will my hon. Friend write to me to let me know whether the MOD has decided what role the squadron should play within the Territorial Army? Will it be the nuclear, biological and chemical defence regiment, or a part of it?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the question of the Royal Leicestershire Yeomanry, and I shall happily look into the matter and let him have a detailed reply as soon as I can.
    Where staff become surplus at a particular location or establishment, I can assure the House that every effort will be made to find alternative employment for them locally, either elsewhere in the MOD or in Departments. As part of that process, we are in close touch centrally and locally with other Departments. That work is of a high priority and we are fully aware of its great importance.
    Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Royal Marines school of music at Deal is not only well loved but the largest employer in Deal, even if it is small in terms of the total military establishment? Will he take all possible steps to consider keeping the school open for a good few years yet, and not close it in April 1996 in accordance with the proposal?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend has been extremely robust in the defence of his constituents' interests. He knows that we are now in a period of consultation and I shall be very happy to see him and a delegation from his constituency to discuss the matter.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: My hon. Friend is well aware of the great concern in the Swindon area about the proposal to close the Princess Alexandra hospital at Wroughton, because he was good enough to receive a
    158
    delegation of local people led by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and myself last month. Does he recognise that it is the overwhelming desire of people in the Swindon area to keep the hospital open? Will he therefore undertake to ensure that my constituents will continue to receive the highest level of health care in the future?
    Mr. Soames: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that guarantee, but I cannot give him a guarantee about the future of the hospital. My hon. Friend came to see me with my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) about the possible closure of the hospital. We are still consulting on it, but I hope to let my hon. Friends know the results of that consultation as soon as possible. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) that whatever arrangements are made, they will provide admirable medical care for his constituents and those in the constituencies surrounding Swindon.
    The arrangements for dealing with staff at locations affected by decisions arising from the defence costs study is work of a high priority and we are fully aware of its great importance. It is the Department's stated aim to avoid compulsory redundancy wherever possible. In addition to natural turnover, we are therefore making full use of a number of pre-redundancy measures such as recruitment and promotion restrictions, greater use of casual and period appointments, early retirement and voluntary redundancy.
    Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State dealt comprehensively with the defence costs study and I have no intention of going over the ground that he covered so admirably. I should like, however, to take this opportunity to tell the House that the one defence costs study that was outstanding at the time of the original DCS announcement—the study into defence intelligence—reported as planned at the end of July. I am sure that hon. Members will understand that because of the sensitive nature of some of the subject matter, we shall not be making public all the measures that we propose to implement.
    Defence intelligence, and the staffs involved, play a vital role in the work of government, and that will continue. We believe, however, that there is scope to reduce costs through a variety of measures, including a reorganisation of the defence intelligence staff of a similar nature to that being carried out elsewhere in the Ministry of Defence following "Front Line First".
    Mr. Adam Ingram: I have noted what the Minister said about the detail behind the DCS, but is he aware of the decision to transfer the staff from the directorate of standardisation in Glasgow to Bristol, with the loss of 50 key jobs? Can he explain how that squares with the Government's intention to transfer jobs to Glasgow? Can he also confirm that the director of

    159
    standardisation has advised his staff that he does not agree with the Government's decision and that the policy unit that has been established will not be cost-effective?
    Mr. Soames: I could argue with the hon. Gentleman about that matter on another occasion, but while it is true that some jobs are transferring from Glasgow, a substantial number of other jobs are going to Glasgow.
    Mr. Ingram: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Soames: No, I must get on. A substantial number of other jobs are going to Glasgow and it will be a net gainer.
    As I said, I am sure that hon. Members will understand that because of the sensitive nature of defence intelligence we cannot make public all the measures that we propose to implement. We believe, however, that there is scope to reduce costs through a variety of measures, including a reorganisation of the defence intelligence staff of a similar nature to that being carried out elsewhere in the MOD.
    I should now like to take an early opportunity to deal with two important issues on which there has been much rumour and speculation over the summer break: official service residences and the independent review of service career and manpower structures and terms and conditions—otherwise known as the Bett review.
    The House will recall that, in his written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) on 4 July, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), notified the House of the full cost of the restructuring and refurbishment programme at Haymes Garth, the official residence of the Air Officer Commander-in-Chief, RAF personnel and training command, RAF Innsworth.
    My right hon. Friend explained the nature of the audit action that had been set in hand to investigate the circumstances in which the expenditure had been authorised, incurred and notified, including a high-level independent external examination. He also announced that a separate audit had been set in hand on expenditure on official service residences more widely to ensure that in other instances financial control mechanisms have functioned properly.
    I am pleased to say that good progress has been made on all that work. On Haymes Garth, Sheila Masters of KPMG Peat Marwick, who has been carrying out the examination for us, has largely completed her work and I expect her final report to be with Ministers in the course of the next few weeks. I will then, of course, be considering with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State the follow-up action required. Against that background, we felt it appropriate that the wider question of representational entertainment in the armed forces should be examined by an independent scrutineer of standing, experience and judgement.
    I am glad to be able to tell the House today that, at my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's request, Sir Peter Cazalet, chairman of APV plc and deputy chairman of GKN, is conducting such a review, which will examine the requirement on senior officers to entertain and the means by which the entertainment should be carried out. In particular, it will consider whether there are alternative and more cost-effective means than the use of official service residences and other
    160
    service married quarters, and, in the light of that, whether any properties can be disposed of. It will also examine the requirement for domestic assistance and the funding arrangements for official entertainment. The review is expected to take some three to four months to complete.
    We are extremely grateful to Sir Peter for agreeing to carry out that important task. I shall, of course, report to the House in due course on the results of his work. I should like to add that that work has the full support of all three services.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: I have detected in the Royal Air Force very little, if any, disquiet about alleged exorbitantly extravagant entertaining on the part of air officers. It is recognised that they have representational functions within the local community, which are widely respected and regarded, not least by Members of this House and Ministers. If any disquiet exists within the Royal Air Force, the bête noire is the question of flying pay. The fact that the announcement that it was under review should be made at a time when two crew men of a Tornado have lost their lives in the highlands of Scotland is the sort of thing that causes disquiet in the services.
    Mr. Soames: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend heard me say that the review had the wholehearted backing of all three services. I agree that there is essential representational entertaining to be done, and the important role that Sir Peter Cazalet will be able to carry out will confirm the criteria for that entertainment.
    There has been much speculation over the parliamentary recess about the reasons for the Bett review. A great deal of reporting has been highly speculative and, in some cases, downright dishonest and deliberately sensationalist.
    As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made clear yesterday, the fact of the matter is that we commissioned this independent review not for the purpose of cutting costs but to ensure that, as we approach the first part of the 21st century, the arrangements in place are sufficiently flexible and robust and meet our needs in terms of our ability to recruit and retain people of the same admirable quality. In particular, we need to take account of changes in the armed forces and their deployments, and of changes in our national life.
    The review is extremely broad, and Mr. Bett and his team bring a wide range of experience to it, including considerable experience of personnel practices, not only in the armed forces but in management and finance in the private sector.
    The wide ground to be covered in the review means that a great deal of information must be gathered and assessed. As part of that work, the team has been paying an extensive series of visits to units and commands, both in this country and overseas, when they have held discussions with large numbers of service personnel and their spouses. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State expects to receive Mr. Bett's report by the end of March next year.
    Some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), Chairman of the Select Committee, have expressed concern on a number of occasions at what is seen as overstretch in the armed forces. Let me take this opportunity to say that I well understand their concerns. My hon. Friend will understand

    161
    that they are beaten over my head whenever I go out and about. But I feel that most of those concerns are wide of the mark. Obviously, the whole defence establishment is undergoing a period of profound change, to enable it to be in the best possible shape to meet the challenges and tasks that lie ahead. It is also plain that the services currently have many and varied obligations and commitments. That involves substantial extra effort, but, in my experience, people join the armed forces for excitement and adventure and to serve their country in an active capacity—not, frankly, to sit around on their butts.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: My hon. Friend will recall that yesterday, in an intervention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) mentioned the word "understretch". Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the essential criterion that our armed forces must meet today is flexibility? I agree with what he has just said, but surely a greater role should be given to our Territorial Army to fulfil a more important role as reserves to our armed forces, to give them the flexibility that they require. The Territorial Army., as its members are in units and are trained, should surely be the first line of reserve for our Army, rather than the last, as it is at the moment. Will my hon. Friend comment on the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater yesterday—about understretch, and ensuring that people are always fully occupied?
    Mr. Soames: I hope that I answered my right hon. Friend's argument yesterday, but my right hon. Friend is quite right. We are already making much wider use of the Territorial Army. Indeed, in the Falkland Islands at the moment is a platoon of Territorials, shortly to be reinforced to company strength. We accept that that is an important role that they play.
    All those changes involve upheaval, extra effort and all the things that go towards making service life at the moment pretty hectic.
    I do, however, recognise the pressures that currently confront many of our service men and women. Before concluding, I take the opportunity to pay a warm personal tribute to a group of people who do not receive the public recognition that is their rightful due—service wives and their families. Many of them, as I speak, may be collecting their children from school, coming home from work or—which is every bit as important—simply keeping the home fires burning. At times of turbulence and high levels of commitment, when their loved ones must be away more often than they, and sometimes we, would wish, I take the opportunity to salute each and every one of them for their patience, fortitude and forbearance and their robust and stoical common sense.
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on his magnificent speech, and welcome him to the job that he is now doing. I was sorry to hear that he has not yet grasped the essential point about overstretch. I think that he is wrong in saying that the Defence Select Committee and others are wide of the mark in speaking about that overstretch. Undoubtedly, the 24-month interval between emergency tours should be a minimum. That is widely felt throughout the services at
    162
    all ranks and that opinion is widely held in the House. My hon. Friend must take another look at that in the weeks ahead.
    Mr. Soames: I shall take another look at that because I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels about it and I do not suppose that he will wish to leave the matter there.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I put on record my thanks for the letter that I received from my hon. Friend, who discussed several of the arguments that I made in my speech yesterday. However, I should be grateful if he tackled one essential matter.
    Those wives who are waiting at home and those of my constituents who are worried about their jobs wish to know all about the financial background to the decision. If it goes ahead, will my hon. Friend give a commitment that we can examine as many figures as possible, as we did with the Navy base, so that we may either be convinced or at least fight the case for Portland?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he knows, we shall have a full and detailed consultation on those matters, and I am sure that he and I will have further discussions on the subject.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: I am sorry to ask another question at the end of the Minister's speech. He paid a warm tribute to the families of service men. What has he to say to the nine families of the soldiers killed by American A10 planes in the Gulf war? They have yet to receive an adequate explanation from their Government about what happened, an adequate apology from the American Government about what took place or compensation equivalent to that paid to officers because they were from other ranks, although they were killed in broadly analogous circumstances. I have written to the Minister on the subject and received a courteous reply. I should like him now, as a new member of the defence team, to change the Government line on the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is in his most seductive mode when he talks like that. I was grateful to him for sending me the paper that he has written on the matter. He and I are due to have a meeting to discuss it. I do not recognise the position as he outlined it. I look forward to hearing the full details of the case when he comes to see me and I shall, of course, give the case the full consideration that it deserves.
    I should not wish to close my speech without making a brief reference to the Labour party's defence policy, although I do not wish to intrude on private grief. Every conference motion tabled at the Labour party conference called for deep cuts in defence. Two days after the launch of the so-called new model Labour party, the Labour party conference voted for £6.5 billion in defence cuts and to do away with Trident.
    When hon. Members decide which way to vote tonight, they should consider the fact that if they undertake to make cuts of £6.5 billion, they must give us an account of which arm of the services they intend to do away with—the figure represents the cost of one of the service arms. If the House were to vote for the amendment, it

    163
    would be a betrayal of the armed forces and Great Britain. I know that the House will wish to reject such a fatuous and idiotic amendment.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Soames: No, I shall not.
    One of the responsibilities of being the Armed Forces Minister is to ensure that the work being implemented across the Ministry of Defence is managed in an honourable, sensible and humane manner in order that we continue to get the very best from our service men and women. They are a credit to Great Britain, and a priceless and unique asset. The Conservative Government will always guard their interests.
    4.37 pm
    Mr. Donald Anderson: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    "declines to support the policy of the Government as set out in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994 and the Defence Costs Study and calls for a full scale defence review; condemns the continuing process of piecemeal cuts which is undermining the morale and operational effectiveness of the armed forces and which, as a result, has failed to prepare the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom defence industry for the challenges of a post-Cold War world, for the emergence of a European defence and security identity, for an enhanced role in aid of United Nations peacekeeping and for the new opportunities for arms control; and deplores the way that defence capabilities and installations are being run down in an unplanned way instead of planning to counter the adverse effects of change on communities and individuals by expanding the provision for re-training and re-housing service personnel and by utilising and creating instruments such as positive regional policies and a defence diversification agency."
    I warmly welcome the Minister of State and his colleague, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, to their new posts. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces is no lightweight politician and is clearly a difficult act to follow, particularly when he meanders so much around all our overseas posts. I confess that he left us not only breathless but jealous of his air miles over his peregrinations, and eager to change roles and follow in his footsteps. Our only concern, after the promises that he made to write to and meet so many hon. Members, is that the only place that he will be free to meet them will be Heathrow airport. He gave us a breathless exposition that was a mixture between the Boys Own paper and Vera Lynn. When he paid tributes to our forces, the Opposition Front-Bench team wholly concurred with what he said.
    The Minister comes to his task, as does his colleague, in the footsteps of Ministers who have received promotion. I hope that the present Ministers will also be promoted before they change positions with us at the next election. They come to their posts at a fascinating time of transition, when defence planners and the defence industry seek certainties that are not there. During the cold war, they knew where they were; the identity of the enemy and the nature of the threat were clear. Now, as the late Manfred Wörner said,
    "There is less of a threat but less peace".
    164
    Some compare our position to the confusion of the citizens of classical Rome in Cavafy's poem "Waiting for the Barbarians":
    "Because night has fallen and the barbarians haven't come
    And some of our men just in from the border say there are no barbarians any longer
    Now what's going to happen to us without barbarians?
    Those people were a kind of solution".
    In our case, the barbarians did exist but they never came.
    It is difficult for the present generation of politicians of a certain age to move from the perceptions of the past and to gird themselves for the challenges of tomorrow's world. That problem of adaptation is compounded for us in the United Kingdom by the unwillingness of the Government to set in train a defence review of the kind that has been undertaken in the United States, France and Germany and thus to initiate a national debate on our role in the new global context. The problem is also compounded by the deep divisions in the Conservative party, which prevent the formation of a coherent strategy and which force the Government to move, crablike, by short-term tactics.
    The division over Europe is at the heart of the Conservative party. A Cabinet Minister—such as the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont—needs to be sacked before being wholly frank about Europe. But that right hon. Gentleman's views would be echoed by the Home Secretary, by the Secretary of State for Social Security, by the Secretary of State for Employment and by the Secretary of State for Wales if they, too, were liberated by being sacked. That is the problem for the Prime Minister and the Government when seeking a coherent view on Europe.
    There is also a sharp and irreconcilable divide on the Conservative Benches between traditionalists, who understand the excellence of our armed forces and the fact that a military ethos can easily be destroyed but not easily recreated, and the new hard men who understand the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Yesterday, in answer to questioners concerned about stability after the period of turbulence, the Secretary of State said that we could now "contemplate" a period of stability in the sectors that he defined. Those among his Back Benchers who threaten revolt against defence cuts are easily bought off by a lawyer's careful words.
    I warn him, however, that the Chief Secretary knows his way around the Ministry. He knows where the bodies are buried; he knows the unfinished work from the defence costs study; and he may require further cuts—due, for instance, to the slippage in the timetable for the budgeted £500 million in 1995–96 from leasing service married quarters to the private sector.
    That, then, is the background to our debate on the period since "Options For Change", certain other key Defence Committee papers, the defence estimates and the defence costs study.
    Surely 1989 was a decisive turning point in history which has demanded a radical reappraisal of the whole of our external policy. The fact, for example, that warning times of general war are now measured not in hours but in years has led to a proper response by our key allies. We should heed the advice of the oracle at Delphi by knowing ourselves—by recognising that we shall be increasingly unable to do everything and will thus have to make hard choices. Those who have created so much

    165
    turbulence and loss of morale in our services over the past decade—and particularly in the past four years—are hardly credible when they accuse us, because we demand a review, of seeking to create turbulence.
    It is, of course, possible that part of the solution to the problem of overstretch will come from developments in NorthernIreland—which, like the fifth cavalry, will come to the Government's rescue. Of course we wholly commend the Prime Minister and Mr. Reynolds on their initiative and we rejoice in the response of the loyalists last week. We also accept the Secretary of State's wise words yesterday to the effect that it would be imprudent to reduce force levels in Northern Ireland prematurely. Nevertheless a return to normality in our garrison strength in Northern Ireland may now be realistically considered an option or a possibility.
    What are the military implications of the breakthrough to peace? Here is a major potential peace dividend: 17,500 soldiers serve in Northern Ireland, an addition of at least £500 million to the military budget. What will happen if, over a few years, we can reduce their numbers to the pre-1969 garrison strength of about 2,500? What will be the effect on training and on tour intervals? Would any forces thus released be assigned to peacekeeping duties? We know that experience in Northern Ireland is highly relevant to such duties.
    On the other hand, will these infantry battalions be downsized, to use the jargon? We cannot delay a decision too long, as it will affect both redundancy and recruitment decisions in the coming months.
    We need to project possible scenarios over the next 10 to 20 years also because of the length of time involved in procurement decisions. The saga of the Upholder SSKs and the expenditure, for nothing, of £1 billion—the Minister will be well aware of the difficulties of disposing of those craft—well illustrate what I mean by the problems of the time involved in procurement decisions.
    Clearly, the massive threat from the former Soviet Union is a thing of the past. I understand that in 1989–90 there were more than 300 intrusions by Russian military aircraft into United Kingdom airspace. In 1993 there were only 12. So how do we plan for the new range of threats? I concede that we see but darkly, but we have to be ready at least for a greater European security and defence identity; we must be prepared for a greater emphasis on peacekeeping in the United Nations and in the conference on security and co-operation in Europe; and we need to redefine the defence and security threat and be ready to seize new opportunities for arms control. Each of those developments has major implications for our procurement policies.
    I shall deal first with the future of NATO and European defence, and likely developments within the alliance. As far ahead as we can usefully plan, the core of our defence policy will be within NATO. Yet NATO itself is undergoing a profound transformation. It has lost a threat and is searching for a role. We must ask ourselves whether there is enough consensus between European Governments over that role. NATO has responded well to changes, with the North Atlantic Co-operation Council, the "Partnership for Peace" and the combined joint task forces, but uncertainties remain.
    We shall obviously continue to depend on the United States for heavy lift, intelligence, communications and logistics, but we do have some worries about the
    166
    judgment of the Administration. We thought that the Government's craven unwillingness to oppose the United States view on lifting the Bosnian embargo, which would imperil our troops, was quite wrong. We note that in some ways we are drifting apart: for instance, in the House of Representatives in May, the Barney-Frank amendment was passed, calling for the first time for substantial conditional cuts in the United States presence in Europe.
    What about the nature and extent of the Russian threat, or co-operation? Russia has given positive support in Bosnia. It has withdrawn from the Baltic states as promised; it has also withdrawn from Berlin. How do we encourage Russian concern for the resolution of conflicts in its near-abroad without condoning a new colonialism on the part of Mother Russia? It is most important that we try to understand the concerns of this proud country and respond accordingly—by pressing the Baltic states to safeguard the civil rights of their Russian citizens, for example.
    There are also important questions about the future of defence co-operation in Europe, with the Western European Union serving both as a European pillar of NATO and as the focus of the European defence identity.
    Mr. David Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Russian presence in other countries. What is his response to the recent agreement between Moldova and Russia regarding the continuing occupation, for the next three years, of the transnational republic of Moldova by the Russian 14th Army? Is not that totally unacceptable? Was the agreement reached because of Russian threats? What does the hon. Gentleman suggest should happen?
    Mr. Anderson: That clearly depends on a judgment on the degree of duress under which the Government of Moldova acceded to the new agreement. That partly defines the problem of how to accept the legitimate interests of Russia, which could have major positive implications for us, without yielding to the view that Russia will assume a new colonial garb akin to that of the old Soviet Union. The hon. Gentleman knows the area well and pinpoints the dilemma facing western planners.
    The Government have increasingly sidelined themselves on political and hence defence developments by their divisions on Europe. The implications for our defence industry are fundamental to developments in Europe. The 85th edition of Jane's "All the World's Aircraft" launched at Farnborough in September states that the Ministry of Defence has
    "fallen hopelessly out of phase with virtually all the current European aircraft and helicopter programmes … because of … an endless search for the ultimate solution to every requirement, by unrelenting rejection of every proposal on cost grounds, by consequent indecisiveness all round and by a mindless service dedication to US products."
    That refers specifically to the C130J FLA dilemma which was mentioned by many hon. Members yesterday. Will the Treasury insist on going for the cheaper off-the-shelf alternative or will we dare to look longer and reserve the bulk of the purchase for the European alternative? If we go for the C130J what will be the effect on future European co-operation? If we opt for a wholly

    167
    American solution, will there be any protection against being wholly overcome by the strength of US defence companies?
    Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman speaks for Labour on defence. What are his views on the RAF being committed to high-risk development and production programmes being carried out at the same time? Effectively, that is what the hon. Gentleman suggests. Until we have accurate figures on what the future large aircraft is likely to cost, how can the hon. Gentleman commit his party in that way?
    Mr. Anderson: The Government and responsible people in the Opposition must place heavy weight on what the RAF says, but that is not the only consideration. We must also examine the major implications for the civilian and defence sectors of our aerospace industry and for co-operation with Europe. We have heard what the RAF said to the Select Committee about needing three such aircraft by the turn of the century. There were suspicions that the RAF was pressing for a decision on the C130J before the end of the century because of the perceived trough in expenditure before expenditure on the Eurofighter comes on stream. All those issues must be carefully weighed.
    Mr. Colvin: The hon. Gentleman may have inadvertently made a slip in describing the C130J as an all-American aircraft. As was made clear in yesterday's debate, some 36 British companies would be involved in the manufacture of that aircraft and that would provide about 3,500 jobs. British components would be fitted to all the aircraft that were sold worldwide, and there is a target for the eventual replacement of about 1,500 Hercules. The C130J cannot ever be described as an all-American aircraft.
    Mr. Anderson: The issues to be considered include whether such jobs would be put at risk if we did not purchase the C130J, the quality of the jobs created and, more important, the number of jobs that would be lost if we did go for that option.
    In the context of European co-operation, on 9 September the Financial Times stated:
    "There should be no question of excluding American products, but the burden of proof must fall on those defence ministries that wish to buy American where there is a competitive European alternative."
    We are in a harsh competitive world with mega-mergers such as Martin Marietta and Lockheed, and United States embassies are mounting a new drive for United States defence products. In the light of our fragmented aerospace defence industry, can Europe, and can we as part of Europe, withstand that drive?
    The French are the masters of nationalist procurement and at some stage we must decide whether to have a counterweight to the overwhelming strength of the United States defence industry. We must ask whether article 223 of the treaty of Rome, which excludes defence from the free market, is adequate, or whether the Government together with our European partners should seek to revise it.
    168
    I was impressed by a recent Ernst and Young study on the defence industry. It was published in May and concluded:
    "We are currently witnessing the emergence of two defence axes in the West—one European, the other American. The benefits of American expertise and investment are undeniable. But, while collaboration with the US on specific projects may bring mutual benefits, European industry can only act as an effective counterweight if it rationalises cross-border".
    That rationalisation should not necessarily be on the model of the Eurofighter with all its inefficiencies arising from the operation of production lines in different countries, but on the model of real mergers, so many of which happen in the United States. The Government must surely have a role in that, just as they have a role in the current dispute between GEC and British Aerospace over the future of VSEL. What is Government policy on the future of VSEL and what are the overall implications for the strength of our defence industry?
    Only the Government can make such major decisions, and on them will depend the future of many jobs and the future strength and sophistication of our defence industry.
    It is likely that peacekeeping in all its forms will have an increasing effect on the future role of our forces. There is a lively debate under way on the theory and practice of peacekeeping. There is a difference of emphasis, because the United Nations Secretary-General takes a bullish view while the more cautious view of the west is for stricter criteria before intervention—such as a clear threat to international order—and a clear timetable for eventual withdrawal.
    Peacekeeping will have major procurement implications: there will be an emphasis on flexibility and amphibiosity and the marines will have a new significance. There are implications for heavy transport and training and for "jointery", one of the themes of the defence costs study, and there will be renewed emphasis on the interoperability of equipment.
    I shall now turn to arms control. How are we to redefine the defence and security threats to our interests and press forward with arms control measures, because as we look forward to stability nuclear proliferation raises new threats? Let us hope that yesterday's framework agreement between the North Koreans and the Americans will lead to that problem being removed from the international agenda of concern.
    I am a little surprised that the study commissioned by the Ministry of Defence on ballistic missile defence will not be carried out in co-operation with the United States, whose technical expertise we need, and with our European partners, because we need monitoring stations on the continent. Perhaps the Minister can explain why we appear to have gone ahead on a national basis.
    On nuclear proliferation, may I ask the Minister for clarification on the following matters? Surely there is a strong case for our taking the lead in pressing for an international conference with a remit to produce an action plan for dealing with the new problem of nuclear smuggling.
    What positive steps are we now taking to keep technology in responsible hands? It is surely disgraceful that it took more than two years for the international science and technology centre in Moscow, intended to stem the flow of scientists from the former Soviet Union, to meet; it met for the first time in March 1994 after two

    169
    years of inaction during which many scientists may have gone to unstable areas which could pose a threat to the west.
    It is worrying that the conference on disarmament halted in September with such slow progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty. Surely it is now clear that there is no prospect of a treaty by next spring, as was envisaged, and that slippage in the timetable will have adverse effects on negotiations to renew the non-proliferation treaty beginning in April.
    The main causes of delay on the comprehensive test ban treaty are clearly France and China, but Britain also has been unhelpful in seeking exemption for safety tests. The dangers are clear and we expect a clearer lead from the British Government.
    On chemical and biological weapons, we signed the chemical weapons convention in January 1993. Why have the British Government so far failed to ratify? In November last year, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), gave only the following explanation: ratification would come "when parliamentary time permits". I can give this pledge to the Government: if that is their real objection, the measure will get a fair wind from the Opposition, so it will not take up much parliamentary time. Are the Government simply yielding to the concerns of the chemical industry in Britain? Why is Britain refusing to take a lead in such a vital matter?
    Mr. Harry Cohen: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the report of the Group of Seven, of which Britain is obviously a member, of 22 July 1991? The final communiqué contains the words:
    "We reaffirm our intention to become original parties to the"
    chemical weapons convention. If the Government signed up to that, surely there is no case for them to be dragging their feet now.
    Mr. Anderson: Yes. Clearly the Government said they will be part of the first 65. There is no parliamentary reason for delay because of the pledge that I have given, so we must look elsewhere. Surely the Government must set a example to other countries that may be delaying.
    Behind the defence costs study, which is one of the documents before us today, was the Treasury imperative to find £750 million worth of savings; it all flows from that. What happens if those savings are not realised? In the other place, Lord Bramall pointed out that the enhanced equipment programme—that has been promised so many times—depends on future cash flow which is itself dependent on the DCS proposals being implemented.
    On the new recruiting proposals designed to save £25 million, Lord Henley, the Lord Privy Seal, said in the other place:
    "we shall have to move extremely fast".—[Official Report, House of Lords,26 July 1994; Vol. 557, c. 682.]
    At present only pilot schemes are envisaged.
    What is the reason for the abandonment of plans for the housing trust and slippage in the £500 million programme by 1995–96? How long is the delay and what is its effect on the defence budget? What is the reason for the Government's change of mind on the defence estate?
    170
    There are a number of positive elements in the defence costs study. It is well written and surely must be seen as part of a continuing process without the necessity for regular grand, comprehensive reviews. It has also revealed some apparently gross extravagances.
    There is much scepticism about the validity of the distinction between front-line and support services—a point made very well by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) yesterday. However, there is merit in the business approach to the management of the defence services where business criteria and vocabulary are relevant. Head office is mentioned and it is claimed that briefing is almost a tedious extra.
    Clearly, the business approach can be overdone, but management experience is highly relevant. In one case within my knowledge the man in charge of a multi-million pound budget within the Ministry had been transferred from another discipline and had no financial training. That is wrong. The Government should make the best use of expertise from outside in operational research, personnel and technical matters and, if necessary, import people to each level of the Ministry.
    Overall, if, as was stated by the Ministry of Defence, the headquarters is, "too large, too heavy, too bureaucratic," who is responsible for that? Given the number of years the Government have been in power, why has it taken so long? It can hardly be attributed to any deficiencies of the last Labour Government.
    The defence costs study is insular in its lack of reference to our allies and narrow in its failure to look at the total costs of redundancy, for example.
    How worried is the Ministry of Defence about the current shortfall in recruiting? The Sunday Telegraph of 9 October reported that recruiting was "alarmingly behind target". Saatchi and Saatchi has been given £5 million for a recruiting drive. Currently, the MOD is 18 per cent. behind the target for soldiers and 20 per cent. short on officers.
    We have had a wide-ranging debate yesterday and today, partly because, as the Select Committee frequently points out, the House has relatively few opportunities to discuss this important subject.
    Our fear is that the Government are failing to look strategically and to plan for change because of their internal divisions and because of their general refusal to address the issues. There is a danger that the United Kingdom will be increasingly marginalised in Europe and that our vital defence industries will be harmed in the process.
    The tragedy for Britain is that, for party reasons, the Government prefer to avoid key decisions and to feed delusions rather than to address the real issues of what we can and should do well with our excellent armed services, normally not on our own but in co-operation with our allies.
    The Government pretend that the state can have no role in tackling the effect of restructuring on industry and communities. The lesson of last week's Bournemouth Conservative conference is that the Government have succeeded in putting clear blue water between themselves and public opinion; they have succeeded in putting clear blue water between themselves and reality and between themselves and British interests. A Labour Government will look long and fearlessly meet the challenge of the future.
    5.9 pm
    Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I wish to declare an interest as a non-executive director of GEC Marconi. I would be tempted to follow some of the interesting points raised by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), but I feel that I should abide by the 10-minute rule, even at this early hour, so that as many hon. Members as possible can speak in the debate.
    Each year in these debates there is talk of reviewing our defences. In my opinion, what is really needed is a review of our foreign policy objectives. The defence forces are nothing more or less than the means of implementing the Government's foreign policy objectives. Defence capability becomes relevant when inadequate capability makes it impossible to carry out foreign policy objectives.
    I want to share with the House a report that has just been published by the Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies. Its authors are Dr. Christopher Coker and James Sherr. The report has some quite disturbing parts. On page 14, it states:
    "The Defence Operations Analysis Centre at West Byfleet has constructed about eight main war scenarios which are fought and refought as paper exercises to judge just how Britain would fare in the new world order. These scenarios range from a full-scale war in Bosnia to an amphibious landing in a former colony to rescue British citizens. In almost every exercise the Centre concluded that Britain could no longer do much without help. In one, it is the Americans who provide the aircraft to get the troops in place. In another, it is our NATO allies that bolster our undermanned ground forces. In another it is the Americans who are expected to supply air cover. Why the Americans should continue to do so, if we do so little for them, is a question the Centre did not pose."
    I agree with the assertion made by many people that we have the most professional armed forces and, therefore, probably the best in quality in the world, but we are not making things easy for them. If the individual soldier in Northern Ireland, before the IRA ceasefire, was working up to 113 hours a week, if units were spending 260 days away from home at one time and if intervals between tours were down to 15 months compared with the minimum of 24, it is obvious that the strain on the Army was increasing.
    My concern about the West Byfleet analysis is that the public are not aware of it. I suspect that they think something entirely different—that we can cope with anything that comes along. The question is whether a medium-power can be expected to discharge all of its former responsibilities. The French clearly think so. France spends less on defence than we do. We might feel that it is unreasonably over-conscious of its sense of grandeur. However, France has dominated the United Nations effort in the former Yugoslavia and British subjects were recently evacuated from Aden by French forces. Perhaps that is a sign of the times.
    If the West Byfleet analysis is correct, we must question how that state has come about. There are two answers—first, the impact of the Treasury, and secondly, the effect of industrial competition policy. The Treasury rightly insists on financial rectitude, efficiency, prudence and good value for money. We would all agree with that. One of the ways of achieving efficiency is market testing, and again I support the concept. The problem is how we question the rate of progress and the success of market testing.
    172
    In the "Market Testing Bulletin", Government Departments are asked to list activities for review. It states:
    "When an activity is reviewed a number of options are considered including abolition, privatisation, contracting out, market testing (with an in-house bid) and restructuring the activity without a formal tender. Therefore not all the activities listed will necessarily be subject to competitive tendering."
    I welcome the MOD's ministerial commitment to doubling the value of work for which industry will be invited to compete via market testing. It must make sense to make industry responsible for the in-service support of the equipment that it has designed and built. There can be no better way to ensure that industry is given the incentive to design and produce robust and reliable kit.
    Ministers will have to monitor the implementation of savings measures. It would be helpful if the services could keep the savings that they have achieved to fund, for example, future equipment purchases. At least that would give them an incentive.
    Mr. Peter Hardy: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest. Does he accept that if there is competitive tendering and the most successful tender comes from in-house, that demonstrates that the Air Force is capable of competing successfully with the other tenderers? That ability should be subject to very real public attention and commendation because it shows that the service is rather more efficient than some hon. Members assume.
    Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I agree that such a position should attract the commendation that the hon. Gentleman suggests. All that I hope is that it would be a genuine competition. Often, criteria and overheads are loaded in. We want appropriate savings to be achieved so that they can be used elsewhere in the defence budget.
    A good start has been made, but much remains to be done. I would be nervous of a tendency to replace competition by something called benchmarking, which is much too cosy and incestuous. One of the successes has been the Defence Research Agency and I applaud its achievement of in-house economies. With its expanding role, there may be the possibility of a change of name—perhaps the "National Research Agency" might be a good idea.
    The really important reason why market testing should succeed is that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has based the funding of new equipment and research and development on the assumption that savings will be achieved. If the savings are not achieved from market testing or any other system, further slices are taken from research and development and the procurement of new equipment. Cutting the R and D budget causes our defence capability to fall because technological advantage must be the name of the game. The R and D and procurement share of the total budget was close to a half in the mid-1980s; it is now closer to a third. That is very unhealthy.
    All that might sound theoretical, so I shall give a practical example. A Sea Harrier was shot down over Gorazde recently. It was not because of any failure by the pilot, but because the aircraft had to fly around the target area five times because it did not possess an anti-armour weapon with a seeker that allowed it to operate in poor

    173
    weather. Systems are available and I hope that the MOD will consider procuring them so that our front-line troops are not placed in such a position again.
    I want briefly to say something about competition policy as it applies to the MOD. I did not just support that policy at its inception—I was one of those responsible for introducing and implementing it. We needed such a policy to make industry sharpen up and become competitive, especially in overseas markets. The "cost-plus" mentality had not served industry well. The danger now is that a policy that was designed to produce fitness is in danger of inducing malnutrition, just like any other policy or activity that is followed to excess or to its so-called logical conclusion.
    The vital importance of the defence industrial base to the economy of this country, and—by the speed and flexibility of its response—to the MOD, has never been in doubt. As budget trends move against the MOD, there is a disinclination to invest in new-generation equipment. For example, the specification for the Tornado successor must not be written around existing US equipment, which is the tendency in such cases. If the budget is under pressure, it may be thought better to take an existing system from somewhere in the world and write a specification around it—but then, surprise, surprise, we find that British industry cannot meet the specification. We must now assume that a United States off-the-shelf purchase will not necessarily or automatically be the answer.
    In my ministerial days there used to be something called the two-way street in UK-US dealings in defence equipment—the idea of reciprocal purchases by the United States following purchases by the United Kingdom of American equipment. There has been something of a surge of purchases from the United States in recent months, as I am sure that hon. Members will have noticed. Although there are extensive offset arrangements, they are not sufficient to maintain a strong industrial defence base here.
    The Ministry of Defence is not only a customer. Because of its monopsonistic position as a buyer, it is also the marketplace. It controls the marketplace. It is clear that a number of foreign Governments are now organising their own markets to operate to the benefit of their defence industries.
    It follows from what I have said that there will be advantages to the United Kingdom if the leading United Kingdom companies are of a size and capability to compete effectively in world markets and to make whatever alliances may be necessary to pursue United Kingdom interests.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister's endorsements of the quality of our armed forces. It is important in a debate of this sort that we do not delude ourselves into thinking that our capabilities are better than they are or that our remaining industrial strengths are greater than they are.
    5.21 pm
    Mr. John Home Robertson: The right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) speaks with great authority on these affairs. I particularly agree with the points that he made about the loss of the Sea Harrier on the mission to Gorazde. The air crew involved was on a mission impossible. We in this House
    174
    should be concerned to ensure that when we send our service men into action they have the equipment that they need to carry out the mission that is assigned to them. That is something that we should consider carefully.
    The Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence was uncharacteristically generous to the Government in his speech yesterday. As one of the humble foot soldiers on that Committee I should draw the attention of the House to the fact that our report on the defence costs study includes some fairly sharp criticisms. I fear that parts of the "Front Line First" review will further aggravate the damage done by "Options for Change". In particular, the decision to close the Rosyth naval base is just the latest in a long catalogue of shoddy decision making by the Ministry of Defence during recent years.
    The massive rundown in our regular forces and their in-house support will stretch our defence capabilities perilously thin. I suspect that the Government will have to rely more and more on volunteer reserves. That point has already been made by a number of hon. Members. It is fair to ask the Minister whether a new reserve forces Bill will be included in the Queen's Speech. That will clearly be required.
    I have just returned from a four-week trip to Bosnia, driving a 17-tonne truck for the Edinburgh Direct Aid organisation. Therefore, I want to concentrate on the situation in the former Yugoslavia and, in particular, on the valuable role of the British battalion in the United Nations Protection Force. I was one of 10 volunteers who took six vehicles up into central Bosnia three times with loads of medicine, foods, clothing and other supplies donated by people in Scotland. Edinburgh Direct Aid is one of the small voluntary groups which complement the work of the big agencies such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Overseas Development Administration, to take humanitarian aid directly to communities, hospitals and schools in Bosnia.
    Those agencies depend on charitable donations to make up the loads, on volunteers to man the convoys and, crucially, on UNPROFOR to safeguard movement through the civil war zone in so far as that is possible. UNPROFOR is there to help to keep the humanitarian aid moving and to help to achieve peace. I want to talk about both those roles this evening.
    The delivery of aid is vital to the victims of ethnic cleansing, to refugees from all the communities in Bosnia and to isolated pockets of Muslims, Croats and even Serbs cut off by the other factions. All are totally dependent on food, medicines and other supplies coming from aid agencies—about 3 million people.
    The ordinary people of Bosnia are not responsible for the nightmare. It has been created by nationalist warlords who do not give a damn about the people whom they claim to lead. Most of the Bosnians whom I have met in recent weeks were trying to make the best of a hellish situation with incredible fortitude and dignity. I could give many examples of individuals, hospitals, schools, orphanages and, perhaps most harrowing, homes for handicapped people, which are carrying on in impossible circumstances, but there is no time in the context of this debate.
    Our convoy took supplies to destinations in several areas, including the area covered by the British battalion of UNPROFOR. I pay tribute to the British Army medics and G5 personnel for the initiatives that they have set up

    175
    to help local people to begin to revive their communities. Their guidance is an essential resource for aid agencies going into the area and their support is all the more necessary when the aid agencies come under fire, as we did on several occasions in recent weeks.
    That was an interesting experience. It is a little hard to believe that some maniac is shooting at one from over the horizon. It is all very well for those who can go up there, see what is going on and come home again, but the people about whom we should be concerned are those who have to live in those communities, who have been living in such circumstances for three long years, taking casualties week after week. Things are grim, but we should acknowledge that UNPROFOR has had some substantial achievements, to which the Minister referred.
    When I visited the town of Gornji Vakuf with the Defence Select Committee in February 1993, the main street was the front line in a hot war between Muslims and Croats. There was no sign of civilian life in the town. At that stage, UNPROFOR's task was to try to deliver aid through a war zone or, to be more accurate, a series of war zones.
    This month, the picture in Gornji Vakuf was very different. The town is ruined, but there is now some traffic between the shell holes in the streets, people walking around and even a makeshift market with some goods for sale. It is hardly the idyll that the Minister described in his speech earlier this afternoon, but important progress has been made.
    That transformation is the result of the new confederation between Muslims and Croats, established with United Nations help on 23 February. The federation is a truly remarkable achievement, given the intensity of the conflict raging in places such as Gornji Vakuf and Mostar, where the fighting was even worse, just a year ago. It means that UNPROFOR has now moved into a new role of peacekeeping on the old Muslim-Croat confrontation lines. Given the recent history of vicious conflict, that pact is obviously extremely precarious, so it is vital that UNPROFOR soldiers should be kept in place for a long time yet to help to keep that peace in place.
    I know from my conversations. with British soldiers during the past few weeks that sitting at obscure checkpoints in all weathers can be a boring and apparently pointless task, but the strategy is working. It is certainly saving lives and making it possible to begin to rebuild shattered communities. All the soldiers serving with the British battalion and the other national contingents in UNPROFOR deserve our congratulations and thanks for what they have achieved so far.
    I know that while I was in the area the Minister of State for the Armed Forces passed through Vitez camp. He mentioned that in his speech. I am sure that he expressed his thanks to Colonel John McColl and the Royal Anglians who are serving there now. I do not know how much of the camp the Minister saw, but I want to report on some of the nooks and crannies that he may have missed. I would not like to have to spend six months there and, since that is what we will have to expect soldiers to do for some time yet, starting with the Royal Highland Fusiliers who are moving there during the next few weeks, that camp needs some improvements.
    176
    Most seriously, the recent outbreak of dysentery at Vitez camp raises questions about the water supply. I hope that the Minister will address that point urgently, and tell us what is being done about possible sources of infection. In addition, in wet weather, the camp looks and feels like a mud hole and the toilet and shower facilities are temporary units which are not standing up to the strain of the use that they are getting. The accommodation at Gornji Vakuf and at Kiseljak seems to be rather better, but those locations lack the British Telecom satellite links which are important for the soldiers who serve there. I hope that the Minister will consider that point.
    I stress that convoy crews such as ours are very grateful for the use of the Army's catering and other facilities at those bases, but, from the point of view of the soldiers, Vitez in particular needs significant improvements. If the problem is UN bureaucracy for funding, the Minister should not hesitate to kick up a fuss to raise standards for soldiers who are serving there.
    I am very grateful for the helpful briefings that I received from the military at sector south-west and Britbatt headquarters while I was in the area. Obviously, the views that I now express are my own responsibility. UNPROFOR is doing an absolutely essential task and it must not be withdrawn. In turn, that means that the United States must not lift or breach the arms embargo on the former Yugoslavia. Indeed, I agree strongly with the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who said yesterday that Britain should be prepared to impose a veto in the Security Council if the United States tries to have that arms embargo lifted.
    If we were to lift the arms embargo, it would probably take at least a year before the new weapons from the United States could be effectively deployed by the Bosnian Government forces. During that year, neither the Bosnian Serbs nor the Croats—nor their respective supporters—could be expected to sit on their hands. If the arms embargo were lifted, the Bosnian Serb army would certainly launch pre-emptive action to prevent the Muslims taking advantage of their new kit, and Croat extremists would be likely to reopen hostilities rather than risk a shift in power in the confederation towards the Muslims. That hard-won confederation could easily disintegrate.
    In those circumstances, UNPROFOR would have to be pulled out, with extreme difficulty, along routes which have countless choke-points—that is, tunnels, bridges and the like—where it is all too easy to obstruct movement. Indeed, even civilians could obstruct movement down those supply routes. Lifting the arms embargo could make things far worse for the beleaguered Muslims. It could be catastrophic.
    Apart from that military scenario, it would be unthinkable for the United Nations to walk away from the humanitarian task that it set up in the former Yugoslavia. Millions of people are now dependent on supplies delivered under United Nations protection. I saw some of those people in recent weeks, and it would be a crime to abandon them. Quite apart from our humanitarian obligations, we cannot afford to destroy the credibility of the United Nations as an international peacekeeping organisation. It might not be very good, but it is all we have, and it must be sustained.
    Things cannot stand still, either. We need more resources to help reconstruction in the confederation area. I pay tribute to the Army and to the ODA for what they

    177
    have done to help with roads, bridges and other services. Perhaps the next project should be the reinstatement of the Neretva hydro-electric scheme to restore central Bosnia's electricity supply this winter. That would be extremely good value and a reward for peace in the confederation. I understand that it could be achieved for as little as £3 million. It is worth considering.
    Above all, ways must be found to make the Bosnian Serb leadership face up to the need for compromise. The three-year siege of Sarajevo is an affront to European civilisation. The Minister implied that things were returning to normal in Sarajevo. How could he suggest that? The city is entirely cut off and it is subject to regular artillery and sniper fire. Our convoy was denied access to Sarajevo last month, and I understand that last night chetnik irregulars hijacked the cargo from another convoy trying to reach Sarajevo.
    The Bosnian Serb army regularly fires artillery and sniper rounds into civilian areas right around the front line, not only at Sarajevo. Yet again, its artillery has blocked the main supply route through Mostar and Jablanica into central Bosnia. When General Rose rightly responded to the latest provocations in Sarajevo, the Bosnian Serb army threatened to attack the United Nations bases. Indeed, I was in Vitez when our soldiers there were put on amber alert because of that threat. The situation is not good and we must remain on our guard.
    I appreciate that it is difficult to deal with people such as the Bosnian Serb authorities, but I doubt whether appeasement is the right line, so I was very surprised when General Rose publicly rebuked Bosnian Government forces for seeking to secure part of their own territory during the past month. It is a mistake to try to be even-handed between an aggressor and his victims, especially when one is acting on behalf of the United Nations.
    I do not know what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office long-term strategy for the Balkans might be, but I have my suspicions and I fear that General Rose may be influenced by that line. The House should take a close interest in that issue and we should heed the lessons of history, but the debate is not about the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; it is about what our defence forces are doing.
    UNPROFOR is doing a vital task remarkably well in very difficult circumstances. Its role should be developed and it should emphatically not be withdrawn. The British battalion in UNPROFOR is one of the force's most successful contingents. The experience of those soldiers in Northern Ireland makes them ideally suited to sensitive peacekeeping operations. The whole House earnestly hopes that the Northern Ireland crisis is coming to an end, but after my spell in Bosnia over the past few weeks and after having visited other areas of actual or potential instability with my colleagues on the Defence Select Committee over the past year or so, I have no doubt that there is much more peacekeeping and peacemaking to be done in and around Europe in the coming years. We must maintain high-quality conventional armed forces to play our part in that vital role, but I have very little confidence in the Government's ability or willingness to accept that responsibility.
    5.36 pm
    Mr. Peter Viggers: It is difficult to follow the speech of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). The whole House was riveted by his description of his recent experiences. I congratulate him on what he has achieved in Bosnia and on bringing that experience to the House. I should very much like further to discuss the hon. Gentleman's experiences with him, but I fear that it would have to be outside the Chamber because I need to make my own speech in my own way.
    It is a truism that the certainties of the cold war have been replaced by the uncertainties of what is called peace, but nowhere is that uncertainty more prevalent than among the armed forces themselves, who have had to face extreme uncertainty in recent years. It is absolutely right that the Government should cut defence expenditure to take account of the reality of the international situation, but those inevitable cuts have led to difficulties among personnel and to delays in the procurement of essential equipment.
    Now, at last, I hope that we have a new situation. I hope that the defence review, "Front Line First", and the statement by the Prime Minister, which was reiterated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State yesterday, that we have now reached a position of stability for our fighting strength mean that we can look forward with confidence to the future. Above all—this point was made by my hon. Friend the Minister—I hope that we do not excessively cling to existing members of the armed forces and delay retirement and recruitment. It is important that we should be able to hold out to our young people again the idea that the armed forces provide an absolutely first-class career which provides rewards and excitement.
    I want to deal with one matter that might be regarded as rather narrow, and that is the defence medical services. They are an essential part of our armed forces. A NATO circular on the subject states:
    "Effective medical support to NATO forces is essential to operational success and indicates NATO's seriousness of intent and resolve."
    Medical back-up is essential. Every four-man infantry patrol has one man who is trained in medical first-aid skills and in the use of sophisticated first-aid equipment. Every member of a naval crew is trained in first aid, and a significant proportion must be trained to a higher level, because first aid primary care is absolutely essential on land and at sea. Members of the Defence Select Committee will graphically recall the demonstration on board Ark Royal in the spring, when, shortly after a hearty breakfast, we were shown exactly what happens on board during a medical emergency. We saw how the naval crew could rally round and support with primary care.
    Our armed forces are well equipped with the latest equipment and they are trained to use it. Primary care is not in contention at this point, but secondary care is the subject of part of "Front Line First".
    Various factors must be borne in mind. Secondary care is quite a complicated subject. First, however efficient our helicopters and fixed-wing evacuation aircraft ambulances may be, there will still be occasions when it is not possible to treat men away from the front line, and front-line secondary care is needed. We found that in the Falkland Islands, when no airstrip was available for the evacuation

    179
    of our casualties; we are finding it now in Bosnia, where it is too dangerous to use helicopters for the transmission of personnel.
    Moreover, there will be occasions when the casualties are too ill to be moved. There will be occasions when no transport is available to move them and when it would be too dangerous to move them. Increasingly, as we participate in United Nations operations, there will be occasions when we wish, with our medical forces, to treat people who are residents of the country that we are aiding. In Bosnia, for instance, there is no wish or intention to ship out those whom our medical forces may be assisting.
    A second factor is the use to which we might put our reservists. There are problems here: we are dealing with specially trained people. I have been told that, when a candidate applies for a consultant post in the national health service, he must fill in a form part of which asks him whether he has any reserve commitment to the armed forces. Given the increasingly competitive environment in the NHS, appointing committees might be reluctant to appoint consultants with such a commitment, who might be taken away from their hospitals. Increased commercial pressures in hospitals and the introduction of performance-related pay might also be a factor.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: As the hon. Gentleman may know, many of those concerned with our reservists point out that one of the policies stemming from the new hospital trusts is a reluctance to release people for training.
    Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman backs me up, although I regret that he also makes a political point. Indeed, that factor genuinely inhibits greater use of reserves.
    My third point is that the defence medical service must be on the same notice to move as the rest of the armed forces. It is no good sending out the front line first and bringing medical support later. As I have said before, medical staff—certainly in primary care—are right there in the front line wherever the forces go: even when the special forces are shinning down chimneys, medical support is present.
    The fourth point is slightly complicated. To attract reputable clinicians into the armed forces, we need accreditation procedures that will allow doctors and nurses in the forces to obtain recognition from the individual royal colleges. It is no good having second-rate medical practitioners in the forces, and training is not possible without accreditation. Training and practice go together, and that argues in favour of increased co-operation between the defence medical service and the NHS.
    It is not possible, however, to employ people who are entirely interwoven with the NHS. In times of emergency, surgical support teams, field hospitals, primary casualty receiving ships and casualty treatment ships will be needed; people will be required who can work all hours of the day and night, in conditions of war, when equipment shortages and danger are part of the scene. That means that a dedicated group is needed, capable of taking on all medical care and all forms of surgery, medical aid, ophthalmology, pathology and, of course, nuclear medicine: we need a tough, trained, disciplined cadre.
    180
    To integrate such people in the NHS is very good for training, but focusing all medical care in the armed services on one area—provided through the NHS—would have a serious effect. It would leave a large hole as and when mobilisation took place. A delicate balance is needed between those working in the NHS and a back-up procedure allowing gaps to be filled when the medical defence service disappears.
    How have we dealt with the problem in the past? Until 1992, the defence medical services had seven hospitals—six if we exclude Catterick, which is quite small and specialised—and there were 1,500 dentists and doctors and 7,500 nurses and back-up staff, making a total of 9,000. In February 1993, there was what the MOD described as a "fundamental reassessment", as a result of which it was proposed to close Woolwich, Halton and Plymouth hospitals, leaving only three. A mere 17 months later, in July this year, "Front Line First" announced that we did not need Wroughton or Aldershot; so now we have one. The figure has gone from six to one in two years—the arrangements will take effect in April 1996.
    In February 1993, 1,500 beds were thought to be required, of which between 1,100 and 1,200 would be provided in service hospitals. In July 1994, "Front Line First" stated that we needed between 700 and 800 beds, half of which would be in military district hospital units, while the remaining 375 would be provided in the tri-service hospital at Haslar.
    I am more concerned about people than about hospitals and beds as such. The numbers do not add up. As I have said, in 1992 we had 9,000 trained staff in the medical defence service; in February 1993, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton)—then Minister of State for the Armed Forces—announced that we needed 20 per cent. fewer than the original 9,000, which I calculate to be a total of 7,200. "Front Line First" states on page 39, however, that the changes now proposed will result in a reduction of approximately 1,020, making a total of 6,180. I should add that my own journalist sources, which have been right in the past, tell me that there will be well over 4,000 job reductions. That simply does not add up.
    There is, of course, a possibility of misunderstanding. It is possible that the previous job reductions have not yet been made. I understand that we currently have 1,600 doctors and dentists in the armed forces, compared with the 1,500 who were thought to be needed in 1993. The job reductions have not been made there, and some of the 4,000 reductions may be made in places such as Cyprus and Germany. "Front Line First" points out on page 39 that the 1,020 job cuts are those
    "resulting from Front Line First".
    If contemporaneous job reductions are taking place which do not derive from "Front Line First", the House deserves to know about it. As a member of the Select Committee, I must say that I have become suspicious of vague numbers that always seem to crystallise at the wrong end of the spectrum of uncertainty. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to be good enough to put the record straight, and reassure me by stating the current strength of the defence medical service and its proposed strength following the implementation of defence costs study 15 in April 1996.
    Subject to satisfaction on the numbers, I welcome the concept of increased co-operation with the NHS through the military district hospital units. Above all, I welcome

    181
    the choice of Haslar, in my constituency, as the location of the tri-service hospital. Originally founded in 1753 as the Royal hospital, it has a proud record of medical care for all the services, and also provides a full range of care for civilians. Housed in a superb historic building, it has the latest modern medical equipment. With 1 million people in its catchment area, and with strong links with the universities of Portsmouth and Southampton, it would also be the logical centre for the defence medical training organisations, whose location has not yet been finally decided.
    Subject to the points that I have raised with my right hon. Friend, I strongly support the proposals in "Front Line First" and the Government's current posture; but I would be grateful for reassurance on the future of the defence medical service.
    5.49 pm
    Mr. Martin Redmond: I am extremely grateful to be called so early in this important debate. Although the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is not here I should like to congratulate him on his appointment. I thought at first that the armed forces had a champion on the other side of the House. However, it would appear that the Minister is supporting the Treasury proposals, so obviously the armed forces do not have that champion. He paid tribute to the wives of service personnel and referred to them collecting their children from school. I have to say that at the school at RAF Finningley they are also collecting signatures for a petition against the closure of RAF Finningley. The closure is a tragedy.
    I expected a little bit more from the Minister because to me consultation means a two-way exchange of ideas in which people get together and come up with a commonsense, logical solution. Regrettably, that has not been the case. I am sorry that the Minister operates dual standards. I say that because I wrote to ask for a meeting with him about the closure of RAF Finningley. The request was turned down. Yet I hear from his speech from the Dispatch Box this afternoon that he has received deputations from Conservative Members. The RAF personnel at Finningley deserve a little more. I hope that the Minister will agree to a meeting. It is no good putting forward ideas about the future use or retention of RAF Finningley if we do not have the answers to one or two questions that only the Minister or his staff can give.
    We met the previous incumbent of the Minister's office before the decision was made to close RAF Finningley. We talked about possible dual use as a means of deferring some of the RAF's costs. I regret that there does not appear to have been a follow-up from that. When the Minister's letter refers to "Front Line First decisions" it should say "Treasury first line" decisions.
    The Defence Select Committee report suggests that many points remain to be substantiated before a logical decision can be taken about RAF Finningley. The Minister's letter said that the need to train crews at RAF Finningley had diminished. That is not the information that we have been given. It would appear that the need to train crews will continue well into the future. I hope that the Ministry of Defence and the Prime Minister will get together. While RAF Finningley has served the nation extremely well in the past and has had many millions of pounds spent on it, we suddenly find that it is not compatible because it is isolated. Either the military staff
    182
    are correct about the past role of RAF Finningley—in which case the Prime Minister is wrong—or the Prime Minister is right, in which case he should have sacked the military staff.
    Mr. Soames: I am sorry that I was not here when the hon. Gentleman started his speech. I recall writing to him, although I do not recall the precise nature of my letter. I am sure that I said in the letter that I would be happy to see him at a later stage. If I did not, I confirm across the Floor of the House that I would be happy to see him with a delegation. I am almost sure that I said that a consultation period was taking place and that I would be happy to see him later.
    Mr. Redmond: I am extremely grateful for the Minister's intervention. I have the letter in front of me. While it says that the Minister will be happy to consider any comments, it makes no reference to the request for a meeting. I am happy to accept the Minister's assurance.
    We have received many letters and telephone calls about the closure of RAF Finningley. The people involved cannot understand why the decision has been taken to close it. I hope that even at this late stage, the decision will be reconsidered. We talk about the war, misery and suffering that dictators cause in the world. We say that there is a need to send in our troops from time to time to support the United Nations. There has been talk about the armed forces being overstretched. That would be the case if the proposals went through.
    I have listened to many hon. Members' speeches about the need for an adequate force. Obviously, if we reduce the military capability of the RAF we will put the lads and lasses at risk. They cannot understand the logic of the decision to close RAF Finningley. I cannot answer some of the questions that are being asked of me because we have not yet met the Minister. It has been suggested that the Dominies are to be moved to RAF Cranwell. I understand that there is no room for the aircraft and that there are not enough married quarters there. There are oceans of married quarters at Finningley. I understand that there is no suitable building for the simulator.
    It has been suggested that the Jetstreams may be moved to Cranwell, Brize Norton or Church Fenton and that the Hawks may go to Leeming. The costs involved in those movements and in what has happened at Finningley in the past few years must place question marks over the decision reached by the Treasury. I hope that the Minister will tell the Treasury to go back to its slide rules and come up with something more acceptable to the people in the RAF.
    RAF Finningley employs 917 service personnel and 650 civilian personnel. It puts into the local economy in Doncaster an estimated £16.5 million. Given the devastation of South Yorkshire caused by the closure of the coal mines, the local authority and the private sector in Doncaster are doing everything possible to attract employment to Doncaster to take up the unemployment. It is important that we consider other factors because we are closing not simply an RAF station but a school. Over the years the school has built up expertise in teaching service personnel children. As we all know, the children move from station to station across the world. It is important that skilled personnel are available to pick up the children and give them the education that they deserve. If RAF Finningley closes, the school will obviously be put at risk.

    183
    I could go on, but I am grateful to have been called and as the Minister has given an assurance that we can meet him, I hope to make the points that I was going to make across the Floor of the House on another occasion.
    5.58 pm
    Mr. Mark Robinson: We could have been forgiven a few weeks ago for thinking that Saddam Hussein had simply gone away. But, of course, he had not. Once again, he popped up on the Kuwait border. That, more than anything, illustrates the increasingly idiosyncratic world that has followed the post-cold war era. That is why hon. Members on both sides of the House should welcome the Prime Minister's statement in Bournemouth last week that
    "The big upheavals in our armed services are over."
    What a contrast that statement makes with the amendment that the official Opposition have at last tabled. What is the defence review that they want? I do not think that any Conservative Member or anyone in the country would believe that such a defence review would lead to an increase in defence spending. Of course it would not.
    The Opposition condemn the Government in their amendment and use the words "piecemeal cuts". Given the safety curtain that they have drawn down over their defence policies—a defence review—are we to assume that they are really talking about wholesale cuts? Time would tell, in the unlikely event that they were given such an opportunity.
    By continuing to bang on about the need for review—we have heard about it in speech after speech—the Opposition continue the uncertainty for our armed forces. The one thing that those forces need is a period of stability and that is what the Prime Minister offered them in his speech last week and what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence offered them in his speech yesterday.
    Dr. John Reid: Is that the reason why the 22 motions criticising the Government at the Conservative party conference, plus the motion calling for a full defence review, were not discussed at that conference?
    Mr. Robinson: No, that is not the reason. We had a sensible and worthwhile debate on defence at our conference, in which one theme emerged again and again—that our armed services need a period of stability, following the very necessary changes that we made.
    The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) gave the game away in his amendment, as did the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) in his speech. In that amendment, we still see the true face of the Labour party on defence matters.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State rightly emphasised the path for Britain in the post-cold war period, when he stressed the need for
    "armed forces that are flexible, mobile and able to respond to the very curious world in which we now live".—[Official Report, 17 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 37.]
    "Front Line First" has been a constructive and important contribution to the process of change and it has not been delivered from on high, but worked up through the armed forces, which were involved in it.
    184
    The royal naval air station at Yeovilton in my constituency plays an increasingly important part in our nation's defences and I am pleased that "Front Line First" reaffirms that role. The base has a vital contribution to make to Britain's effectiveness and it has done so in many conflicts, including the Falklands and the Gulf war.
    I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the unsung but crucial role that Sea Kings from that air station have played in humanitarian relief operations in Bosnia. That brings me to the crucial role that helicopters have to play to enable us to respond flexibly to unexpected or uncertain conflicts. Although Westland is not in my constituency, many of its employees live in Somerton and Frome, including the chairman. In the EH101, that company has produced a world-beater for the next generation of support helicopters. Merlin aircraft are already destined for the Royal Navy and the NAPNOC—no acceptable price, no contract—negotiations mean, at long last, that a decision on the EH101 order for the RAF is imminent.
    I hope that the specifications that are being sought remain realistic and that the matter can be brought to a swift conclusion. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has had an opportunity to fly in the EH101 and I am sure that he will have seen for himself the aircraft's remarkable capabilities.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has already said that he is looking for a balanced fleet of support helicopters, incorporating the EH101 and the Chinook. The two are not mutually exclusive. A confirmed order for 20 or so EH101 helicopters would be a tremendous boost to the work force at Westland and also to the export opportunities that lie ahead for that aircraft. I hope that once the NAPNOC process is concluded there will be no further delays and the matter will reach a satisfactory conclusion.
    Future orders for attack helicopters will also be important to the operational abilities of our armed services. Bidding is in progress and I had the opportunity to see some of the competitors at the Farnborough air show. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to achieve a contract by mid-summer 1995. That objective has been reaffirmed on a number of occasions and I hope that in this instance it can be adhered to.
    Naturally, there has been concern about reports in the press of cost overruns on the Eurofighter 2000. I am heartened by my right hon. and learned Friend's continuing support for that project. I am sure that the many sub-contractors who will benefit from it will also be heartened, including companies such as Normalair Garrett in the south-west. Once again, that aircraft is a tribute to the part that Britain can play in co-operative European ventures.
    Perhaps this is an appropriate moment to mention the future large aircraft, which has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Much has been said about proposals for the FLA. I would simply say that it should not be forgotten and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will not forget it, although it has been forgotten in certain marketing quarters—conveniently, perhaps—that orders for the C130J are worth as much as £1 million per aircraft to United Kingdom sub-contractors and those include Westland.

    185
    Just as I do not see the EH101 and the Chinook as mutually exclusive, I do not see the C130J and the FLA as mutually exclusive. They are different aircraft with different capabilities, in different stages of design. Feasibility studies on the FLA have not concluded, although I had the opportunity to see a remarkable mock-up at Farnborough, which was created in just a few days.
    The decision to replace the oldest Hercules aircraft with the C130J will not jeopardise the FLA's future prospects. It will have to stand on its own feet after the conclusion of the feasibility studies. There are many unanswered questions about where the money will be found to secure the development of that aircraft.
    Meanwhile, the Hercules has done a remarkable job in many theatres. I have been on Hercules aircraft involved in relief operations in Bangladesh and many colleagues have witnessed the aircraft's flexibility. It is smaller than the FLA would be, which is why, even if the latter were built and orders announced, there would be room for both as part of our future defence needs.
    Procurement is important. It is important to British industry and to jobs and it is important that people overseas recognise that Britain still has a prominent part to play in the production of aircraft for world markets. We look to our Ministers to support our companies when they try to win orders. We know that they sometimes have to do so against the odds because other countries use different methods and different financing to support their order books, which often makes it more difficult for us. We compete and we win because we produce good aircraft. We have the technicians and the aviators, and I see many of them in my frequent visits to Westland and to another area of the defence industries, Marconi Underwater Systems at Templecombe in my constituency. Defence contracts are very important to the south-west. We need them, and we need the support of Ministers in winning export orders.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I remind the House that speeches must now last for no longer than 10 minutes?
    6.10 pm
    Mr. Harry Cohen: I should like to focus my comments on weapons proliferation issues, and I shall refer first to chemical weapons.
    I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that the Government should push ahead with the ratification of the chemical weapons convention. The G7 commitment has been mentioned, and we should find parliamentary time to ratify the convention. I know of no hon. Member—certainly no Opposition Member—who would oppose such a Bill. I wonder whether the Government have other things on their mind. For example, the September issue of Chemistry in Britain—the magazine of the Royal Society of Chemistry—carried an article entitled:
    "Heseltine drags feet on CWC."
    The article said that the President of the Board of Trade
    "has not been prepared to introduce the bill. Post office privatisation is more important in his view."
    186
    The proper implementation of the chemical weapons convention should be a defence priority, and I call on the Secretary of State for Defence to press in Cabinet for Britain's ratification to be pushed forward with all speed.
    When the defence estimates were published, the Secretary of State told a press conference that
    "the ability to undertake a massive nuclear strike is not enough to ensure deterrence. We need the capability to undertake nuclear action on a more limited scale in order to demonstrate our willingness to defend our vital interests to the utmost."
    That is a very silly and dangerous approach which, in effect, amounts to lowering the nuclear threshold.
    The Government should instead concentrate on strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The NPT was agreed in 1968 and entered into force in 1970—a few months short of the 25th anniversary of the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima. Twenty-five years on, the NPT faces a crucial milestone in the decision to be taken on its extension.
    The NPT obliges parties without nuclear weapons to refrain from acquiring them. In return, states with nuclear weapons took on obligations of their own. The preamble to the NPT talks of
    "strengthening the trust between States in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons; the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles; and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons, and the means of their delivery".
    Article VI of the NPT obliges the parties
    "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament".
    How has the United Kingdom fulfilled those obligations? The short answer is that it has not, and that makes Britain's position on the international stage very difficult. It is the utmost hypocrisy to say that other states do not need nuclear weapons, while maintaining that they are vital for Britain's defence.
    The United States and Russia should be congratulated on the progress that they have made in cuts in nuclear arms. Those cuts, though substantial, are only the first step, and much more will be needed. President Yeltsin told the United Nations General Assembly on 26 September that nuclear arms reductions should include Britain, France and China—quite right, too.
    Against the trend, Britain is preparing to double the number of strategic nuclear warheads in its stockpile— a maximum of 96 on each Trident submarine against a maximum of 48 on each Polaris submarine.
    Aside from the deployment of actual weapons, the Government's policies on nuclear testing have been detrimental to the progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty, which is currently being negotiated in Geneva. If the Government had not spent so much energy in Washington lobbying hard against a test ban, the talks in Geneva might have started a year earlier. China would not have carried out its nuclear test 10 days ago, the second this year. Those tests should be robustly condemned. Although there is no legal link between the comprehensive test ban and the NPT, there has been a growing political link in the eyes of many states. Speedy progress in Geneva is therefore essential.
    In my view, action will be needed in other areas. First, there is the distinction between favoured and non-favoured states, and the blind eye which is turned to favoured states that may be breaching international norms. For example, although Israel is not a member of the NPT,

    187
    there has been no public pressure from our Government for it to give up on nuclear weapons. However, Pakistan—also not a member of the NPT—has been roundly condemned for having the same ambition. There should not be one set of rules for some favoured states and another set for other states. The spread of nuclear weapons must be condemned at every turn by every country.
    Why do non-nuclear states want nuclear weapons? They want them because they think that it is in their interests to obtain them. They should be convinced otherwise. One step that nuclear weapons states could take is to strengthen security assurances—a demand made by many developing states.
    A formal agreement on security assurances could be linked to an agreement on "no-first-use" of nuclear weapons; something which China has declared an interest in seeking. That could be part of a deal to encourage China to stop testing and to phase down its nuclear programme. However, Britain is opposed to general security assurances and to "no-first-use" assurances for political reasons. The Government want to retain the option to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states, and that is quite wrong.
    That is proved by the distinction that the Government make between sub-strategic and strategic nuclear weapons. The distinction used to be made on the range of the weapons, but now that the sub-strategic so-called "deterrent" is to be carried on Trident missiles, the distinction has become peculiar. As they are identical warheads on identical missiles, the distinction can be made only in the way in which they are used or are threatened to be used.
    The truth is that if any nuclear weapon landed on Britain, it would be seen as strategic. Yet, with this distinction, we are trying to say that that is not the case. If it is the case for Britain, it is the case for all other nuclear weapons states. It is clear that the sub-strategic Trident could not be used against any other nuclear state. Who would the weapons be targeted against? The answer is non-nuclear weapons states, and that is the real distinction between strategic and sub-strategic weapons that the Government have made. It is wrong to adopt the attitude that we would attack non-nuclear states with nuclear weapons.
    A radical review of nuclear policy in this country is needed. Last year, Rear Admiral Edward Scheafer Junior—the head of US naval intelligence—said that
    "somewhere, some time in this decade, someone is going to set off a nuclear weapon in deadly earnest."
    The prognosis need not be as bad as that, but action must be taken now to avoid such a situation.
    Ted Galen Carpenter, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato institute in Washington, wrote in an article in Foreign Affairs this year:
    "The United States can take some steps to help make a multipolar nuclear world marginally safer. Under no circumstances, however, should Washington place this country at risk in purely regional disputes that have nuclear dangers … the reality is that conflicts between long-standing rivals are an ever-present danger."
    He concluded by saying that although nuclear weapons had made the super-powers cautious in their cold war rivalry,
    188
    "it is a leap of faith to assume that the existence of nuclear weapons will produce similar restraint in much more volatile regional settings."
    That, again, is a most important argument in favour of extending the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and making it effective worldwide.
    As I have just one minute left in which to speak, I want to emphasise that we need to strengthen security safeguards governing the civil and military use of atomic energy. We could have, for example, a fissiles materials cut-off agreement. We need to strengthen export controls on dual-use technologies as well as nuclear ones. It is scandalous that the current export goods control order, a statutory instrument which was passed at a time of war in September 1939, allows no scrutiny of exports from this country. We should have the right to inspect exported equipment in operation at its destination and to check that it is being used—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
    6.20 pm
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will forgive me if I do not pursue his argument. We should, however, have a day set aside for a debate on the nuclear proliferation treaty because it is vital to us that we understand what we are on about. Such a debate should command the undivided attention of the House.
    The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), said that he was surprised to learn from a research organisation that Britain could not perform certain missions on its own. I shall not go into the detail of that research, but I am not altogether surprised because I do not know of any country, apart, possibly, from the United States, that wishes to or could undertake any serious military mission without the help of some organisation or other country.
    Such co-operation is the theme of the Government's defence policy and it runs through the White Paper that we are discussing today. The Government believe that our security operations will increasingly be pursued multilaterally. If the hon. Member for Swansea, East does not understand that, God help the country if the Labour party came to power.
    It is right to pursue that theme because our foreign policy and economic interests are linked increasingly to international partners. The chosen instrument for co-operation has been NATO and continues to be so. After the end of the cold war, some people wrote NATO off in quasi-fourth form essays entitled, "Whither NATO". They implied that the end was nigh. As a long-standing member of the North Atlantic Assembly, I have observed how NATO's structure, including that of the assembly, has adapted to the uncertainties of the post-cold war period.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: No, I am sorry. I hate the 10-minute limit on speeches, but I have never been able to speak without it, so I shall use up my time.
    The NATO summit of last January marked an important step in its evolution, because it reaffirmed the interdependence of the alliance, its important links with the United States and the need to strengthen the European

    189
    pillar of NATO. As a consequence, France is now shedding some of its old suspicions and hostility towards NATO and its serving officers are working within NATO's command structure in Bosnia. The setting up of a combined joint task force, based on the principle that NATO should be able to deploy a headquarters combined task force to carry out a range of operations, whether under NATO, the Western European Union or the United Nations, illustrates the adaptability of NATO and the emphasis that it puts on the need for flexible and rapid reaction forces.
    All those changes were foreshadowed in "Options for Change" some years ago and justify to the hilt the Government's decision not to indulge in the luxury of a defence review. Such a review, like a royal commission, takes minutes and wastes years so that it is out of date as soon as it is published.
    I welcome the "Partnership for Peace" initiative, just as I welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) who have joined the ministerial team. They will add a great deal to our debates, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State spoke about "Partnership for Peace" and of the magnificent contributions that we have made to that initiative. They have been widely accepted and we can be proud of that contribution.
    It is worth considering our defence costs study and "Front Line First" in the context of our international commitments and our membership of NATO. One of the more unpleasant tasks facing a Secretary of State for Defence must be that of presiding over a policy that cuts defence expenditure. My right hon. and learned Friend cannot like that—his Ministers and hon. Members do not like it either. The Secretary of State is not unlike a general who is ordered to conduct an organised and disciplined retreat that could so easily turn into a rout.
    The Secretary of State and his Ministers have been buffeted by the Treasury and understandably impelled by the public to seek a peace dividend. They can claim that their cuts have staved off disaster. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence no less, who has never been backward in his criticism, has congratulated the Government on the way in which the defence costs study has limited the damage.
    We have had a reassurance from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State that a line has been drawn and that no further cuts in the strength of the armed forces are contemplated. That assurance, together with "Front Line First", is the best news that we have had for a long time—and not before time either. Nevertheless the past few years have put an enormous strain on the morale of our armed forces. We should not forget that. Ministers are rightly impressed by their dedication and professionalism. They see them at their best, so it is not too difficult to accept from top military leaders that the talk of low morale is exaggerated. That is the way of service men and service women. Their own pride and loyalty to the services prevents them from bellyaching to Ministers.
    I have no wish to exaggerate the impact of reducing the numbers in our armed forces, redundancies or forced amalgamations between units. I cannot, however, ignore that impact, nor should it be ignored. All I can affirm is
    190
    that it would be astonishing if the changes of the past few years had not made their mark on men and women from whom the highest standards are expected.
    We are right to be concerned; after all, we do not have conscription. Our allies expect us to make up for our lack of numbers with quality in personnel, training, equipment and research and development. We know that anxieties have been expressed about all those spheres. If one talks to some of our friends who are part of the alliance, it is particularly disturbing to discover that they have noticed those anxieties. One cannot expect to be a leader of Europe in NATO if those allies find defects gradually advancing in our defence structure. Although it is important to praise the professionalism of the services, that must be backed up with proper support. There should be no question of any further hints of reductions in expenditure on defence affecting the quality of either personnel or equipment.
    I am bound to be disturbed to hear of wives and families who have been put under enormous strain through the absence of their men folk; of difficulties in recruiting adequate numbers of adequate quality; of potential leaders at all levels leaving the services and, most important, of a lack of training at a level that exercises skills of command and the deployment of advanced technology well beyond those required for peacekeeping duties, important though they are. I cannot remember when we had our last divisional training exercise, except in the Gulf. Those problems are causing concern.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces referred to the Bett review on the conditions and terms of service of the armed forces. That, too, has caused concern. I hope that it will not cut across the established and well-tried practices that embellish and help to compensate service men and women of all ranks for the many sacrifices that they are called upon to make. Such a review should not be used, nor should we suspect it of being used, as a way of making substantial savings. I was pleased to note how the Minister reassured my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) that that is not the case. I hope that that is true.
    I have two questions for my colleagues on the Front Bench. First, are we to take it that when troops engaged in Northern Ireland are no longer needed, there will be no yielding to further pressure for reductions in their number? Some people think that more than an extra 10,000 personnel is needed, but there should be no reduction in their number.
    Secondly, if the savings identified in the defence costs study are not realised, can we be reassured that the defence budget will not be cut again or that orders for defence equipment that sustains the quality of our armed forces will not be postponed to a later date?
    We all have a shopping list. Mine is a simple one, based on the policy of flexible response, which fits in with NATO. I therefore want a decision on helicopters. There are nice people at Westland, but I am fed up with being bombarded by their questions about when an order will be placed for the EH101. We need that helicopter and we could throw in a Chinook as well, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) suggested. We have kept Westland waiting for too long. I have no doubt that we need an assault helicopter if we want a flexible, effective response. I fancy the Apache. Although I should not wish to repeat the experience, I

    191
    have looped the loop in an Apache and can vouch for its rapid reliability. The need for a flexible and rapid response means that we must also replace the most aged of our Hercules transport. We cannot have those lolloping around for the next 10 years, waiting for an accident.
    In those circumstances, I commend to my hon. Friends the fact that we have enormous support for what has been achieved. However, we hope that the Government will take on board the fears that some of us have expressed in this debate.
    6.29 pm
    Mr. Frank Cook: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) in debate, if not in philosophy. I had not heard before that he had gone loopy in the past. I can commend some of his points to the House. We do not agree on everything, but he and I know full well the points on which we disagree. As well as congratulating the hon. Gentleman on a good speech, I commend the speech of the right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) and advise Ministers to heed the points that he offered the House. The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who has just left the Chamber, made a telling speech on medical facilities.
    In the 10 unforgiving minutes allotted to me, I shall concentrate on three areas. First, I visited the Cambodia Trust in Phnom Penh and Kampot and saw there the work being done by a British charity to produce false limbs for the unfortunate victims of the hideous hardware left in that region as a result of the continuous war. The Cambodia Trust trains Cambodians to make false limbs out of materials produced in Cambodia. It then trains the best of those technicians to become lecturers in prosthesis and orthosis. It is currently training administrators and managerial staff to leave a self-sustaining working clinic there within three years, staffed by Cambodians, serving Cambodians, and making all the products in Cambodia. So it will not be dependent on any other state.
    That charity seeks to extend its work into other areas of the world. To my knowledge, 27 other countries have huge problems of that kind. Within those countries, 100 million mines have been deployed and 1 million victims are already consigned to sitting in the dust until such time as someone can give them a limb on which to stand and help them to help themselves.
    While in Cambodia, I saw at first hand the work of the Mines Advisory Group, which is supervised in the province of Xien Khouane by a man from the Western Isles called Donald Donalson, who was recently made redundant from his job as an RAF bombing range clearance officer. He is doing marvellous work in Cambodia with spirit and great humour. The work being done is admirable.
    In that region of south-east Asia, two aspects of the problem are being dealt with by British agencies: the need for amputees to receive provision; and the need for the eradication of weapons that should not have been there in the first place.
    The third aspect of the problem that needs a solution is the need for an expression of political will on a global scale. Governments must decide collectively to put a stop to the design, production, deployment of and training in
    192
    such hideous hardware. The best military minds will agree that it serves no useful purpose. The deployment of those weapons serves only to deny the terrain to everybody else. In so doing, however, it is denied to those deploying the weapons, whether it be on their own land or someone else's. The whole thing is preposterous and serves no useful purpose.
    I should like to say a brief word on the general thrust of the defence costs studies. I have already said more than once in the House—I disagree with many of my Opposition colleagues—that the only peace dividend available to us is peace itself. The world has changed so dramatically since the end of the cold war that we have yet to realise the scale of that change. The world is more unstable, there are more trouble spots and they are more unpredictable. The whole question of providing for them is enormous and we cannot predict events.
    We have heard a catalogue of the good work done by the forces under pressure and difficulties. The Chairman of the Select Committee on which I serve has expressed concern about overstretching and I agree with him on that. In any given year, 265 nights out of bed is far too much to expect of anyone, even Cabinet Ministers. If the job is so hard and the pressures so high, why on earth are we cutting back? I do not consider that a fatuous question, but I consider the answer given to me a fatuous answer.
    In response to questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on the closure of depots, the Minister said that the remarks were idiotic. I have a few idiotic remarks of my own to make, and they are all in the form of questions. I hope that I shall not receive idiotic answers. I wish to refer specifically to Eaglescliffe, the most modern storage depot in the country, if not in the world—it is brand new. It is remarkable and hon. Members should go and see it. Why has a decision been taken to close Eaglescliffe less than four years after we were assured that it would stay open, when we discussed the Pulvertaft proposals?
    Why was the consultation document five years late, so non-specific and so limited that it was confined to four sides of A4 paper? I do not believe that it took five weeks to write four A4 sides. Why was the response to legitimate queries so dismissive and inadequate? Why was a two-week extension to the duration of the consultation period announced less than 24 hours before its closure date? And why only a two-week extension when the curtailment was five weeks plus the obstruction to the questions to the Ministry of Defence? The whole matter is so unreasonable that it makes nonsense of the term "consultation". It beggars description. It is so dismissive that it is disrespectful, and the people of Cleveland deserve a better response.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement and I have had a better than average relationship. I hope that that will remain. Occasionally, he has assisted me and I have sometimes recognised that assistance in the time-honoured parliamentary way. I shall not go into more detail. I have asked a number of pertinent questions tonight, as did the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) in his contribution last night. I do not often agree with him and I do not agree with everything that he said last night, but he made a good speech and the pertinent points in it deserve a response. I had hoped to hear a response to some of those arguments this afternoon.

    193
    I am sorry that I could not be here for the first day of this debate, but I read the report of the proceedings this afternoon and saw that the Minister promised to respond today to the points to which he did not respond yesterday.
    Mr. Soames: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cook: I am sorry; I have only seconds left.
    I was hoping that I would receive a response earlier this afternoon. I listened carefully and did not hear a response. I hope that the Minister, in replying to the debate, will respond to the arguments that the hon. Member for Stockton, South made and those that I made—or perhaps I may have a copy of the letter that he received. I look forward to it. I listen with interest.
    6.39 pm
    Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity of catching your eye in this debate. I shall concentrate, in the time available to me, on two or three items.
    I should like to identify myself with the views that were expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson), who strongly expressed the case to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement that there should not simply be a one-sided argument about the order for the replacement of the Hercules. I speak with an interest in the matter, since Lucas Aerospace would be providing the FADEC, or engine control management system, for the C130J. I understand that perhaps 1,700 jobs at Lucas and possibly more elsewhere would be involved in about 36 British companies, which have been successful in bidding for part of that contract. I do not wish to take anything away from the excellent idea of the future large aircraft, but we should remember that that proposed aircraft is only at the feasibility stage at the moment; it has not been completed and it has not flown.
    Another aspect of the C130J speaks for itself. A huge amount of time, experience and dedication has been invested in that type of aircraft, especially by special forces. They have had to learn to fly it extremely low, sometimes to drop out of it without parachutes, and to drop equipment and sensitive material, with a great deal of expertise, extremely quietly in hostile territory, which would not necessarily be appropriate in a much larger, as yet untested, aeroplane. I say no more at this stage about that, but I hope that my right hon. Friend has listened. The two are in no way mutually exclusive.
    I am in some difficulty, having listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) at the time when he produced his "Options for Change", because he promised me then that he would go this far and no further. The announcement of last year's unified Budget on 30 November heralded a further reduction in the defence budget—the third significant defence reduction in four years. The overall effect has been to reduce defence expenditure as a proportion of gross national product to about 3 per cent., in stark contrast to the average of about 5 per cent. in the 1970s and 1980s. That is also in stark contrast to the French defence budget, which is currently 3.8 per cent. and increasing by 3 per cent. every year. Between £3 billion and £4 billion, whichever way one works it, has been cut from the defence budget since my right hon. Friend gave me those assurances.
    194
    What does my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State think has happened in the past three years to justify the cutting of a further £1 billion or £2 billion from the defence budget? I ask because my right hon. and learned Friend has said from time to time that that is in keeping with the new world order, but that new world order, such as it was, was taken into account by the "Options for Change" exercise, which brought sweeping cuts in 1990. That acknowledged the collapse of communism, the responsibility hangover from our imperial past and the need to deter possible belligerents from the Falkland Islands or other areas as well as from Northern Ireland. It also provided an insurance premium against most serious post-Soviet threats, including nuclear proliferation spreading especially to religious zealots, whether they be in the form of Gaddafi, Saddam or the mullahs of Iran.
    I remain to be convinced as yet that my right hon. and learned Friend has defended the defence budget in a way that I might have hoped that he would have been able to.
    Specifically, I should like to identify my remarks about the overall strategy for defence expenditure with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who said that what we really need is flexibility. I could not agree more. Flexibility is the key in determining the type of forces that we may have in the future.
    I have been privileged, with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), who spoke so well yesterday from the Opposition Benches, to take part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. We have visited installations, sadly about to close, both at Portland and in the area that she represents, in Rosyth, the minor war vessels centre, with which we were both inordinately impressed. They were both extremely well-run operations and I hope that my hon. Friends will give us some assurances that their transition to their new homes will be as smooth as possible, so that they may continue to operate in the extremely professional manner that they have done.
    We have also had the opportunity to visit several other vessels, including HMS Nottingham sailing in the Adriatic. The one fact that I should like to share with colleagues in the House tonight concerning that ship was that the morale of its men, although excellent—they are doing an excellent job—is being tested by the duration of their tours. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will be able to implement the harmony guidelines and to ensure that, whether the tours be in Northern Ireland or in such places, on board ships, their length will be reduced. That will help officers and crew and their families.
    The Navy has worries about several matters which I hope my hon. Friend might be able to tackle. If we are to have flexible response, if amphibious capability is to be the watchword—the byword—of our future planning, especially in naval strategy, we must ensure that our units for that purpose are in tip-top working order. At the centre of those units we must consider our current fleet of aircraft carriers, which will need replacement by the year 2010 or thereabouts. I hope that my hon. Friends will not forget that we have various other areas of significant expenditure in our budgets, all of which may add to a rather nasty lump or blip during that period.
    While speaking briefly about deployment, I said in my previous contribution to the House how much I regretted the decision that was forced on my right hon. and learned

    195
    Friend to scrap the Upholder class of conventional submarines. Those would have been especially useful for special forces deployment. I hope that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Ministers of State will give urgent consideration to fitting the sub-strategic nuclear submarines, which I understand might in future carry out such a role, with the necessary hatches or other equipment to enable them to do the job in the same way as the Upholders might have done. I am confident that they will perform that task admirably, but I hope that we shall not hesitate to make the necessary expenditure to ensure that it is as well and professionally done as it should be.
    Whatever we may think about defence, the most important thing is that our service men believe that they are being well represented here and in the Departments. I have every hope and expectation that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend, whom I welcome to the Front Bench, will fight for their interests, as I know that hon. Members will.
    6.48 pm
    Mr. George Foulkes: I am grateful for the opportunity of mentioning briefly three issues about which I have written to the Ministers during the recess, and which cause great anxiety locally. I hope that I receive more satisfactory replies in the debate tonight than I have had during the recess. I hope that we have the right Minister of State for Defence Procurement to give me that reply.
    Last summer, in the estimates debate, I urgently questioned my right hon. Friend's predecessor about the reports of problems with the ancient Polaris submarines. There had been many incidents. As the Minister knows, there have been further incidents this year about which I have written to him, and especially the incident on HMS Renown in August, which shortly before had had a five-year refit. The Minister admitted to me in a letter that the crew was tested for radioactivity following the return to Faslane and that the submarine had what he described as "a minor defect". Minor defects can turn nuclear submarines into floating time bombs, and they sail down the Clyde past my constituency.
    Why is HMS Resolution, the oldest of the Polaris submarines, still continuing in service? It was due for retirement many years ago. Is not the reality that there has been a long series of incidents with those submarines causing dangers to the crew as well as to local people? There should be—I am asking the Minister to institute it—a full safety review of the state of all Polaris submarines so that such disturbing incidents do not occur. Safety considerations must be paramount.
    I disagree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) about the future large aircraft. Many of my constituents work at the British Aerospace Jetstream factory at Prestwick. Dick Evans, the chief executive of British Aerospace, has given me an assurance that some of the FLA work will come to that factory. I am keen to press the case of the FLA as the best long-term replacement for the Hercules. Strong arguments were advanced to show that the FLA option not only safeguards the future of British Aerospace as a whole, which is vital, but is the best aircraft for the country's military
    196
    requirements. I say to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) that I do not think that we can pursue both options.
    The Government should recognise that refurbishing the existing fleet—in answer to an earlier challenge, I can say that I have flown in one of them—is a viable option in the short term. The Government should not rush into a decision on the first tranche by the end of the year, but should wait for the results of the FLA feasibility study. I do not think that that is an unreasonable request in the light of all the implications.
    Another concern that I have held for a long time, as have a number of my colleagues in rural constituencies—I see that my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is in his place—involves the dangers of low flying. It is a matter of great concern to my constituents. A recent tragic accident at Killin in Perthshire resulted in the loss of two RAF personnel. A Tornado crashed into the hillside narrowly missing a school. I understand that, had it not been for the bravery and skill of the pilot, the aircraft would have hit the primary school. That incident has serious implications. I have received letters from residents in Killin concerned about the implications of low flying.
    I understand the need for some low flying training in the United Kingdom, but the Government recognised that it should be reduced as long ago as 1991. I hope that the Minister of State will give a sign today of when the Government intend to reach all the targets for promised reduction in low flying that his predecessor announced three years ago.
    Will the Minister consider reviewing and extending the avoidance areas? A number of schools in various rural constituencies in Scotland and the north of England and a number of other sensitive targets are not in the excluded areas. I hope that the Minister will consider an immediate review and an extension of the avoidance areas.
    I hope that the Minister will consider seriously the extension of the use of simulators—a policy which was recommended by the Select Committee on Defence. I know that pilots like to fly by the seat of their pants and train in real aircraft, but simulators can be just as effective.
    On a subject of great importance, I want to ask the Minister for a commitment on the date of the introduction and full operational capability of the Alfens computer system for controlling low flying. That would be a vital safety addition. It was promised in 1992, and has been delayed again and again. At present, there is no contact between low-flying aircraft, civilian aircraft, helicopters, commercial aircraft and training aircraft. That presents a huge potential danger—there is a major tragedy waiting to happen.
    I was astonished to read in Airforces Monthly recently that low-flying aircraft are allowed, in the name of electronic warfare training, to use their defensive aids to jam Skyguard radar, which checks the height and speed of aircraft. Skyguard has been given the role of monitoring adherence to the low flying regulations that are so important for safety. Granting such an allowance effectively gives pilots carte blanche to flout the rules. I hope that the Government will launch an immediate inquiry into the report. How can we take seriously a promise to monitor important low flying regulations when the use of Skyguard seems to be a sham? Low flying

    197
    monitoring must be kept separate from the operational training role or the public's faith in the policing of low flying will be totally undermined.
    I have made a few simple, straightforward, but important requests to the Minister of State. I hope that his reply today will provide me with more satisfactory answers than I received throughout my long correspondence during the recess.
    6.55 pm
    Mr. Michael Colvin: Truly, the mind of a Member of Parliament is conditioned by the state of his seat. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) was living proof of that as he spoke up on behalf of his constituency—I intend to do the same.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) on his appointment as Minister of State for the Armed Forces and on his speech. It is good to have an ex-soldier in his job. We are glad that he has given up his charger for the Dispatch Box—and so, I suspect, is the horse. To misquote Punch, as a cavalry man, my hon. Friend will no doubt add tone to what, too often in this place, is a vulgar brawl.
    I wish to place on record my tribute to the late Manfred Wörner who, as Secretary-General of NATO since 1988—a crucial time in its history—guided that organisation for the collective security of the west to victory over the eastern bloc. He then began the work, through "Partnership for Peace", of winning those countries over to democracy, warts and all—it has been a difficult and painful transition for most of them. He will be a hard act to follow. His courage and determination to continue his work although he was seriously ill was truly noble. Mr. Willy Claes, whom we wish well, will have a hard act to follow.
    Successive defence estimates since "Options for Change" have benefited from the so-called peace dividend, but we were always left with the feeling that the Treasury had as much to do with the exercise as the Ministry of Defence. This year it is different. The defence budget is set in spite of the Treasury, not because of it. That budget is now £23 billion, which means that we spend a greater proportion of our gross domestic product on defence than most of our NATO allies, although it is still less than we used to spend during the days of the cold war.
    In 1992, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State set out our three defence roles, the third of which was to continue to contribute to promoting the United Kingdom's wider security interests through the maintenance of international peace and security. I recall that at that time no resources were allocated for that third role. So commitments—for example, to UN peacekeeping operations—could be met only by taking resources from roles one and two. This year, for the first time, there have been specific allocations of resources to role three, as our international commitments have become clearer—but that can leave us seriously overstretched elsewhere, especially as regards tour intervals in Northern Ireland. That worries us all.
    As a result of the peace dividend, our teeth have been cut but they have also been sharpened. Now, the "Front Line First" document shows how the cost of our defence administration, the tail, can also be cut to the tune of about
    198
    £750 million. Like many other hon. Members, I want to know where that saving on administration is going to go. I hope that some of it will be ploughed back into the teeth. What about the £500 million that was going to be saved through the setting up of the housing trust? If that trust does not come into being, where will that money be found?
    We are assured that the defence costs study will reduce the administrative costs of defence but will not cut our defence capabilities. Only time will tell; but what we can do now is applaud the professionalism of those who carried out the 33 studies. Three cheers also for the fact that we hear that the Treasury is to embark on a similar exercise—perhaps the Ministry of Defence can assist with that.
    Many of the changes under "Front Line First" will involve mergers, closures or even the growth of military bases. About 200 hon. Members will have constituency or other local interests to defend. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) arid I take a particular interest in two options: first, the proposal to set up a joint defence helicopter flying school either at Shawbury in Shropshire or at Middle Wallop near Andover and, secondly, the plan to combine the chaplains schools in one tri-service establishment, either at Amport in Hampshire or elsewhere.
    As a member of the Defence Select Committee I have visited Amport in connection with our study of the MOD estate, and I have been to Middle Wallop to see the Army Air Corps on many occasions. I believe—this view is shared by the local council, Test Valley borough council, which has carried out a detailed study of the issues—that the case for retaining both the Middle Wallop and Amport establishments is compelling on military and cost-effectiveness grounds. It also happens to be common sense.
    The school of Army aviation at Middle Wallop already trains the largest number of helicopter pilots of any of the three services. It is well located to serve Royal Navy bases in the south and many RAF stations nearby. It is near the training areas of Salisbury plain and convenient and acceptable low-flying areas that would not be available in Shropshire—where flying activity would more than double if the Army aviation school were moved there.
    Middle Wallop, on the other hand, could easily cope with the marginal increase in flying activity that would result from amalgamation. There is also a considerable civil infrastructure to support both Middle Wallop and Amport House, where 2,000 jobs would be lost if these establishments were closed and the services moved elsewhere.
    The Amport RAF chaplains school has already amalgamated with the Royal Navy and is demonstrably cost-effective. If it combines with the Army chaplaincy centre from Bagshot Park, the cost per student day can be significantly reduced without major capital investment—in contrast to what would be needed at other possible locations.
    Amport is well located to serve the Royal Navy bases at Portsmouth and Plymouth, the Army garrisons at Tidworth, Aldershot and Bulford and the surrounding RAF stations. Amport is also up and running, unlike the alternatives, where establishment costs would be very high.

    199
    The alternatives are the redundant education corps establishment at Eltham palace in south-east London, the disused WRAC Queen Elizabeth Park barracks at Guildford and the Royal Naval college at Greenwich. The only serious challenger is Eltham palace. The building is grade I listed, it has been boarded up for two years and, because of archaeological digs nearby, it would have serious planning disadvantages, besides having only 25 years of lease to run. Being in south-east London, it is well away from the hub of military activity. Amport House wins hands down, and has a Gertrude Jekyll garden to boot—good for contemplation.
    I want briefly to refer to Farnborough airfield, because no one else has. It is scheduled for disposal, but it is an essential shop window for our aerospace industry. I know that its closure will involve complex considerations. I welcome the fact that the MOD has jointly set up a study group with the DTI to look at its future. Its continued availability is guaranteed only until the end of the decade—only three more air shows—but the airfield needs a firmer undertaking than that. I hope that it survives and that, in time, both the FLA and the C130J will go on show there.
    Much has been said about both aircraft. Some people suggest that the air frame of the C130J would be old, but it is not so. It has been completely redesigned, incorporating many lighter and stronger materials. It is thus a new aircraft that follows the original design. I welcome the fact that there will be a feasibility study on the FLA, because I believe that, ultimately, there will be a mixed solution to the problem of transporting our armed forces. Our Select Committee report went into the matter in great detail, and I commend its conclusions to the House.
    Having served as a Regular soldier through an earlier period of cuts, let me remind the Minister that the bane of any service man's life is uncertainty. Cuts to both teeth and tail are necessary and sustainable, but so far and no further. Our services now need a period of stability. If the Minister can promise that when he winds up the debate, and then deliver it, his speech will be welcomed here and outside the House.
    7.5 pm
    Mr. Ken Maginnis: It will come as no surprise to anyone that, in the short time that I have, I intend to talk about defence almost exclusively in the context of Northern Ireland. After 25 years of violence, one obviously welcomes the ceasefire by the Provisional IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association.
    I have spoken in these debates for the past 12 years and the violence has been going on for twice as long as that. No one in my party, not even my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), has been in the House at a time when Northern Ireland was not suffering at the hands of terrorists. Yesterday, the Secretary of State reassured us that there will be no reductions in troop numbers in Northern Ireland until he is convinced that violence has decreased to the point at which he can allow that to happen. I am glad that he intends to resist the siren voices prematurely and
    200
    irresponsibly suggesting that troops be withdrawn. Although there is a ceasefire at present, there has been nothing so far to demonstrate its permanence.
    This is a good time for me to express the thanks of all in Northern Ireland who oppose terrorism to the 300,000 young men and women—it is a startling number—who have served in Northern Ireland in the past 25 years. I express everyone's thanks to them for what they have done to sustain a degree of democracy in Northern Ireland. I am absolutely certain that no other army in the world would have endured the insults, the violence and the number of deaths that these young men and women sustained while remaining courteous in their day-to-day relationships with the general public and restrained in their behaviour.
    Amid the euphoria of the ceasefire it is important to introduce an element of reality. The Ulster Unionist party will work only to advance the political process. We are not out to make political capital at anyone's expense during this ceasefire, but any peace settlement in Northern Ireland must be based wholly on democratic principles of the sort outlined in the Downing street declaration. At that moment in history our Prime Minister, in conjunction with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, said to the people of Northern Ireland, "We believe in consent; we believe that the people of Northern Ireland have the right to decide their own future." The endorsement of that declaration by the United States was welcome, but one must look carefully at how the IRA has reacted to it and try to put the correct interpretation on what is happening.
    The IRA equivocated for months about accepting the Downing street declaration. Mr. Gerry Adams went off to the United States and, helped by some of his friends there, he was given the world stage and expected to talk about the peace process. Unfortunately, as soon as he reached the stage he muffed his lines. When he came back he was faced with the problem that the political basis—what the IRA needs for its campaign of violence—had been swept away by the Downing street declaration. That was why my party was able to predict months ago that the IRA would go for a three-month ceasefire: it needed to obtain a political base from which it could continue its terror campaign.
    I caution the House that the IRA intends, at active service unit and brigade level, to recommence its violence in January or as soon thereafter as it believes that it can do so. The IRA does not want to enter the democratic process, and the lack of any sign that it does in anything that has been said by Joe Cahill, Gerry Adams or Martin McGuinness, who have all regressed over the past six weeks, shows that we are likely to be in for a torrid time in the new year. I wish that the IRA would look at the statement issued by the loyalist paramilitaries when they announced their ceasefire. If the IRA could express its intentions in the same terms, the clock could properly start ticking.
    Perhaps when the Minister replies to the debate he will clarify a matter that arose today at Prime Minister's Question Time. The Prime Minister said that if the IRA would give up its Semtex, we could move forward. Will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister was being illustrative and not definitive in mentioning only Semtex? There has been some confusion in the House and in the press about that extremely important issue.

    201
    We all want to be optimistic about the permanency of peace. However, as the Minister will be aware, a permanent end to violence would bring with it the loss of 20,000 security-related jobs which are presently worth about £0.4 billion per annum. Those jobs must be replaced if all sections of the community are to feel that they have a stake in Northern Ireland's success, and that will happen only if economic growth is substantially accelerated. The drive for investment is crucial and the wealth-creating companies in Northern Ireland must have our support if we are to avoid an inevitable increase in unemployment and the problems that go with it.
    The recent announcement of a 300 per cent. increase in European Commission funding to the International Fund for Ireland is a well-intentioned response to the possibility of peace in Northern Ireland, but it must be used wisely. That has not always been the case in the past because long-term benefits to the community have too often been hard to identify. If much of the increased IFI resources could be used to provide our young people with extra training opportunities that were relevant to real high-technology jobs, that would prove successful.
    In present circumstances we must look to expanding the Province's technological and industrial base, in which aerospace and defence play a key role. Shorts, which has 7,000 employees in the Province and 3,000 in other parts of the world, is our largest employer, and over the past five years it has invested in key technologies and is now a leader in its chosen markets.
    The opportunities which the Ministry of Defence's attack helicopter requirement and Hercules replacement programme would open up for aerospace companies in the Province are considerable and would make a major contribution to Northern Ireland's economy in terms of jobs and potential further business. In the Hercules replacement programme, Shorts has joined British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce in the European future large military aircraft project. If the FLA is selected, it will offer United Kingdom companies the prospect of initial work valued at £3 billion. Orders beyond—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Bill Walker.
    7.15 pm
    Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. As always, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and his hon. Friends carry the House with them because of their courage and integrity.
    I sincerely welcome the pledges that were given by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State about stability in the armed forces. I welcome the tone of Ministers' speeches, and especially that of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. I am sure that he will be well liked and well respected if he continues in that vein. He will not be surprised to know that I intend to follow the line of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and deal with morale, which must be addressed.
    I was pleased that the Minister made public the fact that every type of RAF front-line aircraft is engaged on active operations somewhere in the world. That is important because the aircraft have to be manned both on the ground and in the air and we must look at the impact
    202
    that that has on families. It also makes nonsense of the specious claims by Mr. David Hart and others about the RAF and the Israeli air force.
    Is the Minister aware that air and ground crews now spend six months away from their families each year? In some cases, the time away from home is 270 days a year, and it is important to understand what that means to families.
    I spent most of the summer with the Royal Air Force and did so because of my interests, which are listed in the Register of Members' Interests. I am pleased to say I got in some flying hours. People at all levels in the service put a number of questions to me, and I said that I would put them to the Government and the House. First, is the Minister aware that the stress caused by the operations that have been mentioned is occurring at a time when the Royal Air Force has been singled out for yet further manpower cuts which will inevitably reduce the pool of uniformed manpower to support future operations?
    Secondly, are the Government aware that by the time the latest round of Treasury-imposed cuts has been implemented by the RAF, manpower will have been reduced by some 40 per cent. since 1990? That is happening at a time when I and many others believe that the world is growing more dangerous and unstable. My question is to ask what steps have been taken to refute the specious claims about the RAF and the comparisons with the Israeli air force. I hope that the Minister will address that.
    Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the personnel who will be made redundant by the Royal Air Force as a result of "Front Line First" will be those to whom the Government are looking to provide savings from improved efficiency, the implementation of new procedures and practices and the introduction of market testing? Do Ministers appreciate that many of those who will be responsible for organising and introducing the market testing programme will be the very people whose jobs are at risk? Do they acknowledge that after heaping change upon change on our loyal and outstanding forces, the introduction of the housing trust initiative and Mr. Bett's independent review have been badly timed and damaging to morale? I have to report that those were my findings.
    Does my hon. Friend realise that many families are deeply concerned about the future arrangements for married quarters and the education of their children? Does he understand and realise that those matters need urgently to be clarified?
    I turn now to other areas of concern and in particular procurement. I shall deal with weapons systems first. I welcome the proposal to purchase cruise missiles, but I have some reservations about the quantity that will be available and the launch vehicle to be used. The submarine is not my idea of an ideal launch vehicle.
    The United States uses large surface ships as platforms. That—and the number that can be launched—offsets the less than 50 per cent. accuracy achieved during the Gulf war. The numbers available to the United States make cruise a credible conventional deterrent for the United States. I am not alone in believing that the United Kingdom submarine-launched cruise missiles alone cannot provide the flexibility and determined capability that the United Kingdom may require.

    203
    On Royal Air Force procurement, will Ministers confirm that the conventionally armed stand-off missile and the anti-armour weapon—ASRs 1236 and 1238—will be introduced as soon as possible to complement the mid-life update to the Tornado and to provide the Royal Air Force with those urgently needed weapons? Only that, together with cruise missiles, will be an effective and flexible deterrent capability.
    Will the Government acknowledge the crucial role played by the Royal Air Force in the Gulf war and the importance of a properly balanced and equipped service for the future? That is vital. Does my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State acknowledge that the bravery and expertise of the Royal Air Force is held in the highest regard throughout the world? The perception in the Royal Air Force today is that the Government have notably failed to acknowledge it. I am confident that the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), will remedy that. I mean that most sincerely because I welcome the letter that he wrote me about morale.
    Cuts in the medical services are affecting morale. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the viability of secondary medical care to the armed forces can be sustained and will he acknowledge that the sharp decline in the number of service consultant specialists brought about by the loss of career prospects will jeopardise the provision of secondary care? Will he make a statement regarding primary medical care and the need to provide adequate levels of health support to military personnel in order to return them to active service at the earliest opportunity? I am standing here today thanks to massive benefits that I gained from RAF medical care after a serious accident. I shall never forget that.
    Procurement of the future large aircraft was mentioned earlier. The British Aerospace campaign has not been a wise one. Eurofighter 2000 is much more important than LFA at this time. I do not believe that the Royal Air Force should be faced with two major high-risk programmes at the same time. The Eurofighter is much more important and the Royal Air Force should concentrate on that. We cannot have slippage there.
    In their procurement programmes the Germans have funds for development until 2010, which could mean that the aircraft will not fly until 2010. If we do not get the C130J, we shall be in the impossible position that we last faced under the Labour Government, with the wrong aircraft at the wrong time in the wrong place.
    The Royal Air Force has been in the vanguard of introducing new working practices and support initiatives, including information technology. I want my hon. Friend to confirm the very disturbing fact that we have fewer military airfields today than at any time since 1933. When did the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Defence last pay an official visit to a Royal Air Force base in Britain?
    7.25 pm
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: The House of Commons is entitled to a serious Government response to the alleged activities of the son of the former Prime Minister.
    204
    When the issue first arose, frankly I found it distasteful to try to get at the then Prime Minister through her son and I did not ask a single question on the so-called Oman affair.
    However, the present position is that many serious people in Britain believe that Mark Thatcher did indeed amass a fortune as a result of an arms procurement and his connection, or supposed or perceived connection, with his mother.
    Equally seriously, there is a perception abroad that the integrity of the British state is at stake.
    It so happened that I was participating in a conference at Ditchley Park on the Sunday morning when the Mark Thatcher story broke. Ditchley operates under Chatham House rules. Suffice it to say that MOD officials should ask their erstwhile Permanent Secretary, Sir Michael Quinlan, who were the people participating at the conference, because they were people whose opinions about Britain matter.
    Ministers cannot just pass by on the other side of the road like a biblical Levite and offer a response as the Secretary of State for Defence did yesterday that
    "Mark Thatcher is neither a member of the Labour party nor… the Conservative party."—[Official Report, 17 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 49.]
    That is simply not sufficient.
    I am not a Johnny come lately to this particular issue; on the basis of extremely detailed information from several sources, I asked seven questions on 27 November 1992. They should now be answered.
    "First, are the Government aware that an executive of the defence company United Scientific, introduced Mark Thatcher to arms dealer Sarkis Sohanalian in the autumn of 1983 as part of its efforts to win a contract to sell night vision devices ultimately to be used by Iraq?
    Secondly, will the Government confirm or deny that Prince Banda, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, personally presented a letter to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher from King Fahd of Saudi Arabia in 1985 and that that letter made it implicitly clear that commissions would be paid as part of the Al-Yamamah deal between Saudi Arabia and Britain involving the sale of Tornado jets and other defence equipment to Saudi Arabia?
    Thirdly, will the Government explain the purpose of that letter from King Fahd to Prime Minister Thatcher? Will they explain why Mrs. Thatcher dealt with the Saudi ambassador to the United States and not the Saudi ambassador to Britain while dealing with the Al-Yamamah deal?
    Fourthly, will the Government confirm or deny that Mark Thatcher received approximately £10 million soon after the signing of the memorandum of understanding for the Al-Yamamah deal in September 1985 and that the agreement on the deal specified that he would receive a further approximately £10 million subsequently?
    Fifthly, 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?
    Sixthly, are the Government aware that, for some time in 1989, Mark Thatcher lived in a house at 34 Eaton terrace while that house was owned by Formugul, a Panamanian company linked with Saudi Arabian business man, Wafic Said, who played a role in the Al-Yamamah deal?
    Finally, can the Government confirm or deny that Mr. Christopher Prentice, a Foreign Office official working in the British embassy in Washington in the mid-1980s, was aware that Mark Thatcher was involved in the Al-Yamamah deal?"—[Official Report, 27 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 1103-4.]
    Much has happened since I asked those questions, including a document originating from United States intelligence which came to light during the

    205
    Dooley-Sikorsky trial and highlights Mark Thatcher's role. I shall hand a copy of it to the officials in the Box as soon as I have sat down.
    The Prime Minister this afternoon, in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), said that evidence should be produced. That document, together with another document—an alleged BAe internal memorandum—deserves at least a serious reply.
    I do not have time to read out the whole of that document, but under the heading:
    "Meetings with U.S. Embassy staff in Riyadh brought to light the following concerns"
    it refers to
    "4 bil U.S. was mentioned in connection with M. Thatcher's son."
    At the very least, that must be explained.
    Furthermore, the internal memorandum states:
    "The same source also states that there is a sizeable payment to the Conservative Party ('a huge sum') which is being administered by Wafic Said in conjunction with Mark T."
    It also states:
    "The additional financial benefit to Mark T. and his friends Wafic Said and other middle men, all non-tax-paying residents of the UK and to the Conservative Party are absolutely enormous, according to the BAe executive."
    I want to ask again about Sir Clive Whitmore. A letter sent to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said:
    "I understand that Sir Clive Whitmore has confirmed that he did not see Lady Thatcher to pass on a warning about Mr. Thatcher's alleged involvement in the Al Yamamah deal."
    I have learnt over the years to be very careful about words. I asked whether Sir Clive went to, not saw, the Prime Minister. The MOD press statement is oddly worded. It states:
    "Sir Clive Whitmore confirmed that he did not see Lady Thatcher to pass on Mark Thatcher's alleged involvement in the Al-Yamamah deal. There is no evidence that it was felt necessary for any official concern to be passed to Lady Thatcher."
    It is very odd for a statement to say that it was not felt necessary for any "official concern" to be passed on. I ask a direct, blunt question—was there any contact on that issue, official or unofficial, between the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence and the then Prime Minister?
    It is not only Labour politicians who are concerned about this matter. The leader in The Daily Telegraph on 10 October said:
    "It may be that both he and his mother are able to produce full rebuttals of the Sunday Times's allegations. It is to be hoped that they will do so, because it would be an embarrassing matter indeed if the son of the most distinguished Conservative leader of modern times was believed to have gained large personal profit from his family association with Downing Street."
    When The Daily Telegraph says something like that, there should at least be a response on the Floor of the House. If, as I believe, there has been massive corruption at the heart of the British state, the least that the Government can do is to state their beliefs on the Floor of the House of Commons.
    The place where such questions should be responded to is the Floor of the House. They should not be frivolously shoved off. Right or wrong, they must be answered. This issue will not go away because it affects the honour of our country.
    206
    Silence or a frivolous response on these issues in the reply tonight will be interpreted only as governmental determination to turn a blind eye to what may, at home and abroad, be a real disgrace.
    During Question Time, the Prime Minister said in answer to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that wrongdoing would be rooted out. There is an obligation on the Government to deal with these questions seriously, not frivolously.
    7.35 pm
    Mr. Julian Brazier: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) down his route. Instead, I join several of my hon. Friends in welcoming the two new Ministers of State to their posts. We are fortunate in having two such doughty fighters for the armed forces at what is, to be frank, a difficult time.
    Only twice in the past two centuries has the economy of a great European power imploded and collapsed. The events in post-revolutionary France in the 1790s and in Germany at the time of the Weimar republic led to the two bloodiest conflicts of the 19th and 20th centuries. No one here today knows which way Russia will go next. We all wish President Boris Yeltsin well. We are pleased to hear of the splendid reception that the Russians are giving our monarch. However, what we know—as opposed to what we hope and think—is that Russia has an enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons and that it continues to produce very large numbers of high-quality conventional equipment.
    The recent French defence White Paper, which was published eight weeks ahead of our own, commented on the proliferation of fissile materials and technology from the ex-Soviet states into the middle east and north Africa:
    "It is to be feared that policies of preventive control alone are not sufficient to protect us against the risks of proliferation."
    That may be rather rich coming from the French, given their past contribution to various forms of proliferation; nevertheless, they are right on this matter.
    The Government are right to recognise that we may have to invest in a strategic defence system, but we must also recognise that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has implications for more than our nuclear defence. The blunt truth is that, before long, we may find ourselves fighting a war of a mixed conventional and tactical nuclear variety. Indeed, we all know that, had the Gulf war happened two years later, it would have been just such a war.
    It is just a month before we remember those hundreds of thousands of our gallant former citizens who fell in action. It is worth also remembering that, even before the weapons of mass destruction came into being, it was possible to lose a division in an afternoon. It happened at El Alamein, at Paschendaele and even at Waterloo. It is sobering to remember that our Regular Army is now so small that if—and pray God it never happens—we were to lose a division in an afternoon in a campaign, we would lose almost half our Regular field Army.
    That is why the next spending round is so critical. We should be sending a message not only to potential adversaries, not only to our allies—not least in Washington, where there is a strong isolationist movement—but, above all, to our armed forces that we really are backing our rhetoric on defence with a willingness to fund it properly. We should be saying that

    207
    with our much smaller armed forces, as they now are, we will find the money to provide them with the training, the spare parts and even the basic necessities, such as bringing the married quarters up to a standard fit to live in.
    On the subject of the morale of our armed forces, I believe that we are fortunate to have somebody of Michael Bett's calibre to chair the commission. I see from his entry in "Who's Who" that—along with all his other distinguished posts—he is an honorary colonel of a TA unit. But it is no criticism of him or his team to say that the commission is sitting at an unfortunate time. It has been asked to do this work at that point which every management consultant—I used to work as one—dreads, when so many other teams have been working on so many different issues in the organisation under review, some of which inevitably impinge on the same ground.
    We should not be surprised, therefore, if, at the end of the day, the commission comes to relatively conservative conclusions, simply on the basis that there is a limit to how much further change the forces can take without serious damage to their morale. Having said that, I hope that I may be allowed to make a written submission to the commission as I have a number of points of detail that I would like to make in the way of suggestions.
    I should like to say something about our reserve forces. During the past four or five years, I have been privileged to visit the reserve forces of the other three major English-speaking countries—America, Canada and Australia. We have a number of world—class units in our Territorial Army—we see them winning competitions which prove it—but there is a great deal that we can learn from abroad. One thing that we can say with certainty is that in the last war all three of those countries had an expansion from a much smaller regular base, in some respects managing it more successfully than we did.
    The British professional Regular forces are second to none, but some of the ways in which we organise and structure our reserve forces could be improved on and I want to mention three. First, our officer training, so good in the Regular Army, is woefully inadequate for our volunteer reserves. The trend in all three of the countries that I have mentioned is towards trying to bring the training of reserve officers as close as possible to that of their regular counterparts.
    For example, in Canada the majority of officers go through two 10-week continuous training periods to become reservist officers. They are carefully tailored to fit in with university long vacations. In Australia, after a weekend-based build-up similar to that for British reserve officers, there is a nine-week training course. In America, some reservist officers train for as much as six months. Our little two-week course at Sandhurst does not begin to compare with those arrangements. I am sure that we all recognise the value of the new roles that are being found for our volunteer reserves, but it is essential that they are given much-enhanced officer and senior NCO training if they are to perform as well as I believe they can.
    The second major difference is the lack of adequate call-out legislation. It is interesting comparing the experience of the Canadians, who do not have it, with that of the Americans next door. The Canadians, with their use of reserve forces in a variety of places including Bosnia, feel that it is essential that they, too, should have reserve forces legislation. I add my voice to those of two other
    208
    hon. Members who have already mentioned that it is vital that we bring forward the reserve forces Bill on which a number of MOD officials are working hard at the moment.
    The third comparison that I want to draw is a sensitive one. It is no criticism of the present incumbent of the post, who I know to be an excellent officer, to say that it is wrong that the British general who directs the reserve forces is a Regular officer. He does not even have a tri-service hat. In all the other three major English-speaking countries there is a head of reserves, with a different name in each case, which is a "purple" post, based firmly in each country's Ministry of Defence, who is a reservist and, as such, has the double-career structure behind him—a successful civilian career as well as a military one. That brings the special expertise to the reserve forces issue that can be brought only by a reservist. I know that I speak for large numbers of people, particularly in the officer corps in the Territorial Army, when I say that, with the current reorganisation, it is hoped that the next head of the reserves will be a reservist.
    I want to end where I started—by saying that this is a dangerous world. This is a time at which a great deal could go wrong. The most important single message that will be given by the Government to the armed forces in the next few weeks will not be anything that is said in this debate: it will be the message that is given as a result of the outcome of the next public spending round—particularly of the new third year—because that will show where our priority for defence is going.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Alex Salmond: I join in the general welcome to the new Minister of State for the Armed Forces. I thank him for his courtesy in inviting me to meet him to talk about midnight bombing in Rosehearty. I am only sorry that he will not visit Rosehearty himself; it seems to be about the only military establishment in western Europe that he has not managed to visit in the past six weeks. None the less, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy, and hope that it will extend to an instruction to the Royal Air Force to have a meeting with the villagers of Rosehearty who are most concerned about the prospect of Tornados operating bombing runs over their village at midnight in the summer months.
    I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) is not in his place, although he has been here for a substantial part of the debate and made a 20-minute contribution yesterday. It was interesting to note that the word "Rosyth" did not pass the right hon. Gentleman's lips once. Yet in 1992, when he was Secretary of State for Defence, on a foray into Scotland in February that year, he could hardly speak about anything else. I recall debating with him on the "Today" programme the future prospects of the Rosyth naval base in the context of an independent Scotland. Directly, in The Daily Telegraph, the right hon. Gentleman was moved to say:
    "Vote SNP, and you ultimately say goodbye to the Rosyth base."
    Unfortunately, people did not vote SNP. They voted for the Union in 1992, and here we are, two years later, saying goodbye to the Rosyth naval base—not ultimately, but right now under the Government's proposals.
    I do not know why the right hon. Member for Bridgwater did not mention Rosyth in his speech. I do not know whether it was the result of guilty conscience or

    209
    whether it is now a case of one broken promise more or less from one Secretary of State more or less not really mattering given a Government who have shredded so many promises since the general election campaign. None the less, it would have been instructive for people in Scotland to have had his insight into the consultative document which shows that the base is about to be effectively closed.
    That consultation document tries to pretend that it is not a closure—that having a naval base with no ships stationed at it is not, effectively, a closure of a naval base. Everyone in Fife and in Scotland is well aware that whatever attendant services remain at Rosyth for the time being, they are on a very shoogly nail indeed, since the base has no ships—a very limited time scale.
    Equally offensive in the consultation document is the attempt to conceal the real extent of the job losses that are threatened by the closure. I had correspondence with the Secretary of State for Scotland during the summer and eventually it was revealed to me that the Government had not included naval personnel transferring from the east coast of Scotland to the south coast of England in the job loss estimate. That was because the Secretary of State for Scotland believed that some of those people might not live in Fife in the first place and therefore did not think it appropriate to include them in the job loss total.
    Whether or not all the naval personnel live in Fife or are stationed at Rosyth at present, we can be reasonably sure that when they are stationed on the south coast of England they certainly will not live in Rosyth, Fife or Scotland and, therefore, will be a substantial economic loss to the Scottish economy.
    Fife regional council, in its excellent response to the consultation document, details another three direct attempts by the Government to conceal the true extent of the job losses that are threatened for Fife and for Scotland's economy as a result of the Rosyth closure. I hope that when the Minister replies, he will direct his attention to those points on page 12 of the regional council's response and say whether he agrees with each one. They show that—presumably deliberately—the Government have underestimated the economic impact of the closure of Rosyth to the extent of 500 jobs or more.
    As that document tells us, and as the Fraser of Allander Institute study which backs it up states, from 1991 to 1997, the total civilian and service personnel job losses from the plans for Rosyth under the Government's proposals amount to 7,000, with a loss of expenditure to the Fife economy of no less than £71.8 million. It is interesting to compare the rigour of the analysis presented by the regional council with the slipshod and sleekit document that the Government produced in the first place.
    The consultation document also shows the most obvious bias. Nowhere in the consultation document is there serious consideration of the alternatives—the closure, perhaps, of Portsmouth or Devonport. The closure of Portsmouth was dismissed as prohibitively costly, without any examination. It is said that it is impractical to close Devonport naval base, with no attendant analysis to back up that statement. The document does not even consider the option of scaling down all three conventional naval bases and compare that in terms of cost savings. The only option which is fully examined is that of effectively closing Rosyth as a naval
    210
    base. How on earth can it be sensible to concentrate conventional naval base capability along a small stretch of the south coast of England?
    The regional council's document, unlike the Government's consultation document, looks in detail at the strategic arguments for keeping Rosyth as an operational effective naval base—at oil and fishing interests and at the shipping lanes that need to be policed from a North sea naval base. It is interesting to compare the Government's suggested savings of as little as £160 million over 10 years with the fact that North sea oil generates overall income of £30 million each and every day and that defence experts say that the decision to concentrate on the south coast of England might put this vital strategic resource at some risk.
    David Greenwood, who will be well known to those who are interested in defence and who is director of defence studies at Aberdeen university has written:
    "At the moment, any terrorist threat would be dealt with by commandos from Arbroath and the Navy at Rosyth. The Navy's ability to fulfil this role would be seriously impaired if all its ships were based in Portsmouth and Plymouth.
    The Navy is responsible for protecting and policing a 200-mile wide strip of water that goes right round the country. It is difficult to see how it could do that with its whole capacity in one corner."
    Naval experts, unlike the Government, realise the idiocy of concentrating conventional naval bases on the south coast of England. When we consider the strategic requirements of defence, we find a good argument for keeping Rosyth as a naval base. But if we consider only the Conservative party's political strategic requirements in the south of England, the logic of closing Rosyth and keeping the south coast bases becomes very evident indeed. Although Rosyth was used as a key card in the unionist campaign in the previous general election, now and for ever more in Scottish politics it will be a key example of why the economic fate of communities in Fife and in Scotland generally should not be left to decision-making in this Parliament.
    The Scottish National party will vote for the amendment, not because we think that it is a perfect amendment—on the contrary, it does not even mention the word "Rosyth"; we would have liked to have seen the case for Rosyth detailed in the amendment. There are weaknesses in the amendment. It does not confront the incredible lack of logic in the maintenance of missile systems. The Opposition spokesperson said that, warhead per warhead, the Labour party's policy is now to maintain the same number of warheads with Trident as previously were held by Polaris. I should have thought that the international climate dictated a reduction in warheads, not the maintenance of warheads.
    The lunacy of the Trident missile system and the expenditure of £20,000 million or more on one aspect of strategic defence which in the modern world has been overtaken by events compares with the loss of key Scottish regiments for the lack of a few million pounds, when an obvious defence need has been identified by Conservative Members for their use in peacekeeping roles in Europe and elsewhere.
    I remember the Defence Select Committee once saying that redundant nuclear submarines could be used as tourist attractions. That was actually in a Select Committee report. I am a great admirer of Select Committees, but I do not think that that was the most profound statement ever made by one. Let my last suggestion to the House

    211
    be this, however: if redundant nuclear submarines and nuclear hulks are worthy of being considered as tourist attractions, let them be tourist attractions on the River Thames, because they will not be acceptable in Rosyth naval base, which wants to be a working naval base, not an elephants' graveyard for nuclear hulks.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The 10-minute restriction will end in a few moments. The winding-up speeches are to commence at 9.10 pm, and many hon. Members still wish to speak. I therefore make a plea for concise speeches.
    7.55 pm
    Mr. Robert Banks: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his speech and I associate myself with the glowing tribute that he properly paid to the men and women of our armed forces. The British sailor is one of our greatest ambassadors. I hope that there will be every opportunity for the Royal Navy to visit ports abroad and show the flag. It would do a very good job for Britain if given that opportunity.
    This debate occurs at a time of great change, and I should like to consider the role of NATO. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the role of NATO became confused. For instance, who is to be in the sights of our armed forces as part of NATO? It is a great achievement that we do not have an enemy at whom to aim our weapons. One of the great aspects of NATO has been the cohesive force that it has held over many years and brought the United States into the defence of Europe and the free world. Nobody should dismiss that lightly. Many people previously felt that NATO's main purpose should be peacekeeping. A better sense of realism has been adopted by those who have taken an interest in its future role.
    Peacekeeping is a long process. It is worth recalling that about 72,292 troops from various nations participate in United Nations peacekeeping roles in 14 places throughout the world. One of the earliest deployments of United Nations forces was in Kashmir in 1949, and forces are still there. Forces were placed in Cyprus in 1964. For NATO to take a lead role in peacekeeping operations would undermine the role of the United Nations in a far wider umbrella able to draw on forces from many other countries, and our own troops would be tied indefinitely to policing areas such as Western Sahara, El Salvador and elsewhere. I do not believe that NATO forces must be confined to the NATO area.
    That leads me to the construction of NATO to take account of its role with the rapid deployment force. That is its main function—that is, to show that it has the ability to react quickly and with great force. To do that effectively, we must change the orientation of NATO from a central and northern European-oriented force to one which moves further south and takes account of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and the consequent possible effects.
    A member of NATO which has a pivotal position in the present structure of NATO—Turkey—should be used for stationing our forces in rapid deployment mode for deployment to areas outside NATO boundaries. If NATO
    212
    is to be effective it must look beyond its existing bounds and embrace north Africa, the middle east and further afield. It is in stamping out such trouble spots, as was well demonstrated in Kuwait, that we can prevent serious international conflict.
    If a really effective rapid deployment force is to be established, it is important to have the right equipment and the men and women who are trained to perform the task well. I am particularly pleased that we have ordered Challenger 2 tanks: that will be a great help to Vickers in Leeds, and is hugely appreciated in Yorkshire. It will also be immensely important to the work that a rapid deployment force will have to undertake.
    The helicopter lift will be an important element. I know that a difficult decision is involved. I listened carefully to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson); he has a constituency interest in the manufacture of the EH101, which is a combined operation by Westland and Agusta, but the Chinook—to which he referred—is already in service and gives us the opportunity for standardisation, which I have long preached, and interoperability, while giving us the same use of spares currently in stock in the RAF. I understand that the lift capability of the Chinook is rather greater than that of the EH101, which is important in terms of cost-effectiveness.
    We must also consider the offset arrangements. We should push hard to ensure that we have the maximum offset for any purchases. Such purchases must be made on the principle of securing good value for money and the best machine for the job.
    Many points have arisen during the debate, which has to an extent latched on to the "Front Line First" White Paper. That document draws attention to the need for more cost-consciousness and financial management procedures. My own RAF support management group in Harrogate has existed since 1946 and has done a magnificent job. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister referred to the civilians who have worked, and are working, in our military forces, particularly in the field of support; they do magnificent work with great dedication. The group that I have mentioned is to be moved to RAF Wyton in Cambridgeshire, which has involved considerable heart-searching and many difficulties for its staff. I sympathise enormously with those employees and their families, who have been faced with a choice between uprooting themselves and trying to find alternative jobs where they are now.
    I appreciate the reasons for the action that is being taken, however. We must shape our support for the tasks that our military forces will undertake in future; we must slim them down and use all the technology to make them as cost-effective as possible. Our buildings in Harrogate were not particularly suitable; they were out of date, which is one of the reasons for the move to RAF Wyton, which I deeply regret.
    We must do everything possible to secure jobs for those who will be displaced. We must also consider the disposal of redundant buildings and those that are vacated—as will happen with the Army apprentices college. We need to establish a central computerised clearing house, so that a Department looking for buildings can see what types of building are available. The Home Office, for instance, is always looking for buildings to house offenders; buildings are also needed for health service courses. The various Departments must liaise closely to ensure that uses are

    213
    found for redundant buildings and jobs are secured for those who are displaced by big changes in our military structure.
    I am grateful for the opportunity to present my views. I hope that, in the next year or so, we shall continue in the vein of peace that we have been able to secure by maintaining forces that are adequate to deal with any circumstances.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Ten-minute speeches are no longer required, but many hon. Members still wish to speak. I hope that they will co-operate, so that I can call as many as possible.
    8.4 pm
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: I wish to speak about an establishment in my constituency, Pendine, whose closure was announced by the Secretary of State in a statement on 14 July. That statement came as a severe blow to the establishment's 340 employees; it is in a relatively remote rural location, where comparable alternative jobs would be impossible to find. The closure decision was made despite an 18-month campaign by the work force, supported by the local authorities: they presented the case for Pendine in as forceful and detailed a way as they could.
    We were pleased to see that the consultative document published by the MOD on 14 July contained some explanation of why Pendine had been singled out for closure, but we felt that it was deeply flawed. There were three main errors. One related to the assessment of the option to close Shoeburyness. I should point out that attacking another site, or saying that it should be closed, is no part of our alternative plan; we propose a "slimdown" at Pendine, Shoeburyness and Eskmeals, which are all comparable sites.
    The consultative document estimated that the closure of Shoeburyness would increase costs by £5 million. We could not understand that. Apparently, the explanation is that much of the work being done there, involving over-water recovery, would have to be done in Australia. I understand that that is not so; about 80 per cent. of the work could be done at Pendine.
    The document states:
    "Pendine's range is relatively restricted to seawards and is constrained in its ability to absorb further work. For instance, any southward extension of the danger area at Pendine would infringe the main Swansea-Pembroke Dock shipping lane."
    There are three incorrect statements in those two sentences. First, there is no Swansea-Pembroke dock shipping lane; there is light use of that sea area, but it poses no problem to MOD exercises. Secondly, the document says that Pendine's range is "relatively restricted to seawards". The area towards the sea overlaps into the Manorbier and Castlemartin areas: quite a large area is available for test firing—up to 60 km. The last error lies in the words
    "constrained in its ability to absorb further work".
    The site at Pendine is composed of 5 square miles of land and 5 square miles of foreshore; within that 10 square miles is a considerable area to absorb further work.
    Pendine has a unique test track measuring 1,500 m, built to high specifications. If it closed, that would have to be rebuilt at substantial expense. The document
    214
    estimates a cost of between £7 million and £15 million, but according to our best information the cost would be nearer £20 million to £50 million. That would negate the savings from closure.
    As a steering group, we prepared an alternative document of about 30 pages outlining a future for Pendine, based on a slimdown of its present operations. We proposed that all the work now undertaken should be continued, but that many unnecessary assets be disposed of. Llanmiloe house is a posh mansion used for administration. A lot of land could be disposed of. Major cuts in staffing would be possible. Civilianisation of the MOD staff would reduce the cost. If the Blelloch review was implemented, cuts of about 50 per cent. would be possible in the MOD police.
    The trade unions at Pendine have volunteered 30 per cent. cuts in staff across the board as part of our alternative business plan. That 30 per cent. figure was not plucked out of the air. It was proposed by Shorts, the company that we understand would be the contractor in any case if the contract was renewed.
    The proposals in our document are all costed and we estimate that if the slimdown proposals were adopted, they would save £2.5 million a year and £25 million over a 10-year period. Those are greater savings than the MOD would achieve by closure. The estimated savings in the MOD consultative document are £7 million to £15 million from closure. Our alternative proposal would save £25 million.
    We have put the document to the Ministry. It provides for better savings, a much more predictable option and a safer bet in the sense that we do not know what would be the cost of reprovision if Pendine closed. The plan is achievable on a shorter time scale and with less capital cost. It would guarantee quality of work, continuity and customer satisfaction.
    I am glad to say that last week we had a useful one-hour meeting with the Minister and his senior civil servants. It was a courteous and constructive meeting. I was pleased to hear today that the Ministry will seriously consider our consultative document. I, hope that the Minister will make a few comments about Pendine in his reply to the debate to clarify the position for the work force there. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the chance to make those few observations.
    8.12 pm
    Mr. Keith Mans: Virtually all the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate during the past two days have commented on the huge changes that have taken place in the armed forces during the past four years.
    It is true to say that the "Options for Change" proposals were, to a great extent, accepted by the majority of service men, albeit reluctantly. There may have been a lack of clarity about the direction in which we were going four years ago. There may have been worry about the uncertainty in the world in which we would find ourselves following the demise of the Soviet Union. None the less, there was a realisation among the vast majority of service men that we would probably end up with smaller armed forces.
    Although the proposals were called "Options for Change", they were effectively a defence review. The last two defence reviews—if one can call them that—have not been accepted to the same degree as "Options for

    215
    Change". The changes are perceived within the armed forces as essentially Treasury-led and a result of the need for short-term savings in the public expenditure budget, rather than any long-term considerations for the defence of Britain.
    I am pleased to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on the Front Bench. I am convinced that were it not for the tenacious way in which he fought some of the more outrageous suggestions made by the Treasury, we would be in a considerably worse position than we are.
    The last round of cuts has been handled well by the defence team, most specifically in ensuring that the front line did not suffer so much as previously and in finding ways of meeting at least some of the Treasury targets while ensuring that we maintain our front-line strength. However, some people in the armed forces feel much less reasonably disposed than previously towards putting up with the sort of thing that they have had to put up with over the past two years. They are less prepared to take lying down the sort of things that have happened to them in the past two years.
    I congratulate the Ministers of State for the Armed Forces and for Defence Procurement on their appointments. Like my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, I spent a fair amount of the summer months either speaking or operating in my capacity as a pilot in the RAF Reserve with both the Army and the Royal Air Force. From that experience, I learnt that, as many hon. Members have said both yesterday and today, there is worry in the armed services about the uncertainty, instability and disruption that has been caused by the changes.
    My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces rightly pointed out, in introducing the debate today, that service life is about change and unpredictability. People often do not know where they will be in a few months or even a few days. The challenge and excitement that that promotes are part and parcel of service life.
    I submit that there is a difference between the short-term instability in not knowing where one will be next year or next month and the stability that has always existed in the armed services, in the sense that people knew how long they would have to serve. People knew that they would be looked after and that they were not in just any other job. I distinguish between the uncertainty in the short term and the greater certainty in the long term which, until recently, has been a feature of service life. I sincerely hope that we will now return to the previous position, in which people in the armed services had a clearer idea about what they would be doing in the following year.
    The disruptions that have been caused by previous changes in defence policy—"Options for Change" and what followed—are continuing. They have not stopped simply because we appear to have stopped cutting defence. The changes will continue for several years to come. "Front Line First" is fine. I fully approve of the idea of seeking to ensure that the front line is protected, but let us consider that some individuals may do one tour as part of the front line and in the next tour of duty may be posted to something else. Within a month or two of taking up the post, they may find that it is part of the last
    216
    cuts and they are out of a job. We must get our minds round that sort of instability and ensure that it is reduced to a bare minimum.
    I welcome the commission on pay and allowances. I welcome the assurance that it is not simply another cost-cutting exercise. To me, it is an opportunity to regain the support of some of our armed service men and to show that the exercise is intended to ensure that their pay and allowances packages reflect what they do today in the post-cold war environment and that it will take us forward into the next century. I am not so apprehensive as some of my colleagues and I sincerely hope that that is how the study will end up.
    I was very much encouraged by the remarks made last week in Bournemouth by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and by those of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his excellent speech last Friday, which pointed out that the defence of this country has now entered a period of stability. The last thing that the armed services want is another defence review, but that is what the Opposition have suggested. It is my view and that of many service men that we have had enough reviews in the past four years. We have had three, and we certainly do not want another.
    I found it extraordinary that the Opposition spokesman yesterday suggested at the start of his speech that we needed a review and that we must wait and see, check and then carry it out. A few sentences later, however, he had already pre-empted his review by saying that an incoming Labour Government would reduce the number of warheads on Trident before they assessed the need for the number that we already have. That shows where the Labour party is coming from on defence.
    Every Opposition defence review has resulted in defence cuts. Since the war, no incoming Labour Government have not included defence budget cuts as a high priority in their first two years in office. So, for review read cuts and that is what the three armed services are most concerned about.
    Dr. Reid: If it is a simple equation of review equals cuts and if the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party are against reviews, how does he explain that in the 10 years between 1985 and 1995 there has been a 27 per cent. cut in the armed forces budget in real terms?
    Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman makes a point. Often, no matter which party carries out a review, it means cuts. That is the point that I was making. The hon. Gentleman talks about a review, but on past experience that means a cut rather than any increase in capability.
    Let us compare defence expenditure with other public expenditure. Five years ago, expenditure on defence exceeded that on the health service and education and it was a high percentage of the total cost of social security. The health and education budgets are now much higher than the defence budget and—what is even more interesting—the housing benefit budget alone amounts to nearly 60 per cent. of the defence budget. That gives us a clear idea of what has happened to defence expenditure during the past few years. It has reduced in real terms by nearly 25 per cent., or it certainly will have done by 1995. That is why it is even more important to ensure that we do not cut it any further.

    217
    In 1990, the Royal Air Force had a front-line combat strength of just under 400 aeroplanes. By 1995, that strength will have reduced to 278. I should have liked to tell the House the number of RAF stations that have been shut down. Last February, I asked that question and was told that someone would write to me. I understand that the Ministry of Defence has had some difficulty defining an RAF station. I noticed in a newspaper report today that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) received an answer to his question on RAF stations, which was not dissimilar to mine. Could my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State find a way to answer my question about the number of RAF stations that will exist in 1995, compared to the number in 1985 and 1990, as it is relevant?
    Mr. Hardy: The House should be aware of the answer that I received yesterday. Since 1989, 20 stations have been closed and a further 14 will close in the next few years. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will agree, but there is now a serious threat to Britain's capacity to provide runways for the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Mans: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. I think that the answer that I hope to receive soon will confirm precisely what he has told me.
    On the procurement of aircraft, I reiterate the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who mentioned the need to secure the future of Farnborough. It is the shop window of aerospace in this country and it would be nice to see it continue beyond the guaranteed date at the end of this decade.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State recently mentioned the importance of keeping down the cost of Eurofighter 2000, and I entirely agree. As many hon. Members know, I fully support the project, but we must ensure that the costs do not rocket. It is not merely important to keep down the cost of the activities of private industry. We must also ensure that the internal costs of the Ministry of Defence's procurement executive are reined in.
    One of the problems is that the Defence Research Agency has new accounting methods now that it has agency status. Previously, there was a system of internal transfers which, I understand, had no cash value attached. There have been considerable increases—if one can call them that—in that area, due to the way in which the money is accounted for.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: On the subject of defence procurement for the RAF, given that so many thousands of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend are engaged in building the finest aircraft for the RAF—such as the Tornado—
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: And mine.
    Mr. Hawkins: As are many of my hon. Friend's constituents and many others in our area. They are building Tornados now and they will be involved in building the Eurofighter.
    Does my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) agree that it is crucial for the future of the RAF that we have the right aircraft? Will he join me in calling on our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to
    218
    consider carefully the RAF's future large aircraft need, to ensure that the right aircraft is chosen and that the decision is not too precipitate?
    Mr. Mans: I entirely agree, and will return to that subject.
    I also associate myself with remarks made about the EH101. I hope that an early decision will be taken on procuring that aircraft, bearing in mind that the intention to do so was announced about nine years ago in the House.
    The procurement of the new RAF transport aircraft has dominated this two-day debate. Perhaps I should declare an interest, or more specifically a non-interest. As far as I know, no aircraft company in my constituency is working on either the FLA or the C130J, nor is any company likely to supply either of those projects. None the less, I have a fair number of opinions on the direction that we should take to ensure the right solution.
    It is worth bearing in mind the background. As recently as 1991, the Ministry of Defence told the Select Committee on Defence that it needed to replace the Hercules just into the next century—in 2001, 2002 or thereabouts. It did not intend to replace it beforehand.
    Earlier this year, there was no clear sign why maintenance costs for the Hercules had risen. The Ministry of Defence seemed to be unable to specify to the Defence Select Committee where the costs had occurred, which worried me. I find it slightly odd that, during the past three years, there has been a rapid change in attitude. From not wanting to procure a new transport aircraft until after 2000, the MOD is now saying that the maintenance of the aircraft is very expensive and has decided to sell some of them off next year. I do not understand how that fits into the scenario of an aging aeroplane that will not last until the next decade.
    I cannot see when the decision was taken to change from the previous position of our procuring the aircraft in the new century to suddenly saying that we need it in 1997 or 1998. I believe that those involved have decided to get together with the Lockheed company, which has a new model which appears to be a reasonable aircraft. At the same time, there will be perhaps a little more flexibility than normal in defence forward costings to allow us to take the opportunity of buying the aircraft "off the shelf'.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is not it the case that since the Gulf war the utilisation rate of the Hercules fleet has vastly increased over what was anticipated, owing to its support of operations in Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, Turkey, the no-fly zone over southern Iraq and Saudi Arabia and in the latest episode in Kuwait? Does not my hon. Friend refer purely to a factor of the fleet's utilisation?
    Mr. Mans: My hon. Friend makes a good point. As far as I can ascertain, there have been considerable amounts of extra work throughout the various stages of the life of the Hercules, including what happened in Ethiopia a few years ago. There does not seem to have been as much of a change in the use of the aircraft since 1991 compared with what happened in the early part of its history. I shall quickly move on, as I do not want to waste too much of the House's time.
    I feel that the Select Committee's report in March this year was a very good one, and it clearly showed what the position was. Since then, there have been considerable

    219
    developments. It has been decided which engines the future large aircraft will have, whereas in March that had not been fully decided. It has also been decided that the project will form a part of the Airbus consortium, and that had not been decided in March either. As recently as last March, we were looking at a service date of 2005 and that has already been moved forward to 2002.
    If there was an omission in that report it was that the Committee did not focus closely enough on the costs of maintaining the C130J in relation to the earlier C130 that the Royal Air Force already had. As the avionics and engines would be different, we would have to train people and give them new skills to service the aircraft. While it is a new aircraft in its own right, it still has effectively an airframe which is getting on for 40 or 50 years old.
    We can say that the C130J may have a lower initial cost and it may be available sooner. It will undoubtedly have higher operating costs and carry less than the FLA. If the RAF were to procure the C130J, it would in effect be operating two different types of aircraft for some considerable time. Against that, the FLA will be clearly able to take more loads—such as the Warrior armoured vehicle—and it will go faster. I think that, over its full life, the FLA is likely to be cheaper than the C130J.
    Mr. Bill Walker: On the matter of extra capacity, will my hon. Friend turn his mind to the fact that only one vehicle of the type that he mentioned can go in the aircraft? How many aircraft would be required to move a regiment? If he works that out, he will find that it would require every single one of the aircraft to move one regiment. That is neither realistic nor sensible.
    Mr. Mans: I obviously disagree with my hon. Friend, but if what he says is true, it makes some of the procurement decisions made by the RAF in the past look slightly amiss. There has always been a desire to produce an aircraft that would at least take a fair amount of the Army's normal equipment, such as the Warrior.
    It is also important to look at the industrial case for the aircraft. Jobs would be created in this country in both cases, but in terms of the C130J the best estimate is 3,500 jobs, while the estimate for the FLA is 11,000.
    In terms of technology, there is no doubt that we would lose a great deal of our ability in wing design if we were not part of the consortium that was to produce the FLA. If we are not in the consortium at the start, our wing technology could be transferred to Germany for the next generation of Airbuses.
    I believe that this is a very important procurement decision, because it is likely to decide the route that British aviation in this area takes during the next 10 or 20 years. I strongly recommend to my Front-Bench colleagues that they delay their decision on the replacement for the existing Hercules fleet until at least the first quarter of next year when a clear assessment of the alternatives, time scale and costs can be made. If we do not do that, we may find that we make the wrong decision.
    8.35 pm
    Mr. Alan Simpson: I wish to speak specifically in support of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).
    220
    We ought not to be under any illusions about what the Government document is. It is not a fundamental review, and it really is an affront to call it "Front Line First". It ought to be called "Front Line Farce". The document fails to address a number of quite specific questions about the nature of the front line and where it is.
    In global terms, we ought to realise that the front line—in terms of instability—is to be found somewhere in the regions occupied by 20 million or more refugees from civil and regional wars and by the 20 million more refugees from poverty, famine, drought and fear of persecution. It is to be found within the regions where, surrounded by the massed ranks of the nuclear firepower of the super-states, people have decided to ignore all of us and conduct their own civil or regional wars.
    The fault lines of the new front line are to be found along lines determined by poverty, by fear of tomorrow and by the inability to feed oneself or to find water to drink. They are to be found within the countries and communities which are riven by persecution and intimidation, and where people feel that they no longer have a home that they can call their own in a country that belongs to them.
    If that is where the front lines are to be found globally, where do we find a recognition of that in the definitions of the appropriate structure of services, of service personnel and of support infrastructures which we would need in this country in relation to our functions in an international environment? Instead of that, we have a farce of a document.
    It was exemplified for me yesterday when the Secretary of State said that there were "no sacred cows". He would have been more accurate if he had said that there were "no sacred cows—as long as you ignore the entirety of the arguments around Britain's investment in nuclear arms". That is the one thing which has been specifically excluded by ring-fencing from the review which has taken place and which has been presented to us in this document.
    In one sweep over the summer, the £750 million savings—or cuts—incorporated in "Front Line First" were swept aside by the quiet announcement of an £800 million overspend of the Trident programme. If the Trident programme has one virtue—this is probably its only virtue—it is that it is the one programme which makes the channel tunnel look on time and under budget. It is a monstrous waste of money, and its costs are spiralling out of all proportion to even any mythical value which the Trident programme might have.
    Let me put it in a different context. In April this year, the House was told that the MOD planned to scrap four new diesel-electric submarines of the Upholder class, at a cost of £1.2 billion. The overspend on Trident would have accounted for almost two thirds of that amount.
    It is not only hon. Members who are appalled at the way in which nuclear defence spending has spiralled out of control. The military top brass are becoming fairly brassed off with the incompetent handling of the Trident programme and the drain that it constitutes on the

    221
    country's defence spending. On 3 August, Field Marshal Sir Nigel Bagnall, Chief of the General Staff between 1985 and 1988, wrote in The Times:
    "It is high time that the need for our independent nuclear deterrent was seriously questioned … The four Trident submarines provide an excessive capability in relation to our status and requirements, and eat far more deeply into the defence budget than is generally acknowledged."
    The 11,600 uniformed service personnel and the 7,100 civil servants who will lose their jobs because of the cuts announced in "Front Line First" will know to their cost how deeply the cost of Trident cuts into the budget for other services.
    "Front Line First" should have been willing to confront the nuclear delusion under which the country has been suffering for far too long. We need to face up to certain stark facts. Trident is militarily useless and is a drain on our national and defence resources. It will not deter terrorists or tin-pot dictators. It destabilises rather than stabilises both the United Kingdom's security policy and international ones. Outside the House and outside the country, the Trident programme is understood to be an act of proliferation when the world is calling out for acts of reverse proliferation. Instead, we have a Government who produce documents that are caught between the helpless and the hopeless.
    In the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994", the Government made two crass statements about the importance of nuclear weapons. First, they said:
    "Complete and general nuclear disarmament remains a desirable ultimate goal, but nuclear weapons cannot be dis-invented."
    It is as though the Government were saying, "Well, we have got them, what can we do?" My answer is simple—they should turn the page not only of history, but of their own document, because they also made two stark claims about the need to obliterate chemical weapons from the planet. First, they reminded the House:
    "An international treaty to ban chemical weapons—the Chemical Weapons Convention—was signed by 130 countries, including the United Kingdom) when it opened for signature in January 1993."
    In the following paragraph, the Government state:
    "The United Kingdom abandoned its offensive chemical weapons capability in the 1950s but other states have significant stockpiles to destroy."
    It appears to me that the Government were patting themselves on the back for an act of unilateral chemical weapons disarmament. If they lay claim to that as a virtue and sign up to a treaty that sets out the terms and conditions for global monitoring and regulation as the means of removing chemical weapons from the surface of the planet, why cannot we do exactly the same thing for nuclear weapons? All it requires is an act of courage and vision. Instead, we have a Government who are either stupid or cynical, because in the estimates the Government said that
    "the ability to undertake a massive nuclear strike is not enough to ensure deterrence … We also need the capability to undertake nuclear action on a more limited scale in order to demonstrate our willingness to defend our vital interests to the utmost, and so induce a political decision to halt aggression without inevitably triggering strategic nuclear exchanges."
    People in the world at large will draw some simple and obvious conclusions from the Government's statements. First, they will understand that the United Kingdom is willing to use nuclear weapons in non-nuclear conflicts. Secondly, they will appreciate that we would be willing to do so against non-nuclear states.
    222
    We are less than a year away from the opening of the UN conference that aims to extend the non-proliferation treaty. When it comes to exerting pressure to extend that treaty, Britain will have no credibility and no one will believe us, because the world already knows that we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons. Other countries will also appreciate that we are in the process of widening the nuclear gap and that we reserve the right to continue to conduct our own nuclear tests.
    The creative cuts should have been directed at our nuclear defences. Substantial savings could still be made if the Trident programme were abandoned. Greenpeace has identified that savings of at least £5 billion could be made in the short term and up to £15 billion over the proposed lifetime of Trident. We should have made those savings and redirected those resources.
    The redirected resources should have been targeted in two ways. First, they should have gone towards defence diversification. The United Kingdom's record on defence diversification is woeful, because the Government have no commitment to it. They may talk about the Konver programme, but all that amounts to is £15 million funded overwhelmingly from Europe. That money amounts to little more than the commission that one enterprising individual can get from a decent arms deal these days.
    To put it in a wider perspective, we need simply recognise that at the moment Germany is investing £500 million in its own defence diversification programme. Between 1985 and 1991, the American company, Frisbee Airborne Hydraulics, shifted from having a 90 per cent. dependence on arms procurement to one of just 20 per cent.—without losing a single job. One could not say that of any of the British arms supplies industries. They are their own killing fields of our most skilled, qualified and imaginative design technologists and engineers. Their jobs are being lost because the Government do not have a serious commitment to any defence diversification programme. It is tragic to have to say this on the day after China agreed to use American help to finance the refocusing of Chinese defence activities and skills towards improving its aeroplane industry and air navigational systems.
    I have a royal ordnance factory in my constituency. I have spent a great deal of wonderful time with people in the ROF who have gone through the most phenomenal agenda of changes that they could make if they had a different brief from the main purchaser of their skills—the Government. They could diversify along the lines of technology redeployment, using skills that they have to focus on the international need for munitions decommissioning in eastern Europe and the middle east.
    The work force also have computer-aided design skills and could use them to make buildings, the channel tunnel and aircraft safer. They have proposed a whole range of practical developments, but they are being ignored because of a lack of funding. The technology to protect people and structures exists, as do the skills. All it lacks is a Government with a lead and a vision; instead, we hear little more than platitudes—such are the Government's references to defence diversification.
    The second plank of refocused resourcing is service personnel. In an organisational context, that is where the real front line lies in the United Kingdom. We have people and organisations with huge skills, but there is a desperate need for a vision to refocus those skills. They need to be refocused towards peace building rather than

    223
    war fighting. They need to be harnessed in many ways—perhaps around a new international youth initiative and, specifically, towards the massive environmental threats that hang over us all.
    I have set out some of those ideas in greater detail in a pamphlet which I published recently, but I shall not try to go through it now. This country needs to rise to the challenge set for it by President Gorbachev when he talked about the three Ds—the need for the world to address the challenges of democracy, development and demilitarisation. Instead, our Government present papers that are still tumbling around the past and tinkering around with the present.
    The real sadness of the document before us was brought home to me by a small apocryphal tale that I heard a couple of weeks ago. It was about a conversation between a mother camel and her child. The child asked its mother why it had such big flat feet with thick soles and the mother said, "You have wonderful feet. They are broad so that when you trek across the desert you will not sink into the sand dunes, and they have thick soles so that they will not be burnt by the heat of the sun. Other animals may suffer, but you will thrive." The child camel then said, "But mother, why do I have this hump on my back?" The mother said, "My child, it is a beautiful hump. Other animals would die of thirst in the desert, but you can carry your own water supply, which will get you through for weeks." The child camel then asked its mother, "Why do I have these long eyelashes?" The mother answered, "Your eyelashes are beautiful, my child. In the huge storms across the desert, other animals would be blinded and would grind to a halt. Your eyelashes can sweep away the sand and allow you to see." The child thought for a moment, looked up at its mother and said, "Mother, just one more question: if I have all those beautiful features and abilities, what are we doing stuck here in Dudley zoo?"
    The document before us seems to be about Dudley zoo. This country has human and organisational skills that could meet the challenges presented to us by the world outside. We have technological skills, in terms of both high and intermediate technology, which the world desperately needs. People can see a different role which this country could play in international peace building. So why are we tragically stuck with a Government who are intellectually moribund and stranded in their own nuclear version of Dudley zoo?
    The world needs its first ex-nuclear state. It needs a defence and international policy focused around peace building. It needs a policy that is free from the shackles of nuclear madness. Those are not to be found in "Front Line First".
    8.52 pm
    Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) was criticising more acutely the Government or the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who is just leaving the Chamber, seemed to cringe in his place because yesterday he gave us an unequivocal undertaking that any future Labour Government—God save us—would deploy Trident.
    224
    It has given me no pleasure in recent years to have criticised several aspects of the Government's defence policies. So it is an agreeable surprise for me to be able to welcome, with some reservations, the outcome of the defence costs study which, despite many gloomy predictions, has achieved the general aim of "Front Line First".
    I pay particular tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and his erstwhile colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), for working so closely with the armed services to produce a result that is broadly acceptable from both the military and financial viewpoints. That was an achievement in itself and the issues were addressed in such a way that the Opposition's call for a defence review now rings hollow.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's speech at the party conference could hardly have put the position more clearly: there are to be no further upheavals. It is exactly that statement of stability to come which the Government, the country and everyone in the armed forces want.
    It has been a painful process. For the Army, the position would have been untenable had not "Options for Change" been modified in three material ways: first, by allowing four excellent regiments to escape amalgamation and thus preserve their identities; secondly, by adding back 3,000 men; and, thirdly, by the belated recognition that we needed a regular third armoured Army recce regiment. However, may I warn my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, whom I welcome back to the Department, that the problem of overstretch has not gone away. That fact was brought home to me in stark terms when, during the recess in August, I returned to Northern Ireland for the first time since I served in South Armagh 20 years ago. Together with the qualities that we all admire so much and which we have recognised in this debate, of our troops' maturity, resilience, restraint and humour in the face of all the provocation in Northern Ireland, there is a price to be paid. That price is seen in human terms, such as the above-average divorce rate among soldiers serving in Northern Ireland. That pressure has also led some of our most able soldiers to apply for premature voluntary release.
    Thus, the question of overstretch will not go away. There has always been a discrepancy between ministerial assurances and the views of commanders in the field. A 24-month tour interval can be satisfied only if two conditions are fulfilled: first, if the Government can, in due course, reduce the number of troops in Northern Ireland, given the welcome ceasefire, which we all hope holds; and, secondly, if the Government stick to their assurance that no further cuts will be made, even if commitments are reduced.
    I hope that we shall hear no more of "overstretch"—a term that was once not in our vocabulary—but I also hope that we shall not now swing the other way and start talking of "understretch". I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to avoid understretch and to ensure that the qualities of our British soldiers are used in the right way. They can be used in the right way only if soldiers are properly trained and equipped. It is nothing short of disgraceful that recently it has been impossible to exercise adequately at brigade level, let alone in any higher formations.

    225
    The pressure on Salisbury plain is becoming ever greater as troops come back from the British Army of the Rhine. Exercises on Salisbury plain depend on the goodwill of the chief constable of Wiltshire, who must close roads from time to time to make a reasonable exercise at that level possible. Even if the BATUS facility in Canada can be upgraded and simulation techniques are developed, is not it time to look anew at training areas closer to home in the former eastern Europe, so that realistic training can be carried out? I fully accept that most of our future actions will be carried out in the framework of a coalition, but surely it is important for our troops to train independently at the highest possible level.
    My hon. Friends have already made powerful arguments to rationalise the equipment aspects. We must have a decision soon for our support and attack aircraft. Both are vital for our future flexibility and effectiveness. Any further delay, I submit to my right hon. Friend, will merely compromise our troops' capabilities to carry out their role properly.
    In conclusion—I declare an interest as a reserve officer—I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the position of reservists. Saddam Hussein's recent histrionics—they could all too easily develop into something much worse—remind us that we can no longer deploy 25,000 Regulars, especially at short notice, to various areas of conflict throughout the world. Yet the physical annual reporting of reservists has been reduced to a written exercise.
    I have already drawn an analogy between that exercise and my writing to the Chief Whip saying, "I will be in the Lobby if there is a Division". I do not think that he would find that any more acceptable than I find the new reservist structure. It is no substitute to fill in a form rather than to appear physically and to report as a reservist. It is an entirely bogus argument that the old system was too expensive in the post-cold war era, and that a new legal system had to be put in place.
    We are told that the so-called "high-readiness volunteer" will be introduced, but not until 1996 at the earliest. Is not it an opportunity for a high-readiness Minister to intervene soon to reduce that hiatus to nothing?
    Whatever the future holds in what the Secretary of State for Defence described as "this curious world", I am convinced that the Government are on track to enable British troops to lead by example, and to continue to be a force for good around the world, whether in conflict, in humanitarian aid or in a combination of the two.
    9.1 pm
    Mr. Ian Davidson: In the limited time available to me, I shall discuss some issues related to procurement, because I believe that military purchasing should be considered as part of the industrial strategy that every Government should have.
    We are moving increasingly towards a position in which large British companies involved in defence are working with their European colleagues to launch joint projects because of the expense of such projects. I hope that the Government will be able to give us an assurance that competitive tendering will work in a way that is designed to help British firms to collaborate with their European compatriots, and that will allow them to collaborate equally, instead of obliging them to enter a
    226
    subsidiary role. I am conscious that we have little time to discuss that, and I shall therefore be happy to provide the Minister with further information. I hope that he will make himself available to meet any firm in my constituency that has raised the subject with me.
    I also want the Ministers to let us know that they will take account of the support that is being provided by other Governments to firms in their countries when they consider defence industries. I think of Pilkington Optronics in my constituency, which is bidding against foreign competition for masts and periscopes for submarines. Sagem in France and Kollmorgen in the USA have received substantial Government finance to help them with their research programme, but Pilkington and its collaborators have had to fund a research programme from their own funds. I hope that the Government will take that into account and will be prepared to provide co-operation with that company and its collaborators to ensure that they can compete for orders abroad on an equal footing.
    For example, I draw to the attention of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement the fact that the French Government are making available a submarine so that the French equipment may be fitted to it as a platform for sales abroad. It obviously gives the French company an advantage when it can give an example of its equipment in operation. I hope, in those circumstances, that the Government will go ahead and place an order for batch 2 Trafalgar submarines as quickly as possible, so that that platform can be provided for the companies in my constituency.
    Finally, I shall discuss military procurement standards and procedures. As the Ministers will be aware, part of the gap between the price quoted by Swan Hunter and the price quoted by the VSEL Kvaerner consortium for the landing platform helicopter resulted from the cost of the extra overheads of meeting naval procurement standards. I want the Minister to check whether he believes that those standards, their mode of operation and the level of bureaucracy involved are absolutely and utterly necessary. I hope that he will take account of the fact that Kvaerner, which builds gas carrier and chemical carrier ships to extremely high technical and safety standards, is able lo produce ships at a far lower level of bureaucracy than applies in naval yards. In those circumstances, it seems that there should be a review of the level of bureaucracy—the gold plating and over-engineering—in naval projects supervised by the Ministry of Defence.
    In that context, I wish to raise the subject of the ocean survey vessel. I hope that best commercial practice will be adhered to when quotes for that vessel are submitted. I hope that the speed with which the order is let will be more in line with normal commercial practice than is normal naval practice—in other words, quicker.
    We have a great national asset in our defence industries. Many of the firms use technology and personnel at the cutting edge of world developments. I hope that the Government will enable such companies to make the best use of their core technologies by providing them with support when it comes to diversification. That subject has already been touched on, but I hope that the Government will act on it in order to reduce the possibility of job losses as a result of defence cuts.
    I regret that the leader of the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), is not present for the end of the debate. I wish to raise an

    227
    issue related to something that he said. It is important that the Scottish National party should come clean on its plans for defence in Scotland should it gain independence. We need a clear statement from the SNP on whether it intends to retain all existing bases and, if not, which it intends to close. We need a clear statement from the party on whether all existing units based in Scotland will be retained at their present levels. We also need a clear statement from it on whether all Scots in units not based in Scotland will be offered places in the new Scottish armed services. It is essential that the people of Scotland should have answers to those questions. When the Minister responds I hope that he will say that he will provide information when other hon. Members and I table questions designed to identify the costs of a Scottish defence force should independence come to Scotland—something that many of my colleagues and I shall argue strongly against.
    9.7 pm
    Mr. James Couchman: I realise that I have only a few moments before the winding-up speeches begin.
    It falls to most of us either to applaud those troops who serve from our constituencies or to plead a special case for the manufacturers of defence equipment located in or near our constituencies. I shall not disappoint the House, and shall plead for both.
    During the debate on this subject 11 years ago I made my maiden speech. On that occasion I had to make valedictory remarks about 450 years of naval history and the closure of Chatham dockyard in my constituency. Sadly, in the last year, we have lost our last remaining naval connection as HMS Wildfire has been closed due to the constraints on the Royal Naval Reserve.
    We still have an important defence establishment in the Medway towns: the Royal School of Military Engineering in my constituency. It is the spiritual headquarters of the sappers, who were rightly praised by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces for their wonderful work in Bosnia and around the world. The sappers have served in every campaign that the British Army has ever fought. It is entirely appropriate that their motto should be "ubique"—everywhere. It was during the sappers memorial weekend recently that I exchanged some words with the Chief Royal Engineer who, instead of giving me a battering for the cuts in defence expenditure and resources, was at pains to emphasise to me the excellence, the energy and the enthusiasm of the young officers serving around this country and abroad whom he had visited in the previous 18 months. He did add that, in order to maintain their energy and enthusiasm, it will be necessary to give those excellent soldiers a sense of purpose and stability and to let them know where their future duties will lie—as part of a NATO rapid reaction corps or as part of a United Nations force, keeping the peace in the hot spots that have erupted in the past few years.
    The excellent high-technology company GEC Marconi Avionics is located in my constituency; it provided the backbone of employment in the Medway towns during the difficult years after the dockyard closure. Its peace dividend, if such it can be called, has been a reduction in the work force from 7,000 to just over half that number
    228
    in the past decade. We in the Medway towns look forward to Marconi winning new procurement orders from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement.
    The company is particularly interested in the competition to supply the attack helicopter. It has re-engineered the Bell Supercobra into the Venom helicopter—I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has seen the company's work on that. When, in the coming months, he starts looking for value for money when placing an order I hope that he will consider value for money for the whole life cycle of the aircraft. Marconi proposes to offer 90 per cent. of the most capable attack helicopter for 60 per cent. of the cost. In these days of straitened resources, that seems to me the sort of offer that my right hon. Friend will find difficult to refuse.
    9.11 pm
    Dr. John Reid: As usual, we have heard a wide-ranging and extremely knowledgeable number of contributors to this debate, and I hope to refer to many but not all of their speeches. I hope that the Government, having heard all that information and experience, will at least be better informed than before and, we continue to hope, wiser too.
    Several hon. Members presented knowledgeable and spirited constituency cases which I do not intend to pursue. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) spoke about his RAF station with great knowledge and spirit. My hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) also raised constituency interests.
    One or two of the points made in the debate certainly merit a serious response from the Government. No one likes to embark on a personal vendetta, but my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked some difficult and serious questions about Mark Thatcher. The Minister may not want to deal with such grave matters tonight, but some time in the not-too-distant future someone in Government is going to have to provide some answers.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) raised again a subject which has been discussed here many times and which is close to my own heart: the manner in which the people who work in Rosyth have been treated—broken pledges, broken promises and broken hearts. Future plans for investment made on the basis of promises given by a previous Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), lie in ruins. Thousands of people in the Rosyth area have been left bereft of plans or security, and as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, the problem has affected people in an area much wider than Rosyth itself.
    It is my pleasant duty at this point to welcome the new defence team under the old leader. I welcome back the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman); I know that he has served the country and the Government well before in defence. We wish him well in his new post. I also welcome the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) to the defence team for the first time. His tribute to the troops was the standard sort that we all pay them, but it was none the less sincere for that. The sincerity of his tribute shone through and must have been apparent to all,

    229
    as was the pride with which he took his place at the Dispatch Box. It was almost as if he was coming home. I suspect that if the hon. Gentleman had to choose any position in Government, it would be the one that he has been given.
    I am much too generous to say that it shows how bad a state the Ministry was in when it had to send for the cavalry. We hope that the Minister's career will be as distinguished in defence as it was in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am sure that he will have much fun with defence acronyms as in his former post he gave a new dimension to the expression "well hung".
    I also congratulate the long-distance runner who is not with us, the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), on his appointment as a Parliamentary Private Secretary. It is not normal to congratulate hon. Members appointed to such posts, but I understand that he is the PPS to the two Defence Ministers whom I mentioned. That is taking cuts a bit far, even for the Ministry of Defence. However, if someone had to be chosen to run between two Ministers, a better man could not have been selected.
    I shall say a quick word about the old defence team whose members have all been promoted to the dizzy heights of the Cabinet. I congratulate them all, especially my old sparring partner, the ex-Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who has become chairman of the Conservative party. We recall with pleasure that as Minister of State for the Armed Forces the right hon. Gentleman presided over a drastic reduction in numbers, plummeting morale and a slashing of support. We wish him similar success in his position as chairman of the Conservative party.
    The nature of these debates is to concentrate on differences between the parties because it has not been unknown for political points to be scored. But I shall be unorthodox by first outlining the areas of agreement in the new spirit of consensus under our new leader. We join the Government in paying tribute to the men and women of the armed forces. Last year, as in previous years, they have shown by their courage, discipline and professionalism that they are worthy recipients of the proud traditions that they inherit. As we approach Trafalgar day on Friday, it is worth remembering those traditions. If I had not reminded the House of that, Horatio Nelson's great nephew four times removed, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, would have done so.
    There is common ground between the Government and Opposition on much operational activity. We welcome "Partnership for Peace", which was mentioned at length by the Secretary of State, the memo of understanding and the bilateral meetings between central European and Baltic military organisations.
    We were relieved that the worst fears of the Territorial Army were not realised in the pronouncements on "Front Line First". The hon. Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) spoke about that. We agree with the Government about the role played by our military in Ghana and Mozambique and further afield, and particularly in South Africa. We also agree about the role of our forces in United Nations peacekeeping.
    230
    The Government and Opposition are on common ground about operations in Ireland. Like the Secretary of State, we look forward to the day when British troops—as he put it on the radio this morning—are no more necessary on the streets of Belfast than they are in Birmingham, Cardiff or Edinburgh. Of course, as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said, that is subject to the democratic process.
    Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Reid: I shall do so in a moment.
    We accept that the de-escalation of a military presence in Northern Ireland and activity there is a function not merely of the political process and progress but of security considerations. We should like to flag up to any member of the Government who is listening that if, as we all hope, peace comes to Northern Ireland, that will not be used as the basis for a simple arithmetical equation by which the British armed forces will be reduced by the number who are freed from deployment in Northern Ireland. There is a critical mass beneath which, if our armed forces and particularly the Army are reduced, it will be impossible to build them up again.
    Mr. Harris: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. While I heartily endorse his last remarks, as he is welcoming things, did he welcome the motion passed by the Labour party conference that would have cut our defence spending to the average of western European countries and would have meant a £6 billion cut in our defence budget?
    Dr. Reid: No. I did not welcome that. What I did welcome, and which no one has mentioned, was the statement by the National Executive Committee that was agreed unanimously by the Labour party conference, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and that stated a nuclear policy that Labour will enter Trident into multilateral arms control negotiation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is now better informed. I also welcomed the 22 motions at the Tory party conference that were critical of the Government, none of which was called. In particular, I congratulate the Conservatives of Torridge and Devon, West who called for a full and objective defence review.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): What does the hon. Gentleman suggest the country and the House should make of a Labour party conference that simultaneously passes a resolution calling for the cancellation of Trident and at the same time suggests that it should be retained and entered into multilateral defence negotiations? Does the hon. Gentleman really take comfort in such a farrago of nonsense?
    Dr. Reid: I suggest that hon. Members become better informed of the Labour party procedures than the Secretary of State for Defence. Let me explain to him that, in order to be considered for the manifesto of the Labour party, a conference decision has to reach two-thirds support. As the Secretary of State has demonstrated that he is not good at figures, I should explain that that is 66 and two thirds per cent. If something is unanimous, it has 100 per cent. support. The national executive statement received 100 per cent. support as it was unanimous, but the conference decision

    231
    to which he referred received only 55 per cent. or less than two thirds. Had he been informed of that, the Secretary of State would not have been asking fatuous questions from the Dispatch Box.
    Let me refer now to areas of agreement. We have long supported the Government's position on Bosnia. Indeed, before they adopted it we proposed a limited humanitarian role for the troops. We concur with the Government's view of the danger of lifting the arms embargo.
    In the Gulf, we support the timely response in terms of the dispatch of the troops and Tornado aircraft, although we point out, as we did to the previous Prime Minister, that international legality is a necessary but not sufficient condition for any action, pre-emptive or otherwise. International legality has to be complemented by international political consensus. That is absolutely essential in the Gulf.
    There have been, however, substantial areas of discord between the parties. We have made plain our dissatisfaction with the Government's approach to nuclear non-proliferation and their non-approach to a comprehensive test ban treaty. Those issues were raised by my hon. Friends with whom I am not in absolute concurrence on other matters—my hon Friends the Members for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). In particular, we view the Government's refusal to limit the nuclear capacity of the new Trident system to that of Polaris as a serious impediment to international progress.
    Our most serious differences with the Government lie in the topics that are central to today's debate—the reformation of military thinking, the restructuring of the armed forces and the reformulation of strategic purpose. Like others who have spoken in the debate—it was even hinted at by the ex-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater—we do not believe the Government when they imply that there will be no further changes to our armed forces. No one believes that, excēpt possibly the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson), who in a naive speech tonight—[Interruption.] It is in the eye of the beholder. I thought that it was a naive speech because he seemed to think that the status quo would prevail indefinitely as far as our armed forces are concerned.
    There will be change in our armed forces. There may be cuts and there certainly will be a reallocation of resources, irrespective of which Government are in power and it does no one any justice to deny that it will happen. The real question is whether that change will be managed, coherent and in pursuit of a strategic objective, or whether it will be the way that it has been for the past three years—incoherent with no strategic objective, piecemeal and unfair. That is why the Secretary of State, who is not only a lawyer but a Scottish lawyer, chose his words carefully yesterday. When asked directly whether there would be any further cuts, he said that he did not contemplate any further cuts. He did not quite add, "at the present time", but it was implicit in what he said.
    We can all be reassured that the Secretary of State does not contemplate any further cuts. Of course, he did not contemplate a freeze in child benefit; he did not contemplate VAT on fuel; he did not contemplate the biggest tax rise in British history—but they happened, so let us be warned.
    232
    Every time a Minister denies anything, listen carefully and in the background we can hear a chorus of cocks crowing. No denial from a Minister can be taken seriously, especially when we live in a changing world. After all, it is barely three months since the right hon. and learned Gentleman announced the third round of defence cuts in as many years. As with the previous cuts under "Options for Change" and "Defending our Future", the proposals contained in the defence costs study take the form not of a coherent and internally consistent package of reforms designed to serve an identifiable strategic purpose, but of a series of piecemeal budgetary measures and decisions foisted on Defence Ministers by their colleagues at the Treasury.
    The Government's defence, as it was tonight with the Secretary of State, is to attack Labour party policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Right."] Conservative Members may say that, but it is an attack based not on strength, but on weakness. I must tell them that every time I hear the Secretary of State attack Labour party policy, it reminds me of the famous telegram sent by Marshall Foch at the battle of the Marne to Marshall Joffre, which read:
    "Hard pressed on my right—my centre is yielding—impossible to manoeuvre—situation excellent—I shall attack."
    That comes to mind every time I hear the Secretary of State—
    Mr. Rifkind: They won the war.
    Dr. Reid: It is obvious that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not a military historian. It is no thanks to Marshall Foch that we won the war. The expression, "lions led by donkeys" springs to mind—not in relation to the Secretary of State, of course, but Marshall Foch.
    The reality is that the biggest squeeze of all is to come. I warn Conservative Back Benchers not to say that we did not tell them. Honest John is putting it on the line for them. Budget predictions produced last year by Ron Smith, a professor of applied economics at Birkbeck college—not, as far as I know, a member of the Socialist Workers party—reveal the extent of the funding gap that already exists, whoever comes to power in two years' time.
    Let us assume that the defence budget falls to 2.9 per cent. of gross domestic product at the end of the century—the exact figure in the Government's projections. Let us assume low inflation and sustained economic growth. Those are all perfectly reasonable assumptions. Let us also assume that the procurement budget is sustained at about its current level. Even then, force levels will have to be reduced to 200,000 in order to balance the books.
    For the benefit of Conservative Members, I shall tell them now what I told them three years ago—that there was a 27 per cent. real cut. They did not believe it then, but it is now accepted by the Government. That meant a further cut of 32,900 members of the armed forces, or 14 per cent. over and above the present cuts. In other words, between 1985 and the year 2000, the Government—in whose hands we all know defence is safe—will have cut 40 per cent. in real terms from the defence budget. That is not a conference decision with 55 per cent. or 30 per cent. That is not a theoretical proposition of delegates to a party that is in opposition. That is the reality of a Government in power. A 40 per cent. cut is staring Conservative Back Benchers in the face.
    The Secretary of State, who has become the master of illusion with figures, the Paul Daniels of Parliament, producing policies designed on paper, an impressive order

    233
    of battle, must admit that the Government have failed to provide the necessary training, equipment and logistic support out of the present budget.
    Mr. Bill Walker: If the Government decide somehow to find the money to offset what the hon. Gentleman is claiming, will the Labour party support that?
    Dr. Reid: If the Government can find the money to offset what is coming, I shall make a promise to the hon. Gentleman. I shall have to find only two other miracles to call for the canonisation of the Secretary of State. We do not need to look in the crystal ball; we can read the book—the report published by the Defence Select Committee, chaired by a Conservative Member, on the implications of the lessons learnt from Operation Granby.
    The Government took us into a war with two armoured divisions. When they decided to send one armoured division to the Gulf, 77 per cent. of our Challenger tanks were not operational. Again, for the benefit of those who cannot deal with arithmetic, that means that 23 per cent. of our tanks were operational. The Lada has more operational success than the British first armoured division did under the Government. Yet Conservative Members criticise Labour party policy.
    When we look at the explanations given by assistants at the Ministry of Defence in defence of their masters, the situation is not alleviated but made worse. The deputy under-secretary, Mr. Roger Jackling, when asked about the inability to produce soldiers and armoured divisions in the field, said that
    "in the former strategic circumstances, what you actually had in the shop window as part of your deterrent posture was of paramount importance. You did not expect to have to use it."
    I hope that no one told the Russians. In a further illuminating sentence, he added:
    "We are now discovering in the new strategic circumstances that perhaps what constitutes your front line is more likely to be called upon to engage in conflict".
    There we have it. Under the expert guidance of the Secretary of State for Defence and his predecessor, we have discovered that the Ministry of Defence, 160 years after Clausewitz, has discovered that, in times of conflict, the front line is likely to be called into a fight.
    Secondly, with a terrible irony, the Secretary of State, who declared last year that he did not want paper tiger forces, is now branded by his own staff as being part of a Government who, for 15 years, presided over shop window forces. No wonder there is silence on the Conservative Back Benches. That is how far the Conservatives have gone.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Reid: I cannot resist the temptation.
    Mr. Robinson: In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, will he give us a hint of what the terms of reference for the defence review proposed in the Opposition's amendment would be?
    Dr. Reid: I have only two and half minutes left. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we envisage a defence review that will not be limited exclusively to the Ministry of Defence. It will take into account foreign affairs. I hope that the Prime Minister's office would be involved and I hope that it would be wide enough to weigh cost benefits, not purely within the
    234
    MOD budget, but the benefits that we get from our position within the United Nations as a result of having a defence force that is capable of playing a role in the United Nations. That is a very general statement in the time available to me, but it is a mile ahead of anything that has been produced by the Government.
    Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Reid: I must make some progress because the Minister wants to speak.
    The Government demonstrate that they have little appreciation of the extensive and complex processes that are required to produce our front-line military capabilities. They have no coherent industrial or defence policy. More than 100,000 employees in the defence sector have been made redundant in the past four years as strategically vital parts of our manufacturing base have been allowed to disappear. The Government are complacent about our ability to transport our armed forces out of area, a point that was made by several Conservative Members.
    Above all, the Government are now bent—they are driven by dogma—on a policy of privatising the armed forces. We did not believe that they would do it in respect of the prisons—they have already done it—and they are now doing it in respect of the armed forces. We are not saying that efficiency should not be involved—we are not saying that some services cannot be privatised—but the Government are pushed by dogma and taking it to extremes.
    It might be unfair, but we are always left with the impression that the dream scenario for the Government would be the British Army marching into battle, fed by Forte, serviced by Kwik-Fit, stirred by the strains of the London symphony orchestra, and having the solid reassurance that their flank would be guarded by Group 4. That is the Government's attitude. They have followed that dogma through to its illogical conclusion, firm in the belief that the hidden hand of the market will spontaneously cater for the requirements of Britain's national security. It will not.
    Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Dr. Reid: No. I am sorry, but I am at my final conclusion. It is unfair to the Minister to give way, and I have been unfair enough to him tonight.
    Echoing the Secretary of State for Defence, the Prime Minister assured the nation last week that
    "the big upheavals in our armed forces are over."
    Sadly, in time, I believe that that will prove to have been little more than another empty Tory promise.
    The Conservatives have learnt nothing from the reverses that they have had in the polls. I do not want to upset my leader, who would rightfully claim the major advances that he has made in law and order, but, in due modesty, we must point out that the Conservative party which, four years ago, was 42 per cent. ahead in the polls on defence, was 10 per cent. behind last week. I hope that that gives some comfort to hon. Members.
    The right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) referred to a report entitled "Arms for Oblivion", which was published by the Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies. He did not, out of sympathy for his Front-Bench colleagues, mention its conclusion, which was brought to my attention during the debate. In attempts of honesty and objectivity, my hon. and learned Friend the

    235
    Member for Fife, North-East, who is sitting on the Liberal Benches, and I would like to draw attention to the conclusion of that report. It states:
    "Far from being able to claim that 'defence is safe in our hands' the Conservatives must hope that defence will not be an issue at the next election."
    They can hope, but it will, and we shall win that debate and the next election.
    9.37 pm
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Roger Freeman): Opposition Members will not win that defence debate and they will not win the next election.
    I have listened to a very entertaining, witty and, at the beginning, courteous contribution, and I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), but I shall seek to answer the many points that have been raised.
    The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who is not in his place—
    Mr. Martlew: Yes, he is.
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman raised allegations in connection with Mark Thatcher. I shall certainly look at the documents that the hon. Gentleman has passed over tonight and he will receive a considered response. However, as for the comments that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have made, I make it quite plain that the transaction between Her Majesty's Government and Saudi Arabia was on a Government-to-Government basis in which no commissions were paid, and no agents or any middlemen were involved. I will look at the documents and write to the hon. Gentleman.
    The Select Committee report, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) referred, and which is the background of the debate, rightly started, on its front page, by affirming the need for NATO. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that NATO is the bedrock of our defence policy. It has been successful; we have deterred the Soviet Union; we have won the cold war. That is the reason for the significant reduction in our armed forces following "Options for Change". Now the threat has moved to the south and the east, but that does not invalidate our membership of NATO. As I have said, it is the bedrock.
    Our alliances with European countries are important, but we must never forget our association with the United States, our reliance on it—in part—and our close friendship with a country that still maintains 100,000 troops in western Europe.
    The defence costs study, which the debate has largely concerned, relates to support for the front line. It is logical that that should follow on from "Options For Change". It has represented the pulling together of a great number of initiatives started in the Ministry of Defence and it is perfectly sensible for us to aim for £750 million of savings in 1996–97.
    Let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, who chairs the Select Committee and raised the point in its excellent report, that we will achieve those savings. We have many dozens of proposals, some out for consultation and some still to come. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), who
    236
    is not yet in his place, let me say that if we achieve the target—I feel confident that we shall—the benefits will come back to the armed forces. It is wholly appropriate that their efforts should be reflected not only in better capability on the front line, but in better equipment.
    I should make it plain to my hon. Friends the Members for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes)—and to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who spoke yesterday—that if and when we are able to withdraw troops from Northern Ireland, which Northern Ireland Members know will be no easy task, the size of our armed forces will not be affected. Any benefits will come not in redundancies, but in a partial reduction of the overstretch that has been mentioned; my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made that clear.
    Let me reply to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) by saying that the Prime Minister spoke in an illustrative fashion when he talked about Semtex. I can confirm that he meant that we want Semtex and all other weapons to be laid down by the terrorists before progress can be made, as I am sure all hon. Members would wish it to be.
    Many hon. Members on both sides of the House mentioned problems with the defence costs study. The study is not an annual round; it has been a special exercise. I have already referred to our £750 million target. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), and indeed the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, alluded in passing to the expected receipts from the sale of married quarters—approximately £500 million in 1995-96. I confirm that we intend to proceed with that programme, while refining and improving it. It is a unique and difficult transaction, but we are determined to bring it to fruition; otherwise the defence budget would be affected, and we are determined that that should not happen.
    In connection with the defence costs study, let me say in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce)—who expressed his concern about Portland with great force and courtesy—that I have visited Portland in the last two weeks. I should tell my hon. Friend, and other Conservative Members who have expressed concern, that the consultation exercise continues, although it has been formally completed in part. It will be fair and open, and will continue until Ministers reach a decision.
    I invite all hon. Members who have raised concerns about the defence costs study to raise them in person, either with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces or with me. We share responsibility, and I do not regard anything as foreclosed. We want to ensure that savings are yielded to the defence budget, but yielded in a sensible fashion.
    The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) raised the specific issue of Pendine. I confirm to him that we have concluded that we need to rethink the proposals. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly fair; he raised legitimate concerns about the way in which the financial calculations had been done. He was fair enough to say that his group would guarantee those savings, but he asked us to look at the matter in a different fashion which might permit the continuation of the Pendine range in view of the cost of re-provision of the test tracks elsewhere. I accept the force of his argument and I confirm that I will be in touch with

    237
    him in due course. That is an example of an intelligent response to the case made by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), together with the trade unions, in a fair and convincing fashion. We will listen where it is appropriate and where a change of approach is required by the facts.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme, who is not here at present but will read my remarks in the record, asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State yesterday what specific enhancements would result from the defence costs study. We made commitments about the front line. It is not possible to be precise, but it is our belief that savings of about £100 million a year can be ploughed back into augmenting the front line.
    In July my right hon. and learned Friend announced a range of measures which will improve front-line capability. The key to the defence costs study is, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, that we will retain our capability. My right hon. and learned Friend has gone further and said that we will not have a series of annual defence mini-reviews. We are not going to cut. There are no further proposals for reductions in regiments, aircraft or ships. Therefore, I can assure the Select Committee that we are now into a period of stability.
    Of course, there are several years yet to run in which the original proposals in "Options for Change" and the defence costs study will work themselves out. I cannot deny that. The hon. Member for Motherwell, North was right when he said that there had been significant cuts and that there were still more to come. However, the important point is that we have no further announcements to make. What you see is what you will get. That will bring stability and an improvement in morale to the armed forces.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) was helpful when he referred to the need continually to improve efficiency in the armed forces. May I report that in the year ended 1 October 1995—the year that we are just starting for testing—we expect £334 million-worth of support activity to be tested. That represents a 50 per cent. improvement on the past year. Market testing in the Royal Air Force was raised with me by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) announced last year the formal three-year review of the RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency. Since then, and following consultation, we have announced the decision to rationalise the RAF storage facilities.
    Since my appointment I have visited both RAF Sealand and RAF St. Athan. I can now outline briefly the way ahead for both stations. We intend to press ahead now with a vigorous market-testing programme at the two stations to achieve best value for money through competition and the involvement of the private sector as soon as possible. That will be within the framework of Government ownership. However, within that framework, industry will be fully consulted and will be able to make innovative proposals for the maintenance and repair of RAF equipment. Proposals could include partnership—the private sector in partnership with the existing work force—and Government-owned contractor-operated stations.
    238
    I was greatly impressed by the work force at both RAF Sealand and RAF St. Athan and commend their dedication. I do not rule out in-house bids. Both trade unions and work force will be fully consulted.
    May I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who paid tribute to the Royal Air Force and stressed the importance, within a contracting service—the numbers are reducing dramatically—but one with better equipment, of the need to maintain morale?
    Mr. Wilkinson: What authority or disciplinary powers will officers in the Royal Air Force have over contractors responsible for the maintenance of RAF equipment? That is of the greatest importance in engendering confidence in the contracting-out process.
    Mr. Freeman: I can assure my hon. Friend that when a regrettable incident took place involving one private sector contractor at St. Athan the contractor was promptly and correctly removed. That experience does not invalidate the market-testing exercise because it was part of the normal process of contracting out certain work. At St. Athan—the major RAF air base—the RAF in—house team won the bid on the 25 Fatigue Index project involved in the repair of the Tornado F3 fighter aircraft and I congratulate them. That is a sign that in-house bids can and do win.
    On value for money in procurement, the Eurofighter 2000 and the EH101 support helicopter were mentioned by a number of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. The key point is that, although we have a commitment to the Eurofighter 2000 programme and we need fresh support helicopters for the Royal Air Force, that need will not be fulfilled at any price. We are determined about that and I hope that this message will be heard clearly by the manufacturers. We will negotiate with them in good faith, but the project must represent good value for the defence vote. That is not an excuse for delay as we need to make progress. The House wants to hear of a conclusion to our consideration of both projects and it will get it.
    As for a Hercules replacement—many of my hon. Friends raised the matter—the report of the Defence Select Committee—
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Freeman: May I make my point, then I shall give way briefly for the last time?
    The Defence Select Committee report put the issue clearly and I agree with it. The Committee said that the aircraft, which are nearly 30 years old, are experiencing increasing maintenance and decreasing viability. That is plain fact and, therefore, I have to do something. I must make a recommendation about action to my Secretary of State soon—whether this month, the next or early next year remains to be seen. I cannot avoid doing something, but that something is not buying the future

    239
    large aircraft because it is probably 10 years hence. I hope that that project makes excellent progress and I wish it well as a commercial project.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Freeman: No. I must finish my point. The issue before us is whether half the fleet, say, should be refurbished to push on its life for another 10, 15 or 20 years, or whether we should order the only possible aircraft—the C130J—now. That is the issue. It is not a matter of whether we should compare the C130J with the future large aircraft, but of ensuring that the military need of the Royal Air Force is met. We will try to reach that conclusion as quickly as possible. I wish the FLA project all godspeed. I think that we all want a European project and a European design for an aircraft—it is still many years in the future—that can compete and we in the Ministry of Defence will certainly be glad to consider the aircraft, but at the moment it is only a concept.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have heard a great deal about the future large aircraft during this debate, mainly from members of the official Opposition? Does he agree that we do not yet have reliable estimates, not merely of development costs but of the procurement costs? Does he also agree that the Hercules replacement programme should be placed on a value-for-money basis and, above all, on the requirements of the RAF? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that that would secure an excellent opportunity for aerospace firms in my constituency and elsewhere within British industry, both now and in the short and long term?
    Mr. Freeman: My right hon. and learned Friend will have heard my hon. Friend, and when we come to make the decision the speeches from Members on both sides of the House will be taken into account.
    In drawing to a conclusion, I shall first refer to the arguments from both sides of the House regarding ballistic missile defence. That is an extremely important subject on which the Government intend to spend not only time but resources in developing. We are not going to go it alone in developing a response to ballistic missile threats in western Europe. We will co-operate with the United States and with our colleagues in Europe, but I am glad to announce that we have placed a contract with British Aerospace for a pre-feasibility study to look at some of the options which are available to us.
    When I was in Washington recently I was able to confirm with the Deputy Secretary of Defence, Dr John Deutch, that we would make a contribution from our own resources—albeit a modest one at this stage—towards some of the technology demonstrators, particularly in the fields of radar and surveillance.
    On Trident, I say in response to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that I have seen the report from the Health and Safety Executive concerning safety at Aldermaston. I commend what Hunting-BRAE has achieved and the plans for additional works at Aldermaston, but the Government
    240
    accept in principle the argument that we should license Aldermaston and Burghfield, subject to discussions about timing and implementation.
    Mr. David Rendel rose—
    Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have only three minutes left.
    On testing and the chemical weapons convention, the Government will ratify the convention as soon as possible.
    Finally, I turn to the two Opposition amendments on the Order Paper. First, there is the official Opposition amendment, which calls for a defence review. Which commitments do the Opposition wish to eliminate? [Interruption.] The Opposition had ample time to consider which commitments the Government should reduce. What is the right size of the defence budget? The Opposition have no arguments. They have complained about £750 million of savings in the defence costs study, but, having complained, they have no arguments about how to fund the increase in the defence budget which would occur if those savings had not been made.
    Again, on the defence diversification agency, the Opposition have no arguments about the cost of that initiative. So the official Opposition amendment simply calls for a defence review and contains no policy arguments whatsoever.
    The other motion on the Order Paper—which we will not have the pleasure of voting on-has been signed by 45 Opposition Members. The motion was carried by the Labour party conference and calls for the elimination of Trident—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Motherwell, North protests, but 45 of his hon. Friends signed the motion. The hon. Gentleman cannot sweep that underneath the table. Forty-five of his colleagues want to scrap Trident and cut the defence budget. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I can count. The hon. Members should look at the early-day motion at the back of the Order Paper.
    In arguing the unilateralist case, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) said that he wanted defence cuts of £8.5 billion. That would mean cutting the Royal Navy, scrapping our nuclear deterrent and making many cuts in the defence budget. We would have to leave Germany and reduce our—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) may laugh, but where would he make £8.5 billion worth of cuts?
    As a result of our policy, we are now in for a period of stability and major enhancements in our defence capability. We have the right balance between commitments, forces and finance. The Opposition remain divided; they are either unilateralists or a vacuum for a defence policy. If they fight the next election on that basis, they will lose the issue. Oppose the Opposition amendment.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 304.

    Division No. 304]

    [21.59 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Ainger, Nick

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Denham, John

    Allen, Graham

    Dewar, Donald

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Dixon, Don

    Anderson, Ms Janet

    Dobson, Frank

    (Ros'dale)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Dowd, Jim

    Ashdown, Rt. Hon. Paddy

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Ashton, Joe

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Austin-Walker, John

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Eastham, Ken

    Barnes, Harry

    Enright, Derek

    Barron, Kevin

    Etherington, Bill

    Battle, John

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Fatchett, Derek

    Bell, Stuart

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Fisher, Mark

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Flynn, Paul

    Benton, Joe

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Berry, Roger

    Foulkes, George

    Betts, Clive

    Fraser, John

    Blair, Tony

    Fyfe, Maria

    Blunkett, David

    Galloway, George

    Boateng, Paul

    Gapes, Mike

    Boyes, Roland

    Garrett, John

    Bradley, Keith

    George, Bruce

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Gerrard, Neil

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

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Burden, Richard

    Godsiff, Roger

    Byers, Stephen

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Caborn, Richard

    Graham, Thomas

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N

    Grocott Bruce

    Canavan, Dennis

    Gunnell, John

    Cann, Jamie

    Hain, Peter

    Chidgey, David

    Hall, Mike

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hanson, David

    Church, Judith

    Hardy, Peter

    Clapham, Michael

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Henderson, Doug

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Heppell, John

    Clelland, David

    Hicks, Robert

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Coffey, Ann

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cohen, Harry

    Hodge, Margaret

    Cook Frank (Stockton N)

    Hoey, Kate

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Hogg, Norman(Cumbernauld)

    Corbett, Robin

    Home Robertson, John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hood, Jimmy

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Cousins, Jim

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Darling, Alistair

    Hutton, John

    Davidson, Ian

    Ingram, Adam

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld,H)

    242

    Janner, Greville

    Pope, Greg

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Purchase, Ken

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Jowell, Tessa

    Radice, Giles

    Keen, Alan

    Randall, Stuart

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Redmond, Martin

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Reid, Dr John

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Rendel, David

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Lewis, Terry

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Litherland, Robert

    Rogers, Allan

    Livingstone, Ken

    Rooker, Jeff

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Rooney, Terry

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Rowlands, Ted

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Ruddock, Joan

    Macdonald, Calum

    Salmond, Alex

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Sheerman, Barry

    MacShane, Denis

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Madden, Max

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Short, Clare

    Mahon, Alice

    Simpson, Alan

    Mandelson, Peter

    Skinner, Dennis

    Marek, Dr John

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Snape, Peter

    Martlew, Eric

    Soley, Clive

    McAllion, John

    Spearing, Nigel

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Spellar, John

    McFall, John

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    McKelvey, William

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    McLeish, Henry

    Stevenson, George

    McMaster, Gordon

    Stott, Roger

    McNamara, Kevin

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    McWilliam, John

    Straw, Jack

    Meacher, Michael

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Meale, Alan

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Michael, Alun

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Timms, Stephen

    Milburn, Alan

    Tipping, Paddy

    Miller, Andrew

    Turner, Dennis

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Tyler, Paul

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Vaz, Keith

    Morley, Elliot

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Wallace, James

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Walley, Joan

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Wareing, Robert N

    Mudie, George

    Watson, Mike

    Mullin, Chris

    Welsh, Andrew

    Murphy, Paul

    Wicks, Malcolm

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    O'Brien, William (Normanton

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Williams Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Wilson, Brian

    Olner, William

    Winnick, David

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Wise, Audrey

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Worthington, Tony

    Parry, Robert

    Wray, Jimmy

    Patchett, Terry

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Pendry, Tom

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Pickthall, Colin

    Mr. Eric Illsley, and

    Pike, Peter L.

    Mr. John Cummings

    243

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Aitken, Rt. Hon. Jonathan

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Alexander, Richard

    Dover, Den

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Duncan, Alan

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Amess, David

    Dunn, Bob

    Arbuthnot, James

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Eggar, Tim

    Ashby, David

    Elletson, Harold

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Atkins, Robert

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Evennett, David

    Baldry, Tony

    Faber, David

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Bates, Michael

    Forman, Nigel

    Batiste, Spencer

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Beggs, Roy

    Forth, Eric

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Body, Sir Richard

    French, Douglas

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Booth, Hartley

    Gale, Roger

    Boswell, Tim

    Gallie, Phil

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Garnier, Edward

    Bowis, John

    Gill, Christopher

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Brazier, Julian

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Brown, M. (Brigg" Cl'thorpes)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Burns, Simon

    Hague, William

    Burt, Alistair

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Butcher, John

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Butler, Peter

    Hanley, Rt. Hon. Jeremy

    Butterfill, John

    Hannam, Sir John

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Harris, David

    Carrington, Matthew

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hawkins, Nicholas

    Cash, William

    Hayes, Jerry

    Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

    Heald, Oliver

    Churchill, Mr

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Clappison, James

    Hendry, Charles

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Horam, John

    Colvin, Michael

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Congdon, David

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Conway, Derek

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

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Couchman, James

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Cran, James

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

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

    Hunter, Andrew

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Jack, Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Day, Stephen

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Dicks, Terry

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    244

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Key, Robert

    Richards, Rod

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Riddick, Graham

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Robathan, Andrew

    Knapman, Roger

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

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

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Knight Greg (Derby N)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Knox, Sir David

    Rowe, Andrew (mid Kent)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Sackville, Tom

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Legg, Barry

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Leigh, Edward

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Lidington, David

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lightbown, David

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Shersby, Michael

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Sims, Roger

    Lord, Michael

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Luff, Peter

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Soames, Nicholas

    MacKay, Andrew

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Maclean, David

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Madel, Sir David

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Maginnis, Ken

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Malone, Gerald

    Spring, Richard

    Mans, Keith

    Sproat, Iain

    Marland, Paul

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Steen, Anthony

    Mates, Michael

    Stephen, Michael

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Stern, Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stewart, Allan

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Streeter, Gary

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Sumberg, David

    Merchant, Piers

    Sweeney, Walter

    Mills, Iain

    Sykes, John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Moss, Malcolm

    Thomason, Roy

    Nelson, Anthony

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Thurnham, Peter

    Nicholls, Patrick

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

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Tracey, Richard

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West

    Tredinnick, David

    Norris, Steve

    Trend, Michael

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Trotter, Neville

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Ottaway, Richard

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Page, Richard

    Viggers, Peter

    Paice, James

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Walden, George

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Patten, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Waller, Gary

    Pawsey, James

    Ward, John

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Pickles, Eric

    Waterson Nigel

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Watts, John

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Wells, Bowen

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Whitney, Ray

    Whittingdale,John

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    245

    Wilkinson, John

    Yeo, Tim

    Willetts, David

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Wilshire, David

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Mr Sydney Chapman and

    Wolfson, Mark

    Mr Timothy Wood

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Main Question put—
    The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 32.

    Division No. 305]

    [22.17 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Clappison, James

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Alexander, Richard

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Amess, David

    Colvin, Michael

    Arbuthnot, James

    Congdon, David

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Conway, Derek

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Ashby, David

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Cormack, Patrick

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Couchman, James

    Atkins, Robert

    Cran, James

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

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

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Day, Stephen

    Baldry, Tony

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Dicks, Terry

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bates, Michael

    Dover, Den

    Batiste, Spencer

    Duncan, Alan

    Beggs, Roy

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Dunn, Bob

    Bellingham, Henry

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Bendall, Vivian

    Dykes, Hugh

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Eggar, Tim

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Elletson, Harold

    Body, Sir Richard

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Booth, Hartley

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Boswell, Tim

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Evennett, David

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Faber, David

    Bowis, John

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Forman, Nigel

    Brazier, Julian

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Bright, Graham

    Forth, Eric

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Brown, M. (Brigg " Cl'thorpes)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Budgen, Nicholas

    French, Douglas

    Burns, Simon

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Burt, Alistair

    Gale, Roger

    Butcher, John

    Gallie, Phil

    Butler, Peter

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Butterfill, John

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Garnier, Edward

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Gill, Christopher

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Carrington, Matthew

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Carttiss, Michael

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Cash, William

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Chidgey, David

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Churchill, Mr

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    246

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Hague, William

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Merchant, Piers

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Mills, Iain

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Harris, David

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Harvey, Nick

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Hawkins, Nick

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hayes, Jerry

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Heald, Oliver

    Moss, Malcolm

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hendry, Charles

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Horam, John

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Norris, Steve

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

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

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Page, Richard

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Paice, James

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hunter, Andrew

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Jack, Michael

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Pawsey, James

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Pickles, Eric

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rathbone, Tim

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Key, Robert

    Rendel, David

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Richards, Rod

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Riddick, Graham

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Knapman, Roger

    Robathan, Andrew

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

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Knox, Sir David

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Legg, Barry

    Sackville, Tom

    Leigh, Edward

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lidington, David

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Lightbown, David

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Shersby, Michael

    Lord, Michael

    Sims, Roger

    Luff, Peter

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Soames, Nicholas

    MacKay, Andrew

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Maclean, David

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Madel, Sir David

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Maginnis, Ken

    Spring, Richard

    Malone, Gerald

    Sproat, Iain

    Mans, Keith

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Marland, Paul

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Steen, Anthony

    Mates, Michael

    Stephen, Michael

    247

    Stern, Michael

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Stewart, Allan

    Walden, George

    Streeter, Gary

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Sumberg, David

    Wallace, James

    Sweeney, Walter

    Waller, Gary

    Sykes, John

    Ward, John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Watts, John

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Wells, Bowen

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Whitney, Ray

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Whittingdale, John

    Thomason, Roy

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Wilkinson, John

    Thurnham, Peter

    Willetts, David

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

    Wilshire, David

    Tracey, Richard

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Tredinnick, David

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Trend, Michael

    Wolfson, Mark

    Trotter, Neville

    Yeo, Tim

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Tyler, Paul

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Mr. Timothy Wood and

    Viggers, Peter

    Mr. Sydney Chapman

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Austin-Walker, John

    Loyden, Eddie

    Barnes, Harry

    Madden, Max

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Mahon, Alice

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Mullin, Chris

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Pickthall, Colin

    Clapham, Michael

    Salmond, Alex

    Cohen, Harry

    Skinner, Dennis

    Dafis, Cynog

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Devlin, Tim

    Timms, Stephen

    Etherington, Bill

    Welsh, Andrew

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Gerrard, Neil

    Wise, Audrey

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lewis, Terry

    Mr. Alan Simpson and

    Livingstone, Ken

    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994 contained in Cm. 2550.

  LAW OF PROPERTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  10.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other enactment, and

  (b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums to be paid into that Fund under any other enactment.

  248
  It is a pleasure to be associated with the fast tracking of the Law Commission proposals.
  10.31 pm
  Mr. Paul Boateng: This is a modest and uncontroversial proposal and we intend to give it a fair wind. The thanks of the whole House are due to Lord Brightman for the manner in which he dealt with the matter in the other place and got the Bill into its present shape. We hope that the Government will enable some 36 other matters in all of which the Law Commission is eagerly awaiting the disposal to be proceeded with in a similar fashion in order that the backlog of law reform and the concerns expressed by the President of the Law Commission, Mr. Justice Brooke, can be dealt with adequately. With that, we wish the measure well.
  Question put and agreed to.

  BROADCASTING
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Robert G. Hughes be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Stephen Dorrell be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Sir George Young be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  Local Government, Bedfordshire
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  10.32 pm
  Sir David Madel: I am grateful for the opportunity to have a short debate on the future of local government in Bedfordshire. May I first welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) to the Front Bench. This is his first innings there. We in Bedfordshire are delighted at his promotion. Who better to answer the problems of local government in Bedfordshire than an adjacent Member? The people in Bedfordshire and I will listen closely to what he has to say.
  May I start by saying that the Local Government Commission's preferred option for the future of local government in Bedfordshire is a north-south split, which is extremely unpopular among my constituents.
  The Dunstable Gazette of 5 October drew attention to an independent poll carried out on the matter which said that the people of Dunstable and the surrounding area
  "voted overwhelmingly against the setting up of a 'Super Luton' council"
  which would be part of a north-south split.
  Bedfordshire county council—obviously an interested party in these matters—said in a press release of September 30 in relation to the poll:
  "This must send a clear signal to the Commission that the residents"—
  of Dunstable and the surrounding area—
  "do not want to be in the same authority as Luton."
  I have had a very large number of letters and discussions during the long recess, not only from people in South Bedfordshire who do not want to be merged with Luton, but from people from Mid Bedfordshire who do not want to be merged with Bedford.
  I have also received a considerable number of representations from companies, particularly small and medium-sized businesses where the management tend to live locally. Those letters and the discussions I have had express extreme hostility towards a merger with Luton and it is impossible to believe that people would feel comfortable with a South Bedfordshire-Luton merger.
  One strong objection to the north-south split is that southern Bedfordshire would have lack of balance, with 48 councillors to 32 for the whole of the rest of the area. Luton's interest with 48 would predominate.
  In central Bedfordshire, the balance would be much fairer, with Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard about the same size, with a reasonable balance between South and Mid Bedfordshire towns and with rural areas reasonably balanced against urban areas.
  Education reform is clearly of the greatest importance in local government reform. Luton, as a result of its former county borough status, has a different system from the rest of the county for its schools. Although it has proved possible to run the two systems in an area the size of Bedfordshire, it would not be practical to do so in an area the size of the proposed new authority-that is, Southern Bedfordshire. Either Luton or South Bedfordshire would have to change and the considerable cost of that should be taken into account.
  250
  There are strong links between Mid and South Bedfordshire now, with Mid Bedfordshire children attending schools in Leighton Linslade and South Bedfordshire children attending Harlington upper school in Mid Bedfordshire. Because of the different school entry ages, there are very few links between South Bedfordshire parents and Luton schools.
  I note the commission's suggestion that Luton should not be cut off from its hinterland, but it always has been—first as a county borough and later because most planning decisions are a matter for district councils, rather than county councils. In any case, as most of the available undeveloped land in South Bedfordshire is green belt, it is difficult to see how Luton could expand in that direction. Any attempt to make major changes in the green belt would cause enormous protests. Indeed, even minor changes in recent years have been highly controversial.
  On the question of housing, it is doubtful whether South Bedfordshire has enough available land to meet its own needs. There has been very rapid development in recent times, especially in Houghton Regis and Leighton Linslade, and there is considerable demand for housing from the children of those who moved into South Bedfordshire who are now grown up and getting married. We really could not accommodate Luton's needs as well.
  It is simply not true to say that South Bedfordshire looks to Luton for its transport needs. Leighton Buzzard has its own station and many people from the rest of the area prefer to use that rather than Luton—a tendency which is growing since the construction of the Leighton Buzzard bypass, which makes it quicker to get to Leighton Buzzard from Dunstable. Others use stations such as Harlington and Flitwick in Mid Bedfordshire or stations in Hertfordshire.
  Traffic problems, too, show little in common between South Bedfordshire and Luton, but considerable connections with Mid Bedfordshire. The question whether Dunstable should have an A5 bypass is really of very little concern to Luton. The problems of heavy traffic going through Woburn in Mid Bedfordshire and Toddington in South Bedfordshire are almost identical and need a common solution if one can be found.
  In the local government report on the north-south split proposal, there is considerable comment on Dunstable and Houghton Regis, but very little on Leighton Linslade, which I find quite amazing. Leighton Linslade and Dunstable are of similar size. The people of Leighton Linslade really have nothing in common with Luton. There is no common employment base; shopping outside the town tends to be done in Milton Keynes; Leighton Linslade people have their own railway station and they use Buckinghamshire hospitals. I suspect that many people who live in Leighton Linslade practically never go to Luton at all. There is also nothing in common between Luton and the villages. On the other hand, there are considerable links between South and Mid Bedfordshire through the various farming organisations.
  It is traditional to consider Dunstable, Houghton Regis and Luton as linked industrially, but many of those links no longer exist. I note the commission's reference to the Bishop of Wolverhampton's report in 1988, but much has changed since then. General Motors is, alas, no longer a major employer in Dunstable, with the Bedford Trucks plant first sold off and then collapsing. Now, the component plant of AC Delco has been sold off. General Motors still has land in South Bedfordshire, much of it

  251
  used for storage, but so it does in Mid Bedfordshire with its test track at Millbrook. In any case, the 1988 report referred to links with part of South Bedfordshire, not Leighton Buzzard and most of the villages.
  There is another example of the difference between Luton and Dunstable. We recently had a visit from the chief executive of English Partnership to see how he could help with the problems in Dunstable resulting from the failure of Bedford Trucks. The chief executive immediately identified the major problem of lack of access to the site and the need for the A5 bypass. That has nothing to do with Luton at all.
  There are considerable links between South and Mid Bedfordshire. I have already mentioned schools, rail and roads. The parliamentary constituencies, too, cross the border, with parts of Mid Bedfordshire in my Bedfordshire, South-West seat, and both Mid and South Bedfordshire villages in Luton, North.
  As for where people identify with, I suspect that everyone identifies with their smallest unit, be it town or village, and that identification with Luton or Bedford by their inhabitants is with the town rather than with the local authority.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Perhaps I might suggest to my hon. Friend that in terms of the regeneration of industry within the south of the county, links have occurred on the basis of applications for European grants, and so on. Perhaps in his eyes, on that basis alone, there are advantages for the south of the county being as one. He will know that the South Bedfordshire district council, of which I am also a representative, has put certain initiatives to Luton. On that basis alone, my hon. Friend might think that that could be of great assistance to the southern part of the county.
  Sir David Madel: I am all for co-operation with Luton, as my hon. Friend will know. I am all for talking to Luton, co-operating with Luton and thinking with Luton, but I am utterly opposed to domination by Luton, and there will be domination by Luton if we have a north-south split.
  I conclude with some questions and suggestions. Why was not the status quo suggested by the commission as an option? It is for Hertfordshire, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows. What is sauce for Hertfordshire should be sauce for Bedfordshire, as an adjacent county with many similarities. Why did not the commission consider the status quo, minus Luton, with Luton being a unitary authority, and the rest of the county staying as it is?
  Although my first preference is for three unitary authorities—I make it clear that that is my preference—Bedfordshire minus Luton, that is two unitary authorities, one Luton in its own boundaries and the rest Bedfordshire, is infinitely preferable to a north-south split.
  If the commission is wondering, after three torrid months, how to proceed, let me make a final suggestion to it. I refer it to a speech that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made on 27 February 1993 to the Conservative local government conference. He said:
  "But a structure that lasts will not be one that Whitehall has imposed. It will be one that grows naturally from people's loyalties and local traditions."
  252
  The Prime Minister added:
  "In the 1990s I want to agree a new pattern—one that lasts, in its turn, well into the century to come."
  Let me say straight away that a north-south Bedfordshire split does not grow naturally from people's loyalties and local traditions, and there is no way that a north-south split could last well into the next century.
  The Local Government Commission has some days to consider what I have said and what my hon. Friend the Minister may say before it makes its final recommendation. I say to it this: abandon the north-south split and please come up with something for Bedfordshire that avoids local uproar and is for the benefit of the people of Bedfordshire as a whole.
  10.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel) for initiating the debate and giving me the opportunity to deliver my maiden speech as a Minister. I do so in response to an hon. Friend who, if I may say so, is twice as important as other hon. Friends because he is not only a distinguished Member of the House but a constituent of mine.
  I am also glad to see in their places my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), who has been a tower of strength during my entire time in the House.
  It is thoroughly appropriate that I should speak on this subject not only because I am a neighbouring Member of Parliament but because I was born in the county of Bedfordshire, in the town represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North—a Bedfordshire lad.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: Does my hon. Friend agree that North Bedfordshire cannot agree with Luton on many matters and that that is why we should have the three local councils?
  Mr. Jones: As a Bedfordshire lad, I am well aware of the differences of outlook of the towns throughout the county—of their different traditions, different cultural backgrounds and so on. But I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North says.
  Understandably, my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West has used this opportunity to make clear his own views on the future local government of Bedfordshire, and I have listened very carefully to the points that he has made. I am sure that he will appreciate that it is not open to me to speak with the same freedom at this stage. It would not be right for me to comment on suitable local government structures for the county while the commission is still considering these matters.
  The commission published its draft proposals for Bedfordshire on 17 June. There then followed a period of some two months for local residents and others to make their views known to the commission, which is required to take into account all the representations that it receives during that period as it draws up its final recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State later in the year. The Government play no formal part in the review process until we receive that final

  253
  report. We shall then, of course, consider very carefully the commission's recommendations and the arguments and evidence in support of them.
  As for my hon. Friend's point about the failure of the commission to consult on the status quo, I understand that, in its leaflet for Bedfordshire residents, it explained that it must recommend that there should or should not be change.
  It may, however, be helpful to the House if I restate the principles which underlie the review and which we shall have very much in mind as we decide whether to accept, reject or modify the commission's final recommendations, for Bedfordshire and for all other review areas. I shall also comment briefly on the progress of the review and on some of the implications for local government services and the staff who provide them.
  Mr. John Carlisle: One understands that my hon. Friend cannot refer specifically to Bedfordshire and the Local Government Commission's report at this stage, but perhaps he will indicate that Her Majesty's Government are intent on going ahead with the commission's recommendations, whatever they might be, and that there will be no pulling back at this stage—or, indeed, later—from its excellent recommendations not only in respect of Bedfordshire but for local government throughout the country.
  Mr. Jones: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to consider each proposal on its merits. So far, of course, we have had the opportunity to judge the proposals only in respect of two counties. My hon. Friend must be patient and see what happens in respect of the other counties on which we have had final reports, and he must wait even more patiently in respect of areas where we have not yet had final proposals, such as the county of Bedfordshire.
  After all, the review is not about change for the sake of change. We have not asked the Local Government Commission to draw up a national blueprint for reform or to create a uniform pattern of local authorities. Among other things, we expect it to consider local views and local circumstances, as it is conspicuously doing, and to recommend the most suitable structure for each review area. We shall look at each set of recommendations on its merits, and we shall consider carefully all the arguments that are put to us in each case.
  We believe, of course, that there are strong arguments in favour of unitary authorities. In a unitary authority, the public know who is responsible for the delivery of local services. That clarity of responsibility in turn improves accountability. When services are delivered well, or indeed badly, voters know who in local government is responsible and can express their approval or disapproval clearly through the ballot box. Having a single layer of central support services rather than two can reduce bureaucracy and enable more resources to be concentrated on the front line, and bringing services together under one roof opens possibilities for co-ordinating them in a way which gives consumers a better deal.
  The review is not simply about creating more unitary authorities, however. It is about providing local authorities and local people in each area with a chance to consider the best means of delivering effective and convenient local government which reflects local needs and identities. There is room for diversity, taking into account local preferences, history and tradition.
  254
  Whatever structures the Local Government Commission recommends, they must enable proper provision to be made for all local government functions. We shall be looking at that aspect of the reports very carefully, with colleagues in other Departments. Our advice to the commission on functions is set out in our policy guidance. We have drawn the commission's attention to the fact that strategic, regulatory and enforcement functions will often be promoting the welfare of the wider public; and we have said that special consideration should be given to the maintenance of teams of experts, such as child care workers, and specialist assets such as archives. But we have also reminded the commission that one of the benefits of unitary authorities would be the greater scope for looking at functions in the round, while another would be clearer accountability. Both those benefits would be diluted by statutory joint authorities for specific functions, other than the law-and-order and fire services. We are encouraging authorities to develop voluntary arrangements for dealing with functions; statutory joint authorities would be very much a last resort.
  The cost of change is, of course, an important consideration about which many people are understandably concerned. Local government reorganisation should be worth while and cost-effective over time. We have always accepted that some investment will be needed to secure the benefits of change, but existing local authorities and their successors have a clear responsibility to keep transitional costs to a minimum and do their utmost to realise the full benefits and savings associated with reorganisation. We recognise that there will be a time lag between the incurring of transitional costs and the accrual of savings and receipts, and we are considering proposals to allow authorities to borrow to meet transitional costs pending realisation of those savings and receipts.
  Naturally, there has also been concern among staff who are employed in local authorities that may be affected by reorganisation, and who are consequently uncertain about what the future holds for them. Let me make it clear that we intend to ensure that staff are treated fairly: that is why last year we set up an independent staff commission to look carefully at, and advise us on, the staffing issues that arise from reorganisation. The staff commission has made a series of regional visits to authorities; it has also issued a useful circular, which sets out the rules for deciding which authorities will be transferred automatically to successor authorities by statutory transfer order. The circular also describes the scope for open competition for senior posts, and defines which employees will be eligible for prior-consideration appointment to posts.
  Most staff will, of course, simply transfer to successor councils on existing contractual terms and conditions by means of a statutory transfer order. The staff commission will be advising on the categories of staff who will transfer automatically in that way, but we expect them to include nearly all the operational staff—such as teachers, care workers and housing officers—who provide services directly to the public. As for staff who do not transfer by transfer order, it will be for successor authorities, in consultation with outgoing authorities, to decide whether any of them will nevertheless transfer under existing employment legislation.

  255
  We are also considering the responses to our consultation exercise on the Government's proposals for a redundancy scheme specific to local government. Our proposals seek to set levels of compensation for staff who leave local government employment which are both fair to those individuals and affordable to the taxpayer. The proposals give protection to staff by providing a guaranteed minimum floor of payments, while giving local discretion and flexibility to employing authorities to pay above that up to a specified ceiling.
  As for the progress of the review programme, I am pleased to report that it is still very much on course. We have received the commission's final recommendations on 10 review areas; we have laid—and this House and another place have approved—an order implementing the commission's recommendations for a single unitary authority for the Isle of Wight, where the authorities are now in the process of planning for change. We have also accepted the commission's recommendations for the establishment of four unitary authorities in Cleveland, and we shall shortly be laying an order before the House to implement change there. The commission is undertaking
  256
  further reviews of Gloucestershire, Derbyshire and Durham; we shall announce our decisions on its outstanding final recommendations in due course.
  The commission has now published draft recommendations in respect of the remaining counties under review, including Bedfordshire. As I have explained, it would be wrong for me to say anything at this stage which might give the appearance of prejudging the outcome of those reviews. The public consultation periods on all but four of the areas have now closed, and the commission is drawing up its final recommendations. We look forward to receiving those recommendations by the end of the year.
  Make no mistake: we are firmly committed to structures which meet local needs. Our aim remains to give local people a structure of local government that meets their needs and wishes, and one that can use its resources effectively. I hope that all those with an interest in local government in Bedfordshire, and in the other areas under review, have taken the opportunity to inform the Local Government Commission of their views. We want structures to be based on local consensus, and that can be achieved only if all those involved have taken part in shaping their local government for the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Coastguards
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the last five years the locations of any coastguard stations which have been closed.

  Mr. Norris
  In the last five years the following coastguard rescue centres have been closed: Peterhead in 1989 and Ramsey in 1989.

  A13
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional works would be necessary to accommodate on the Ironbridge spanning the River Lea, on the A13 at Canning Town, the eight traffic lines of the adjacent Canning Town flyover at its slip roads.

  Mr. Norris
  As this is an operational matter for the Highways Agency, I have asked the chief executive of the agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from · Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Nigel Spearing, dated 17 October 1994:
  Steven Norris, the Minister for Transport in London, has asked me to write to you about your question in the House on the Al3 Ironbridge at Canning Town and the additional work which would be necessary for the bridge to accommodate eight lanes.
  The existing bridge is not wide enough to carry eight lanes to current standards. There is no satisfactory way of modifying the existing structure to provide the necessary width. New bridges on each side of the existing structure were, therefore, included in the published proposals for the A13 Ironbridge to Canning Town Improvement and these were examined at the public inquiry in June this year. It is now for the Secretaries of State for the Environment and Transport jointly to decide whether the proposals should proceed.

  Construction Site Security
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provision his Department has made in its 1994–95 budget for increased site security on its construction projects.

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. John Spellar, dated 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 provision made in 1994–95 budgets for increased site security on construction sites.
  We have made no specific provision within the Agency budget for this year for any possible increased security measures that may be necessary at our road construction sites. This of course, does not mean that we fail to recognise that there have been and will continue to be problems arising out of certain actions by anti-road protestors. We accept that some sites may pose difficulties. For instance in the
  174
  case of the proposed Newbury Bypass we advised tenderers that they should allow a provisional sum of £1 million for security precautions when submitting their bids.
  We shall of course advise tenderers of the need for any special security provisions at other sites where we consider this to be necessary.

  Roll-on-roll-off Vessels
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken to review the regulations concerning the adequacy of the attachments between the main hulls and opening bow doors of roll-on-roll off vessels, other than those part of or related to their hinge or lifting mechanisms; and under what current International Maritime Organisation requirements such doors and their fittings are constructed.

  Mr. Norris
  An urgent precautionary examination of the operating, locking and securing mechanism of all bow doors on roll-on-roll-off passenger ferries is being carried out. If that evaluation or any other evidence shows that the requirements are inadequate then a review of the regulations will be undertaken. Regulations 10, 20, and 23–2 of chapter II-1 of the international convention on the safety of life at sea 1974, and regulation 1 of the international convention on load lines 1966, apply to bow doors.

  M25
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take action to ascertain the proportion of private cars moving on the M25, at(a) normal and (b) peak flows where overall costs are met, in whole or in part, by means other than the taxable income of their owners or drivers.

  Mr. Watts
  This information is not available from the Department's travel survey data in the form requested. Relevant statistical information on company assistance with travel is available from both the 1991 London area travel survey and the national travel survey. In both cases, however, information is collected from household surveys and is generally used in the form of percentages of persons or households receiving such assistance.

  The LATS survey results enable the identification of company car trips using the M25 during the course of the trip, but only for cars owned by London residents, who account for a third of car driver trips using the M25. This cannot be converted into proportion of M25 traffic flows. There are no current plans to collect this information.

  Impact Bans
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the research conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory into the effectiveness of side-impact bars in motor vehicles.

  Nr. Norris
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: The Transport Research Laboratory presented papers on its extensive work on side impact at several conferences between 1987 and 1989. None related specifically to side impact bars but a very stiff-sided car was tested and was not found to be the best solution. I will arrange for copies to be sent to the hon. Member.

  Airports
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the Government's policy in respect of maximising the underused capacity of Stansted airport.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: The Government wish to see best use made of Stansted's capacity by airlines able and willing to use the airport. There are substantial traffic rights for flights to and from Stansted, but decisions on which services to provide must be a question for airlines based on their own commercial judgment. The Government recently announced that they were opening up Stansted further to transatlantic flights by United Kingdom and United States airlines to any point in the US.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make available the consultation document entitled "Civil Enclave at RAF Northolt" and other related statements relating to the facilities and possible wider civil use of RAF Northolt to the inspector who is conducting the inquiry into the application by the British Airports Authority for an additional terminal at Heathrow;

  (2) if he will publish the consultation document entitled "Civil Enclave at RAF Northolt";

  (3) to whom the consultation document entitled "Civil Enclave at RAF Northolt" has been circulated and made available.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: The consultation document on a civil enclave at RAF Northolt was circulated to business aviation interests who expressed an interest in use of RAF Northolt, and to business aviation organisations. It was made available to all other interested parties for information and a copy of the document was placed in the House Library. The consultation period ended on 19 August.

  If the inspector at the terminal 5 inquiry considers it relevant, my Department will naturally provide a copy of the consultation document.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) pursuant to his answer of 6 July,Official Report, column 256, if the Minister's letter on the subject to the chief executive of Manchester airport of 14 July was drafted before the parliamentary reply; what representations there have been from Manchester airport about the Minister's letter; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he now expects to respond to the third report of the Transport Committee HC (1993–94) 47 in regard to liberalising access to Manchester airport and other airports outside the south-east of England; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what further representations his Department has had from the chief executive of Manchester airport in regard to liberalising access to the airport; what action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: I have written to the right hon. Member.

  Agency Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people are currently employed by(a) the Driving Standards Agency, (b) the Vehicle Inspectorate, (c) the Transport Research Laboratory, (d) the Coastguard Agency and (e) the Marine Safety
  176
  Agency; and how many jobs have been lost in each of those agencies in each year since 1979.

  Dr. Mawinney
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: Figures for manpower in each year since the agency concerned was set up are shown in table A 1.2.2 of "Transport Report 1994".

  European Transport Network
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in relation to paragraph 13 of his departmental explanatory memorandum to the proposal COM (94) 106 of the Commission of the European Economic Community for a system for trans-European transport networks under which article of the treaties, under which voting rules, and in which Council of Ministers decision will be made as to the level of financial support for particular parts of the designated networks.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: Financial support for projects on the trans-European transport network may be provided under a number of existing Community instruments, including the structural and cohesion funds, where appropriate, and via the European Investment bank and European investment fund, as well as from national Government and private sector sources. Specific provision for the funding of projects of common interest on the network was made in article 129c of the treaty on European union. Under this provision the Commission has put forward a draft financing regulation covering projects in the telecommunications and energy sectors as well as transport. This is now under consideration in the Council. As currently proposed, voting in the Committee of Member States to be established by the regulation, and where necessary in the Council, would be by qualified majority.

  Road Signs
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department is currently taking to survey (i) road directional signs and (ii) other road signs in relation to their condition and clarity on(a) motorways, (b) other trunk roads and (c) other roads; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Watts
  As this is now an operational matter for the Highways Agency, the chief executive will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Peter Pike, dated 18 October 1994:
  You asked the Secretary of State for information on the maintenance of road signs. As this is now an operational matter for the Highways Agency, I am replying to your question.
  The routine inspection and maintenance of traffic signs on the motorway and trunk road network are undertaken by the Highways Agency's agent authorities - mainly county councils - acting on its behalf. Standards are set by Codes of Practice issued by the Department and the Agency.
  The Highways Agency has produced a Road User's Charter which specifically states that road signs will be cleaned and maintained in order to be clear and visible at all times. Levels of performance by our agents in applying the standards are therefore monitored against the objectives of the Charter and the terms of the formal agency agreements.
  For other roads the responsibility rests directly with the local highways authorities. Neither the Department nor the Agency has any powers to instruct them how to maintain their road signs but

  177
  they are encouraged to keep signs in good order and clear, especially in winter.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Road Construction (Safety)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 479, what is the average costs assessed by his Department of (a) building one mile of new dual carriageway trunk road, (b) building one mile of new single carriageway trunk road, (c) equipping one mile of dual carriageway trunk road with safety barriers, (d) equipping one mile of single carriageway trunk road with safety barriers, (e) equipping one mile of dual carriageway trunk road with lighting, (e) equipping one mile single carriageway trunk road with lighting, (g) a single case of serious injury requiring temporary hospitalisation caused by a road accident, (h) a single case of serious injury requiring permanent hospitalisation caused by a road accident and (i) a single case of death caused by a road accident; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Eric Risley, dated 18 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 road construction and accident costs.
  The road construction cost information is shown below al 1993 prices

  Road Type

  Average Building cost

  Safety Fencing

  Lighting

  2 lane dual all purpose

  £5·5million

  £44,000

  £86,000

  Single carriageway

  £2·2 million

  £10,000

  £50,000

  The cost of building a road varies from site to site and is dependent on the standard of provision. The above figures are average costs per mile including safety fencing and lighting but do not include the cost of design or VAT. The total length of safety fencing provided varies from scheme to scheme, depending on the type of barrier, type of scheme and obstacles crossed; the costs given are based on average cost of providing safety fencing in the past.
  The information on the cost of injuries is not available in the format you requested; however, there are standard monetary values for use in valuing the savings of accidents and these cover fatal, serious and slight injuries. A fatal injury is defined as one which results in a death within 30 days of a road accident. A serious injury is one which results in the person involved being detained as an "in-patient" or sustaining fractures, crushings etc. requiring medical treatment, including those causing death after 30 days of a road accident. A slight injury is defined as one which is other than those classified as fatal or serious.
  The values for these injuries at 1992 prices are given below:

  Injuries

  Fatal

  £715,330

  Serious

  £74,480

  Slight

  £6,080

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those sites of special scientific interest which 178
  fall within section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in respect of which he has informed the Nature Conservation Agency of road building proposals.

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms. Joan Walley, dated 18 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 list of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in respect of which the Nature Conservation agency has been informed of road building proposals.
  The statutory body with responsibility for SSSIs is English Nature. They are consulted during the development of all schemes in the Trunk Road Programme and all trunk road improvement schemes which may affect a SSI. English Nature have been informed that the SSIs on the list at Annex A may be affected by the announced preferred route.

  A1
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times repairs and works have been carried out on that section of the Al known as the Doncaster bypass during the last 10 years; and on which dates disruption to traffic flows was necessitated.

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency and I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Robert Banks, dated 18 October 1994:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about road works during the last 10 years on the Doncaster Bypass. This is an operational matter for which the Highways Agency is responsible.
  I have taken the Doncaster Bypass to be the 17 mile motorway stretch of the Al between Blyth and Redhouse which was built about 30 years ago and has been undergoing phased reconstruction since 1987 to ensure that it remains safe to carry the large volumes of traffic which use it and, in some places, to deal with the effects of mining subsidence.
  The stages in this reconstruction work were planned to maximise the life of the carriageway while limiting the length under repair at any one time so as to minimise disruption to traffic flows. The stages have been as follows:
  J34—J35 (Blyth to Wadworth)
  1985–86—southern section, southbound carriageway resurfaced to extend its life;
  June—October 1990: southern section, northbound carriageway reconstructed;
  December 1991—April 1992: central section reconstructed and June
  1992—November 1992: northern section reconstructed.
  J35 (Wadworth)
  June—August 1991 short section reconstructed near the intersection.
  J35–36 (Wadworth to Warmsworth)
  October 1990—May 1991: reconstructed.
  J36–37 (Warmsworth)—Marr)
  June—November 1989: southern section reconstructed;
  June—October 1994 northern section reconstructed. This contract was completed three weeks early on 15 October.

  179
  J37–138 (Marr—Redhouse)
  December 1987—May 1988: reconstructed
  May—August 1990: repairs to Leys Hill Bridge.
  Two further contracts will be needed later this financial year to complete the programme of reconstruction and repair on the Doncaster Bypass. These are:
  J34—j35: southern section, southbound carriageway reconstruction (starting February 1995); and
  J36—j37: reconstruction of Albert Road Bridge (starting December 1994).
  In the second case, all traffic lanes will be kept open by using the hard shoulder.
  In all cases these essential maintenance and repair works have been planned and carried out to minimise disruption to traffic flow. We also publicise schemes in advance so that road users can plan their journeys to avoid any likely delays, especially at peak times. For your information, I enclose a copy of our current leaflet about road works in Yorkshire and Humberside.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Gas Standards
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has(a) to modify or amend the Gas Acts that require gas undertakings to maintain a specified standard of service and safety and (b) to make changes to the standards themselves.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government intend, subject to the availability of parliamentary time, to introduce legislation to provide the basis for the new regulatory system for gas supply to come into operation by April 1996.

  We envisage requiring all gas suppliers to adhere to certain core standards of service. These would include codes of practice for providing special services for older and disabled customers, debt and disconnection procedures and the provision of energy efficiency advice. Safety procedures are separately regulated by the Health and Safety Commission.

  Shipyards
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list the designated shipyards which are able to seek financial assistance by way of the European Community's seventh directive and the shipbuilding intervention fund;

  (2) if he will list the United Kingdom shipyards which have received financial assistance by way of the European Community's seventh directive on the shipbuilding intervention fund since 1 January 1993; what were the amounts paid to each yard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  To be eligible for shipbuilding intervention fund assistance, a yard must be a merchant shipbuilder and have built merchant ships of 100 gross registered tonnes or more during the three years prior to the date of an application. There is no designated list of eligible yards, but certain yards designated as warship yards and sold by British Shipbuilders prior to 1987 are excluded from assistance. DTI Ministers obtained the European Commission's approval exceptionally for intervention funding for the Swan Hunter warship yard for the construction of commercial vessels.
  180
  To provide the names of those shipyards which have received assistance, and the amounts paid to them, would breach the Department's commercial confidentiality rules.

  Shipbuilding intervention fund payments to United Kingdom merchant shipyards since 1 January 1993 amount to nearly £22 million.

  West of England Development Agency
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what level of support he has offered the West of England development agency.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am pleased to announce that in addition to the grants for the regional development organisations announced on 17 March and 17 April, I offered on 26 August £100,000 of grant in aid to the new West of England development agency for its overseas inward investment activities, covering the west of England—Avon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire. The grant in aid is linked to the performance of specific inward investment promotion activities on behalf of the Invest in Britain bureau.

  The West of England development agency is an initiative by the West of England Partnership to establish for the first time an inward investment agency for the West of England. The centre is being set up with support from county economic partnerships of Avon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire, covering local authorities, training and enterprise councils, chambers of commerce, the Confederation of British Industry, the Trade Union Congress and the private sector, and my Department. Its aims are to attract inward investment on behalf of the five counties and to promote the west of England to enhance economic prosperity throughout the region.

  Radiocommunications Agency
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set his Department's radiocommunications agency for 1994–95.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The targets I have set my Department's radiocommunications agency for 1994–95 appear on pages 13 and 14 of its annual reports and accounts for 1993–94, which were laid before the House yesterday.

  Accounts Services Agency
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set his Department's accounts services agency for 1994–95.

  Mr. Heseltine
  On 11 February 1994,Official Report, columns 505-6, my hon. Friend, the Minister for Industry and Energy announced that the services provided to the Department by its accounts services agency were to be contracted out. To ensure that it has a range of targets to focus on whilst this process is being completed, I have set it the following targets for 1994–95. They also appear in the agency's annual report and accounts for 1993–94 which were laid before the House on 13 July 1994 (HC523):
  To continue to recover its full costs from income for customer work;
  To fulfil its operational commitments without calling on the Department to provide a net cash requirement in vote terms;

  181
  To achieve a 4 per cent. unit cost reduction over last year based on a mix of services that are provided. The percentage reduction achieved by 30 September to be at least two per cent.;
  To make 97 per cent. of all payments within three working days of receipt of the authorisation to pay;
  To bank all cheques within 36 hours of receipt by the agency, with at least 75 per cent. of cheques being banked within eight hours of receipt.
  At the end of each month to ensure that all notified transactions are properly recorded on the Department's financial management information system by the start of the fifth working day of the following month; that operating statements are produced and despatched by the start of the sixth working day of the following month.

  In addition, I expect the chief executive of the agency to continue to reply within 10 working days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Domestic Violence
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the projects aimed at preventing domestic violence to be funded by the Home

  Imported Coal1

  Natural Gas

  Thousand tonnes

  Thousand tonnes of oil equivalent2

  Million therms

  Thousand tonnes of oil equivalent2

  1983

  471

  270

  83

  210

  1993

  4,652

  2,780

  3,021

  7,610

  1These figures include an estimate of coal imported by autogenerators.

  2A tonne of oil equivalent is defined as 107 kilocalories or 397 therms.

  Estimates of the employment effects of fuel switching by the electricity industry between 1983 and 1993 are not available. The March 1993 White Paper, "The Prospects for Coal: Conclusions of the Government's Coal Review" noted, in paragraph 5.14:

  "Over time, as the economy adjusts and redundant workers find new employment, the loss of jobs from pit closures would be broadly matched by compensating developments elsewhere. New jobs might be in different industries, and to some extent in different areas, but overall employment would return broadly to its previous level".

DEFENCE

  Service Women (Pregnancies)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the sums of financial compensation paid to former members of the armed services who were judged by industrial tribunals to have been dismissed unfairly because of their pregnancies; and what was the commissioned or non-commissioned status of those women who have received these sums of money.

  Mr. Soames
  Up to 4 October, 121 payments totalling £3,300,000 have been made to seven officers-average 182
  Office programme development unit over the next three years; and the amount of funding to be given in each case.

  Mr. Maclean
  Domestic violence projects currently receiving funding from the programme development unit are listed. The unit's programme for 1995–98 has not been decided.

  Current projects

  3-year grant

  Leeds Inter-Agency Project, to November 95

  £277,000

  Islington Domestic Violence Matters, to September 95

  £330,300

  Lewisham SAVE Elder Abuse, to December 95

  £106,000

  Keighley Youth Education Project, to August 95

  £36,000

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the amount of natural gas and imported coal respectively, expressed in units of volume or weight, and heat used in the United Kingdom in 1983 for the generation of electricity together with the amounts in 1993; and what is the estimate in respect of the difference in heat units used and the consequent loss of direct and indirect employment.

  Mr Eggar
  [holding answer 17 October 1994]: The amounts of imported coal and natural gas used to generate electricity in the UK are as follows:

  £43,665—and 114 other ranks—average £25,577—as a result of industrial tribunal decisions on compensation for dismissal on the ground of pregnancy. However, tribunal awards represent only a small proportion of the 2,745 pregnancy claims which have so far been settled at an overall average of about £10,000—all ranks.

  The appeals lodged previously by my Department have resulted in the issue of helpful guidance by the Employment Appeals Tribunal. The indications are that tribunals are now making lower levels of award.

  Clothing and Textile Authority
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the Defence Clothing and Textile Authority.

  Mr. Soames
  The Defence Clothing and Textile Authority, comprising some 540 staff, is currently located at seven main sites across the country. Following an examination of the business structure of the DCTA and investment appraisal, it has been concluded that collocation on a single site will allow the introduction of new business methods. The resulting efficiencies should lead to a streamlined structure and savings of up to 117 posts.

  I have therefore decided to accept, as the basis for consultation with the trades unions and other interested parties, the recommendation that staff from the existing sites be collocated on one site at Caversfield, Bicester, currently part of the RAF Bicester site. Final decisions

  183
  will be taken only in the light of representations made during the consultation period. A copy of the consultative document is being placed in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  Blood Donations
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) voluntary and (b) paid blood donations were made in each year since 1990; and how many in each category were used as (i) blood and (ii) plasma.

  Mr. Sackville
  This country is self-sufficient in blood obtained from our voluntary, unpaid donors and we do not obtain supplies from other sources. The last year for which complete information is available centrally about the number and usage of voluntary donations is 1993. Complete information is not available centrally for earlier years.

  In 1993 there were a total of 2,312,000 donations of whole blood and 120,000 plasmapheresis donations.

  An individual donation may be put to a number of uses as a number of components may be derived from it. In 1993 the figures for the use of donations were:

  Whole blood—l06,000;

  Red cell components–1,959,000;

  Platelets–842,000;

  Fresh frozen plasma–266,000.

  In addition; some 486,000 litres of plasma were recovered from whole blood donations and 60,000 litres of plasma from plasmapheresis donations.

  Employment (Children)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of whether current laws affecting the employment of children are detrimental to their education or wider social development.

  Mr. Bowis
  I believe the existing legislative framework provides sufficient protection to children who work but if the hon. Lady has evidence to the contrary I hope that she will write to us about any example of this.

ENVIRONMENT

  Public Information
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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 visually impaired people about the availability of publications in alternative formats to normal print.

  Mr. Gummer
  Publications currently available from my Department in large format print, audio tape and Braille are:

  Council Tax

  A guide to the new tax for local government

  Valuation and banding

  Liability, discounts and exemptions

  184

  How to appeal

  The transitional reduction scheme

  Where publications are made available in these formats, every effort is made by my Department to ensure that the relevant agencies and voluntary bodies are involved.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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. Gummer
  For the period referred to the Department spent a total of £68,224 including VAT and all levies, on the production and distribution of public information in formats suitable for use by the visually impaired. A breakdown for each financial year is not available. This figure includes any costs associated with publicising the availability of this information through the appropriate agencies and voluntary bodies.

  Elephants
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent information assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the international ban on trade in elephant products, including ivory, in reducing poaching in Africa.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There is general agreement that elephant poaching declined significantly in a number of African countries following the 1989 decision to ban international trade in elephant products and that the ban made an important contribution to this decline, though it was not the only factor.

  The latest position appears to be less encouraging. Poaching of the rhinoceros has continued and, in some places, grown in intensity during the same period even though there is a ban on international trade in rhino products. A study being carried out in nine African elephant range states, covering all the African regions, by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources African elephant specialist group and TRAFFIC International should give the most up-to-date assessment on illegal killing of elephants. A report is expected shortly.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to the Latham report on the construction industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I refer to hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) on 17 October,Official Report, column 19.

  Market Franchise Rights
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, what proposals for provisions in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill he is bringing forward on market franchise rights.

  Mr. Curry
  Following the decision to withdraw the then clauses 22, 23 and 24 on market franchise rights from the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Industry expressed the hope that the Government would be able to come forward at a
  185
  later stage with fresh proposals on the deregulation of market franchise rights, which enjoyed a widespread measure of support among interested parties.

  The Government remain of the view that the common law on market franchise rights is antiquated. Interested parties do not dispute that the law needs revision, but say that any review would need to be more considered.

  In view, however, of the very short time remaining for consideration of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill in Parliament, the Government are not intending to make changes to existing law in the context of the current Bill.

TREASURY

  Financial Services
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes to the memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom and United States authorities in financial services have taken place following the transfer of some Government financial services functions from the Department of Trade and Industry to Her Majesty's Treasury.

  Mr. Nelson
  The signatories to the memorandum of understanding between the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Department of Trade and Industry and Securities and Investments Board considered that a revision to the procedures on communication between the United Kingdom and United States authorities was required. It was not, however, necessary to amend the MoU to accomplish this. Instead, an undertaking was made by all parties to the MoU on 29 April 1994 that the necessary procedural changes would be made and that the parties to the MoU intend to co-operate fully under the MoU.

  Copies of the memorandum of understanding have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Overseas Assets
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the stock of United Kingdom net overseas assets and the interest and dividend income from those assets for each year since 1979; and if he will explain any sudden or large variation in these figures.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 17 October 1994]: Figures for the stock of United Kingdom net overseas assets and the interest and dividend income from those assets are published in the CSO publication, "The Pink Book 1994", available through HMSO. They are also available from the CSO database, which can be accessed through the House of Commons Library. The net figures are the difference between two very large numbers, each of which can be measured only imperfectly and are subject to a number of variations. Several factors contribute to these variations, including exchange rate fluctuations, changes in prices, interest rate movements, and domestic and overseas profitability.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

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

  Mr. Jack
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the United Kingdom economy. 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.

  This Department has continued to contribute significantly to the process. For example:
  i) the new marketing development scheme, providing £10 million over the next three years, will assist the marketing effort of all those in the food chain including individual farmers or collaborative groups.
  ii) MAFF's market task force engages in a number of initiatives offering marketing help to business: the processing and marketing grant, with its requirement that farmers must share in the economic benefits, was reopened for applications on 18 October; the task force also runs seminars to stimulate marketing thinking in individual sectors and stands ready to discuss ideas for developing the marketing performance of anyone's business;
  iii) a MAFF guide, "Success With a Small Food Business", has been issued to help small food producers to set up and develop their businesses;
  iv) MAFF, through "Food From Britain", continues to provide advice and assistance to groups of speciality food producers. "Food From Britain" also provides export advice and assistance for the food industry, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises;
  v) "The Continental Challenge", a major initiative we ran in January this year, highlighted opportunities for United Kingdom suppliers to exploit continental retail outlets. A wide range of companies participated and "Food From Britain" has been maintaining the momentum generated.
  vi) I chaired a seminar with representatives of the fishing industry to discuss the problems of supply and demand in the market. We have also encouraged complementary initiatives by the Sea Fish Industry Authority to improve the marketing of fish, which would be of considerable benefit to the many small firms in the industry. These have included their conference on "Catching for the Market" and the subsequent establishment of a task force;
  vii) an amendment to The Corn Returns Act 1882 is proposed which will exempt businesses purchasing small annual tonnages of British cereals direct from growers from the duty of having to make a return;
  viii) an organic aid scheme was launched in England on 1 July to encourage conversion to organic farming methods. This is likely to be of interest to many small farmers. The rates of aid are structured so as to assist the small producer by giving an extra £30 per hectare per year for the first five hectares.
  ix) meetings with panels of small businessmen continued to be held to enable Ministers to hear at first hand the views of small businessmen on the regulatory burden.
  187
  All the schemes operated by this Department are closely monitored. New schemes will be announced as they emerge. Reports on particular schemes are published from time to time.

  Live Animals (Imports)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 446, what action she is taking to ensure that the laws governing the import of live animals are rigorously adhered to.

  Mrs. Browning
  Local authorities are responsible for enforcing animal health and welfare legislation in Great Britain in respect of imported animals. In addition, the state veterinary service is conducting a significant number of checks on imported animals at their final destinations and continues to monitor imports at south and east coast ports on a regular basis.

  Public Information
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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 among visually impaired people.

  Mr. Jack
  As part of its wider "Foodsense" campaign, MAFF has spent £23,000 since 1993 on producing information in' alternative formats for visually impaired

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee

  Member

  Commercial interests

  Non commercial interests

  Name of company

  Nature of interest

  Name of company

  Nature of interest

  Dr. D. A. J. Tyrrell, Chairmam

  Reckitt and Colman

  Consultant

  None

  None

  Smith Kiline Beecham

  PEP shareholder

  Procter and Gamble

  Editorial work

  Dr. R. G. Will, Deputy Chairman

  None

  None

  Department of Health

  Grant Holder

  Scottish Home and Health Dept.

  Grant Holder

  Prof. I. Allen

  None

  None

  Multiple Sclerosis Society

  Grant Holder

  Prof. F. Brown

  None

  None

  None

  None

  Dr. W. D. Hueston

  None

  None

  None

  None

  Dr. R. H. Kimberlin

  Petfood Industry (World-wide)

  Adviser

  European commission

  Adviser

  Pharmaceutical Industry (World-Wide)

  Adviser

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Adviser

  United Nations (Food and Agriculture) Dept.

  Adviser

  Office International des Epizooties

  Adviser

  National Governments in Europe, Americas and

  Adviser

  Australasia

  World Health

  Adviser

  Organisation

  Mr. D. B. Pepper

  Veterinary

  Freelance consultant

  None

  None

  Pharmaceutical Industry

  Veterinary Defence Society Ltd.

  Claims Consultant

  Dr. W. A. Watson

  188
  people. Availability has been publicised through the Royal National Institute for the Blind.

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether the members of the spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee are required to declare their commercial and non-commercial interests;

  (2) if she will publish the commercial and non-commercial interests of the members of the spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 17 May Official Report, column 446, for what reason members of the spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee are not required to provide details of consultancies held; and how this practice differs from that applied to other advisory committees for which she is responsible.

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 19 July 1994]: Members of the spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee are appointed for their relevant experience and scientific expertise in this very specialised field. Appointments are made in accordance with the information set out in "Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NCPBs): A Guide to Departments". Members are not required to declare their commercial and non-commercial interests as this is a scientific advisory committee with no trading or financial objectives. However, in the interests of open Government the members of SEAC have been asked for this information and the interests declared are listed in the following table:

  Set-aside
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was spent in each European Union country in £ sterling, and what was the take-up in hectares, in 1993 on(a) the set-aside part of the arable area payments scheme or its equivalent and (b) set-aside measures introduced prior to the common agricultural policy reform of May 1992; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [pursuant to the reply, 4 July 1994, c. 29-30]: I wish to clarify the figures given for expenditure on the five-year set-aside scheme. First, the payment figures, which were the latest available at the time of reply, relate to payments made between October and December 1993 and do not necessarily reflect payments made on all land set-aside under the scheme during 1993, as payments are made at different periods in different member states. Secondly, the payment figures given for five-year set-aside represent the element of member states' total payments which is funded by the EU. This is approximately 60 per cent. of total payments. Figures for total payments are not available. In the case of the arable area payments scheme, the majority of payments in all member states were made by the end of December and are 100 per cent. EU funded, so the figures given more closely reflect total expenditure. The updated figures show EU-funded expenditure under both schemes up to April 1994.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme

  Member State

  Area Set Aside ('000 ha)

  Payments 1('000 ccu)

  Sterling Equivalent (rounded) (£'000)

  Belgium

  19

  6,399

  4,880

  Denmark

  205

  57,483

  43,833

  Fed Rep of Germany

  1,063

  321,394

  245,077

  Greece

  17

  2,683

  2,046

  Spain

  909

  135,908

  103,636

  France

  1,589

  517,023

  394,253

  Republic of Ireland

  24

  —

  —

  Italy

  207

  39,973

  30,481

  Luxembourg

  2

  395

  301

  Netherlands

  8

  2,754

  2,100

  Portugal

  78

  6,435

  4,907

  United Kingdom

  556

  169,948

  129,593

  Total

  4,674

  1,260,395

  961,107

  1Ecu/hectare payment rates are based on historical regional yields and are different in each member states.

  Five Year Set-Aside Scheme

  Member State

  Area Set Aside ('000 ha)

  Payments ('000 ecu)

  Sterling Equivalent(rounded) (£'000)

  Belgium

  1

  195

  149

  Denmark

  7

  -2

  -1.5

  Fed Rep of Germany

  415

  83,043

  63,324

  Greece

  1

  —

  —

  Spain

  95

  6,534

  4,982

  France

  214

  9,876

  7,531

  Republic of Ireland

  2

  210

  160

  Italy

  639

  171,169

  130,524

  190

  Member State

  Area Set Aside ('000 ha)

  Payments ('000 ecu)

  Sterling Equivalent(rounded) (£'000)

  Luxembourg

  —

  15

  11

  Netherlands

  15

  3,133

  2,389

  Portugal

  —

  —

  —

  United Kingdom

  133

  19,721

  15,038

  Total

  1,522

  293,895

  224,107

  Note:
  Sterling equivalents are calculated at the same exchange rate as applied when the previous answer was given (£1-1·3114 ecu) for case of comparison, since then however the exchange rate has changed to £1=1·306 ecu.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Shannon-Erne Waterway
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what expenses were incurred for security purposes during official opening of the Shannon-Erne waterway on 23 May in the presence of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Foreign Affairs Minister from the Irish Republic.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many women aged between 60 and 65 years have had the suspension of their invalidity benefit lifted on the grounds of hardship since the Government challenged the decision made by a social security commissioner in the case of Mrs. Graham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive Mr. Alex Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Alex Wylie to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 17 October 1994:
  I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the number of women aged between 60 and 65 who have had the suspension of their invalidity benefit lifted on hardship grounds as a result of the Graham case.
  In Northern Ireland the suspension was lifted in a total of eight cases.

  Water and Sewerage Services
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sums have been expended in each of the last five years on(a) extensions to the water mains reticulation system, (b) improvements to the existing system, (c) new sewage treatment plants and (d) improvements to existing sewage treatment plants; what are the sums available for each such purpose in the current year; what are his projections for the next two years.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The information is as follows:
  191

  (a)Extensions to Water Mains £000's

  (b)Improvements to Existing System£000's

  (c)New Sewage Treatment Plants £000's

  (d)Improvements to Existing Sewage Treatment Plants £000's

  1989–901

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1990–91

  2,508

  547

  23,873

  1991–92

  2,208

  561

  25,974

  1992–93

  2,055

  639

  28,855

  1993–94

  2,245

  462

  214,657

  1994–95(Estimate)

  2,312

  476

  14,850

  917

  1995–96 (Estimate)

  2,393

  493

  6,000

  8,414

  1996–97 (Estimate)

  2,453

  505

  13,400

  10,981

  Notes

  1Prior to 1990 expenditure records were kept in a format which would allow the requested information for 1989–90 to be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  2Prior to 1993–94 expenditure on sewage treatment was not separated/aggregated for new plants and replacements or improvements to existing plants. Disaggreagated information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Audit Review Group
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make available copies of the follow-up report of the audit review group.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Library.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Drugs Misuse
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to publish the results of the review of the Government's strategy for tackling the misuse of drugs.

  Mr. Newton
  With my right hon. and learned Friend and Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Education, and my hon. Friend the Paymaster General, I intend to publish tomorrow a Green Paper entitled, "Tackling Drugs Together". Copies will be available in the Vote Office from 10.30 a.m.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Commonwealth Development Corporation has been authorised to operate in additional countries.

  Mr. Baldry
  Following a request from the corporation, approval has been given for the CDC to operate in El Salvador. In accordance with strategic targets agreed in the recent quinquennial review, CDC will aim to give priority to projects in the private sector.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if clients of the Child Support Agency have access to all the information kept on them.
  192
  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 18 October 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about clients` access to personal information held by the Child Support Agency.
  Clients have access to all automatically processed information kept on them, subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act, 1984. Access to information held clerically by the Agency is governed by the Department of Social Security's Protection of Personal Information code. As a general policy, this provides that under normal circumstances the Agency will disclose factual, basic and non-sensitive information to clients or their representatives, and any documents completed by the clients themselves.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Child Support Agency keeps credit ratings on clients.

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 18 October 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security on whether the Child Support Agency keeps credit ratings on its clients.
  The Agency does not keep credit ratings on any of its clients.

  Independent Tribunal Service (Scotland)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons are employed by the Independent Tribunal Service in Scotland; and what is the current Scottish caseload for(a) disability living allowance and (b) attendance allowance and industrial injury appeal cases.

  Mr. Hague
  I am informed by the president of the Independent Tribunal Service, his honour judge Bassingthwaighte, that he employs 103 administration and six judicial staff full time in Scotland. In addition, there are 450 tribunal chairmen and members paid on a sessional basis. It is not possible to provide separate caseload figures for disability living allowance and attendance allowance. However, I am informed that at 30 September 1994 the caseload for the two benefits combined was 2,365 and for industrial injuries was 800.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Parliament
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the annual rent of the hemicycle building rented by the European Parliament in Brussels; how often the Parliament met there in 1993; and how often it will meet there in 1994.

  Mr. David Davis
  The European Parliament does not rent the hemicycle, which is part of a building in the Espace Leopold complex. In 1992, the European Parliament signed a contract for a long lease on a complex of three buildings to be constructed, with an option to purchase. The total estimated investment cost under the contract is approximately 1 billion ecu£775 million,—before amortisation. The lease on each building is to run 27 years from the date of its handover. For the first 20 years of the lease on each building, Parliament has to pay, in 20 equal annuities and by half-yearly instalments, the amount necessary to amortise the final investment cost over that period. For the final seven years of each lease, the European Parliament will pay 1 ecu per year. The annual budget payment for the building containing the hemicycle is 13·9 mecu—£10·5 million.

  The European Parliament met there three times in 1993, and will meet there four times in 1994.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the rental of the new building being rented in Strasbourg by the European Parliament.

  Mr. David Davis
  The European Parliament signed a contract with the city of Strasbourg authorities on 31 March 1994 for a new complex on a similar basis with option to purchase to the Espace Leopold complex in Brussels. The annual cost is estimated at 46 mecu–00A3;34·7 million—which is planned to start fully in 1998.

  Public Information
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) 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 among visually impaired people;

  (2) 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 visually impaired people about the availability of publications in alternative formats to normal print.

  Mr. Baldry
  Considerable efforts are directed to making travel advice and other information available to the public on the telephone. It is not possible separately to identify the cost of those services specifically targeted at visually impaired people.

  Cyprus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Latest estimate of the number of non-Cypriots resident in(a) the Greek southern sector of Cyprus and (b) the Turkish northern sector of Cyprus.
  194
  Mr. David Davis
  The latest figures supplied by the Statistics Office of the Republic of Cyprus show the non-Cypriot population of the Government-controlled area to be 21,500. There are no reliable figures available for the number of non-Cypriots resident in the northern part of Cyprus.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom is still a guarantor power for the Republic of Cyprus.

  Mr. David Davis
  Yes.

  Russia
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning defence industrial production in Russia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Russian defence industrial production has fallen sharply in recent years. We estimate that production of light armoured fighting vehicles dropped from some 4,500 in 1989 to 300 in 1993. Production of tanks is estimated to have dropped from 1,700 in 1989 to 200 last year; of fighters and bombers from 525 to 110; and of missiles from 130 to 40. I have placed a more detailed breakdown, with figures for the intervening years, in the Library.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sports Council (Lottery Funds)
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy that the distribution of lottery funds by the new United Kingdom Sports Council will not be limited to applications which promote the pursuit of excellence.

  Mr. Sproat
  We have proposed that the new English Sports Council will target its grant-in-aid more effectively in direct support to the governing bodies of sport and on services in support of sporting excellence. The purposes, on or connected with sport, to which the present Great Britain Sports Council, and, in time, its English successor, may apply national lottery funds under the National Lottery Act 1993 are unaffected by these proposals. We do not propose that the United Kingdom Sports Council should be national lottery distributor but it will offer expert advice on applications of United Kingdom importance.

  Sport (Participation)
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he now expects local authorities to promote mass participation in sport.

  Mr. Sproat
  I would expect local authorities to continue to encourage sporting and recreational opportunities for the public at large as they always have done.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what extra resources will be allocated to local authorities to enable them to develop alternative mechanisms following the disbandment of the regional councils for sport and recreation.
  195
  Mr. Sproat
  Our proposal is that the present formal linkage between the regional councils for sport and recreation and the regional offices of the Sports Council should cease and we shall no longer make appointments to the regional councils. Local authorities will want to decide for the future, with other regional interests, how to develop and deliver wider regional leisure strategies and how any such future machinery should be funded.

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

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department has declined to answer three parliamentary questions during the 1993–94 session on the ground of commercial confidentiality.

  Tourism
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what initiatives the English tourist board has planned on sustainable tourism; and how many of these are likely to be implemented.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The English tourist board participates in various on-going local visitor management initiatives in different types of location across the country. Many of these received pump-priming funding from the English tourist board and are continuing with the support of local funding partners. One example of these is the Wiltshire project which seeks to spread the economic benefits of tourism across 'the county more evenly and ease pressure on locations like Avebury and Stonehenge. The new visitor opportunities in Wiltshire will be tailored to its special landscape and character.

  In addition the English tourist board regularly meets and collaborates with bodies such as Countryside Commission and the Rural Development Commission. It has supported the production of a range of publications designed to encourage good environmental practice and policies within the tourism industry. The English tourist board was one of the sponsors of the document, "Getting it Right: a guide to visitor management in historic towns", published earlier this year by the English Historic Towns Forum.

  Public Information
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) 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 among visually impaired people;

  (2) which departmental publications are currently available (a) in Braille, (b) in large print and (c) on tape; and what efforts have been made by his Department to inform visually impaired people about the availability of publications in alternative formats to normal print.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage keeps under review the need to make information available to blind and partially sighted people.

  In 1992, the Department made available Braille copies of the popular version of the BBC consultation document issued by the Department. This was produced free of charge in response to inquiries.
  196
  No publications are currently available in Braille, large type or tape.

  Cross-media Ownership
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his predecessor's answer of 18 July,Official Report, column 24, when he hopes to announce the outcome of the review of the rules covering cross-media ownership of the press, including any legislative implications.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 17 October 1994]: An announcement about the outcome will be made once the Government have determined the best way forward.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 October.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 October.

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

EMPLOYMENT

  Mining Closures
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on measures that his Department is taking to offer job opportunities to those areas where there have been mining closures.

  Mr. Paice
  The Department has made available £75 million and introduced a range of employment measures to help people in areas affected by pit closures. Over 40,000 people have been helped by the Employment Service and over 12,000 have started on special training and enterprise council programmes.

  Apprenticeship Scheme
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on progress in the introduction of the new apprenticeship scheme.

  Mr. Paice
  Excellent progress is being made. Seventeen prototypes have been approved and 627 young people have started toward the expected number of 1,850.

  Council of Employment Ministers
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what issues were discussed at the last meeting of the Council of Employment Ministers.

  Mr. Portillo
  The United Kingdom resisted a proposal to impose compulsory paternity leave on employers; and ensured that the works councils directive will not apply to companies in Britain, thus leaving them free to determine what system of consultation best suits their circumstances.

  Women
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) mothers and (b) other women are now in work; what were the figures 10 and 20 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The spring 1994 labour force survey shows the 4 million mothers and 6·8 million other women of working age with dependent children are in employment. In spring 1984 the equivalent figures were 3·1 million and 6·1 million respectively. The participation of women in the labour force in the United Kingdom is the highest of any major EU country.

  Wages Councils
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has made of the effect on earnings of the abolition of wages councils.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for P'endle (Mr. Prentice).

  Lone Mothers
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of lone mothers with dependent children were in work in 1979; and what percentage are currently in work.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In spring 1981, the earliest date available, the labour force survey showed that 45 per cent. of lone mothers of working age with dependent children were in employment. The current figure, for spring 1994, is 39 per cent. During the period 1981–1994 the numbers of lone mothers in employment increased from 350,000 to 440,000.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the Government will introduce legislation to deal with age discrimination in employment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government have no intention of introducing legislation on age discrimination; it would be ineffective as it has been in other countries and would increase the burdens on business. The Government firmly believe that the way forward is through persuasion.

  Labour Statistics
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest employment figures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Paice
  The summer 1994 labour force survey shows just over 25 million people in employment in Great Britain. The highest proportion of any major European Union country.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the nature and level of representations he has received from opposition parties on the implications of a minimum wage policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Government are well aware that if the policies of the opposition parties on minimum wages were ever implemented they would destroy many thousands of jobs.

  Trade Union Legislation
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from individual trade unionists arguing for the repeal of all trade union legislation introduced since 1979.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  None.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of long-term unemployed.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In July 1994 there were 1,004,271 claimants unemployed for over one year; down 41,300 since April. These figures are on the unadjusted basis.

  Government Policy
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the Government's policy in respect of full employment.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Government pursue policies designed to achieve high levels of employment and low inflation.

  Associated Octel
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the Health and Safety Executive report on the fire at Associated Octel on 1 February.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Health and Safety Executive has completed its investigation and on 6 September announced its decision to prosecute Associated Octel under sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. HSE will publish a report of its findings, once legal proceedings have been completed.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made for the work of the Health and Safety Executive on safety in nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  None, as general matters of nuclear safety are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade.

  However, the Department does have responsibility for the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 (IRR85). An analysis of data collected under these regulations was published by the Health and Safety Executive in October 1993. Over the period 1986-1991 it showed a 50 per cent. reduction in the average occupational exposure of workers to radiation at nuclear power stations.

  Scottish Cricket Clubs
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many work permit applications were granted and how many were rejected in respect of the employment by Scottish cricket clubs over the past seven years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information about the number of work permits applications granted and rejected for employment by Scottish cricket clubs is not available.

  Labour Costs
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evidence he has regarding the link between non-wage labour costs and job creation.

  Mr. Portillo
  In Britain the Government are careful not to impose heavy costs on business. The United Kingdom has a higher proportion of its people in work than any other major European Union country and Britain has attracted one-third of all inward investment in the European Union.

SCOTLAND

  Police Service
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many inquiries have been made into the police service's operation and structure in Scotland since 1990; and at what cost.

  Mr. Lang
  The inquiry into police responsibilities and rewards, which reported in June 1993, included rank structure within its terms of reference. The Scottish Office contributed £97,000 to the cost of the inquiry. The force structure of the Scottish police service was considered as 200
  part of the consultation exercise which invited views on the future shape of local government. The service is also under continual review by H. M. inspectorate of constabulary.

  Trainee Doctors
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Funding is supplied by the NHS management executive in Scotland for vocational training in general practice, including flexible training. The number of places available for flexible training is not fixed. Doctors wishing to train on a flexible basis should register with their postgraduate dean or director. There is no waiting list of doctors selected for vocational training. The management executive encourages NHS employers to offer flexible training to doctors and dentists who have well-founded reasons for working on a part-time or other flexible basis.

  Death Certificates
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many death certificates in 1993 had(a) hypothermia, (b) pneumonia or (c) other cold-related illnesses as one of the contributory causes of death; and what were the figures for each of the four previous years in each case.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The figures requested for hypothermia and pneumonia are given in the table.

  Many diseases which contribute to mortality are related in some way to cold conditions. There is no generally accepted list of such conditions. It is not possible therefore to give a meaningful answer to part (c) of the question.

  Deaths with any mention of hypothermia or pneumonia on the death certificate, 1989–1993.

  Hypothermia (ICD 778.3, 780.8, 780.9 E901.0, E901.8 and E901.9)

  Pneumonia (ICD 480–486)

  1989

  152

  14,377

  1990

  137

  12,901

  1991

  101

  12,291

  1992

  117

  12,050

  1993

  141

  13,457

  Prisoners
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions since 1 January prisoners have been held(a) two to a cell designed for one and (b) three to a cell designed for one; and if he will list those prisons which experienced these measures.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.
  201
  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 18 October 1994:
  Lord James Douglas Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question about the number of occasions on which double and triple occupancy of cells designed for one occurred.
  Occupancy of single cells by more than one prisoner can arise due to factors other than high prisoner numbers, for example to allow refurbishment to improve prisoner accommodation (including the

  Establishments where multiple occupancy of cells occurred

  Double occupancy

  Triple occupancy

  Design capacity

  Nos. of cells involved

  Period (ie months unless otherwise stated)

  Nos. of cells involved

  Period (ie months unless otherwise stated)

  HMP Aberdeen

  142

  45

  7

  —

  —

  HMP Barlinnie

  939

  247

  8

  —

  —

  HMP Cornton Vale

  213

  6

  8

  9

  1

  HMP Dumfries

  139

  11

  6

  —

  —

  HMP Edinburgh

  508

  153

  8

  5

  8

  HMP Friarton

  56

  24

  8

  —

  —

  HMYOI Glenochil

  175

  9

  13 days

  —

  —

  HMP Greenock

  172

  75

  8

  2

  2 days

  HMP Inverness

  79

  54

  8

  —

  —

  HMP Longriggend

  177

  36

  3

  —

  —

  HMP Perth

  426

  60

  8

  10

  3

  HMYOI Polmont

  414

  30

  8

  —

  —

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average cost per month of keeping someone in prison in 1993–94.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 18 October 1994:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question about the average cost per month of keeping someone in prison in 1993–94.
  The cost of maintaining an individual at Her Majesty's prisons in Scotland in 1993–94, calculated as total net expenditure (excluding capital) divided by daily average prisoner numbers, was £2,138 per month.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give a breakdown by age of(a) all female prisoners and (b) all male prisoners at the latest available date;

  (2) how many (a) female and (b) male fine defaulters were received into prisons in each of the past four years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of these questions relate to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 18 October 1994:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Questions about the breakdown by age and sex of the current prison population and about the number of female and male fine defaulters received into prisons in the last four years.
  Table 1 shows the breakdown of the present prison population. Young offenders are generally aged under 21, but a small number may be aged 21 or 22. No further disaggregation is available since details of exact age are collected only on the statistical returns relating to receptions.
  202
  installation of in-cell toilets and electrical power). In some instances single cells are in double occupancy at the request of prisoners themselves who for their own reasons prefer to share.
  During the period from 1 January to 31 August, 12 (out of the total of 21) Scottish prison establishments experienced a degree of doubling up of prisoners, and in the case of four establishments, certain periods of triple occupancy occurred. The table attached lists the establishments and details the average periods involved in each case.

  Table 1: Average daily prison population in Scottish penal establishments, Wednesday 5 October 1994

  Adult

  Young offenders

  Total

  Male

  4,436

  1,061

  5,497

  Female

  171

  19

  190

  Total

  4,607

  1,080

  5,687

  Table 2 below shows the number of fine defaulter receptions recorded in the past four years. Some of these receptions will relate to prisoners who are serving existing sentences in respect of other offences. Where a person has several custodial sentences imposed on him by one court in one day, however, this is counted as one reception.

  Table 2: Fine defaulter receptions to Scottish penal establishments

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Male

  6,455

  7,295

  7,792

  8,878

  Female

  380

  614

  547

  738

  Total

  6,835

  7,909

  8,339

  9,616

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to reduce(a) the demand for drugs and (b) the supply of drugs in prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.
  203
  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 18 October 1994:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question about the action being taken to reduce the demand for and supply of drugs in prison.
  Prisons in Scotland follow a common approach in dealing with the problems of prisoners who misuse drugs. The main elements of that approach which aims to reflect as far as possible the range of measures available in the community are:
  medical examination on admission to identify current drug users;
  continuation of substitute prescribing for very short-term and remand prisoners in appropriate cases;
  provision of appropriate medication to alleviate symptoms of withdrawal;
  counselling and practical advice on drug-free lifestyles and harm minimisation;
  liaison with community based agencies prior to release; work with families;
  education for non-drug using prisoners on drugs misuse.
  Drug misuse is not tolerated within prison and a high priority is attached to the exclusion of all illicit drugs. Nevertheless, total exclusion is extremely difficult to achieve without the introduction of unacceptably stringent control measures, particularly in relation to visit arrangements, which would themselves create significant problems, not least for prisoners' families and those prisoners for whom the maintenance of family relationships are a high priority. The range of suitable security measures in place include closed circuit television surveillance, strip searching of prisoners on suspicion following visits, lockers for visitors' hand baggage and the use of a drug-detection dog unit.

  Sheriff Courts
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received concerning the appointment of lay representatives to each sheriff court user advisory committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Membership of sheriff court advisory committees is a matter for the sheriffs principal concerned.

  Social Housing
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for more investment in social housing based on need.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Substantial resources of nearly three quarter of a billion pounds have been made available to local authorities, new town development corporations and Scottish Homes in 1994–95 for investment in housing. These allocations are generally not earmarked for specific purposes and it is for local authorities, new town development corporations and Scottish Homes to obtain value for money from targeting these resources on the provision of social rented housing in accordance with their assessment of local housing needs and priorities.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the current annual budgets of each grant-maintained school; what are the capital and revenue allocations made by him to each grant-maintained school during(a) each of the past three years and (b) so far during the current financial year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Dornoch Academy, Sutherland, was established on 1 April 1994 as Scotland's first self-governing school. For the financial year to 31 204
  March 1995, it has budgets of £399,181 for recurrent revenue expenditure and £16,000 for capital expenditure. The recurrent expenditure budget amount may be adjusted shortly to reflect the level of comparable expenditure by the Education Department of Highland regional council and any changes in the circumstances of the school which would have an effect on the determination of its annual grant, such as a fluctuation in pupil numbers during the financial year.

  Clinical Waste
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the methods of the incineration of clinical waste at hospitals in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In 1989 a major study of all Scottish NHS clinical waste hospital incinerators and the source and quantity of all NHS clinical waste arisings was undertaken.

  The study allowed strategic planning to be undertaken to cope with the introduction of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Since that original report, other studies for the north, east and west of Scotland have been undertaken and used to assist NHS trusts to work as consortiums to achieve the most economic and safest way to treat and dispose of their clinical waste. Some NHS trusts because of local circumstances, have already installed new incinerators to meet the full technical standards required by the Environmental Protection Act 1990, whilst others are at tender stage.

  Among those currently tendering are NHS trusts in the following health board areas: Greater Glasgow, Lothian, Forth Valley, Tayside, Grampian, Highland, Orkney and Shetland.

  Trusts in the following areas—Argyll and Clyde, Dumfries and Galloway, Ayrshire and Arran, Fife, Lanarkshire, Borders and Western Isles—now either have clinical waste plant to the required standard or are sharing facilities among themselves.

  European Regional Assistance
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has concerning the distribution of objective 2 funds to(a) Inverclyde and (b) Strathclyde; if he will list those projects which have received or are to receive such financial assistance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Western Scotland as a whole was awarded a total of some £348·2 million of objective 2 funding between 1988 and 1993. In addition, the RENAVAL and RECHAR community initiatives were worth some £19·5 million.

  Under the objective 2 programmes, 651 projects throughout the area were granted assistance from the European regional development fund amounting to some £292·7 million. A total of 555 projects were granted assistance from the European social fund amounting to some £55·5 million. Precise figures on expenditure are not held at district level.

  Details of individual projects and their sponsors are available from the Strathclyde European Partnership office in Glasgow. I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a copy of their information pack.

  Housing
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of housing is unfit in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The most recent estimates of the number of dwellings below the tolerable standard and the housing stock in each district are contained in table 13 of "Statistical Bulletin" HSG/1994/7, which is available in the Library.

  Hospital and Community Medical and Dental Consultants; by health board: at 30 September 1989–1993

  Whole time equivalent/wte rate

  1Scotland

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  1989

  Number of Consultants

  2,160·8

  132·1

  109·5

  32·4

  54·3

  94·0

  88·0

  200·0

  594·2

  Rates per 100,000 pop

  42·4

  29·9

  29·2

  31·5

  36·8

  27·3

  32·4

  39·7

  63·7

  1990

  Number of Consultants

  2,228·6

  136·5

  118·5

  34·4

  52·7

  96·1

  91·6

  217·7

  616·7

  Rates per 100,000 pop

  43·7

  31·0

  31·6

  33·2

  35·5

  27·8

  33·7

  43·0

  66·5

  1991

  Number of Consultants

  2,230·5

  134·3

  120·2

  34·4

  54·8

  99·0

  91·1

  218·8

  611·2

  Rates per 100,000 pop

  43·7

  30·8

  31·9

  33·0

  37·1

  28·6

  33·4

  42·5

  66·3

  1992

  Number of Consultants

  2,265·3

  139·4

  122·8

  34·4

  56·8

  102·0

  92·1

  224·4

  613·1

  Rates per 100,000 pop

  44·4

  31·9

  32·6

  33·0

  38·5

  29·2

  33·7

  43·5

  66·5

  1993

  Number of Consultants

  2,286·4

  143·0

  123·2

  36·5

  56·9

  101·5

  91·5

  225·9

  613·8

  Rates per 100,000'pop

  44·7

  32·9

  32·7

  34·8

  38·4

  29·0

  33·5

  43·2

  66·8

  1Scotland excludes consultants based at the CSA and the State Hospital.

  2 Comparison of boards does not take account of staff employed in one board area who provides a service to another, the cost of which will probably be cross-charged.

  Hospital and Community Medical and Dental Consultants; by health board: at 30 September 1989–1993

  Whole time equivalent/wte rate

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  CSA

  State Hospital

  1989

  Number of Consultants

  80·7

  165·3

  405·1

  1·0

  2·0

  196·8

  5·4

  27·3

  —

  Rates per 100,000 pop

  42·0

  29·4

  54·5

  5·2

  9·0

  50·1

  17·6

  —

  —

  1990

  Number of Consultants

  81·6

  167·1

  410·9

  1·0

  2·0

  194·4

  7·4

  27·5

  —

  Rates per 100,000 pop

  39·9

  29·7

  54·8

  5·1

  9·0

  49·3

  24·1

  —

  —

  1991

  No. of Consultants

  82·9

  169·1

  400·6

  1·0

  3·1

  202·6

  7·4

  29·3

  3·7

  Rates per 100,000 pop

  40·6

  30·1

  53·4

  5·1

  13·8

  51·7

  25·2

  —

  —

  1992

  Number of Consultants

  87·9

  175·2

  399·9

  1·0

  3·0

  205·4

  7·9

  29·1

  3·2

  Rates per 100,000 pop

  43·1

  31·2

  53·2

  5·1

  13·3

  52·3

  26·9

  —

  —

  1993

  Number of Consultants

  88·0

  172·4

  407·7

  1·0

  4·1

  212·5

  8·4

  28·6

  3·6

  Rates per 100,000 pop

  42·7

  30·7

  54·3

  5·1

  18·3

  53·9

  28·5

  —

  —

  1Comparison of boards does not take account of staff employed in one board area who provides a service to another, the cost of which will probably be cross-charged.

  Schools
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many proposals from regional and island

  NHS Consultants
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many whole-time equivalent NHS consultants were employed per capita in each of the health board areas in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest five year information available centrally is shown in the following table:

  authorities to close or reorganise schools have been awaiting a decision from him for (a) up to three months, (b) three to six months, (c) six to nine months, (d) nine to 12 months and (e) more than 12 months.
  207
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of primary school classes in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole being taught by one teacher have 20 or fewer pupils.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At September 1993 the percentage of all education authority primary school classes with 20 or fewer pupils was 11·8 per cent. in Inverclyde, 15.4 per cent. in Strathclyde and 18·1 per cent in Scotland. Separate information on classes being taught by one teacher is not held centrally.

  Table 1—NHSiS—Scottish resident discharges from non-psychiatric and non-obstetric specialties, by hospital: year ended 31 March 1991

  Health Board of Residence

  Hospital of Treatment

  A&C

  Ayr

  Bor

  D&G

  Fife

  FV

  Gram

  Aberdeen City Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  415

  Aberdeen Maternity Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  74

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  3

  8

  1

  —

  8

  1

  26,982

  Aberfeldy Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Aboyne Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19

  Adamson Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  787

  1

  —

  Annan Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  68

  —

  —

  —

  Arbroath Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arduthie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  57

  Arran War Memorial Hospital

  —

  167

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ashludie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Astley Ainslie Hospital

  1

  —

  4

  3

  5

  —

  1

  Ayr County Hospital

  1

  1,997

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Ayrshire Central and Maternity Hospital

  1

  446

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Balfour Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ballochmyle Hospital

  3

  7,133

  —

  126

  —

  —

  —

  Bangour General Hospital

  5

  4

  98

  15

  544

  67

  7

  Bannockburn Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  Beatson Oncology Centre

  1,208

  442

  3

  39

  27

  912

  1

  Belford Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belhaven Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belvidere Hospital

  359

  297

  14

  12

  1

  66

  —

  Biggart Hospital

  —

  280

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Birdston Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blairgowrie Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blawarthill Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bo'ness Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  —

  Bon Secours Private Hospital

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bonnybridge Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Borders General Hospital

  1

  1

  5,664

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Bridge of Earn Hospital

  2

  —

  —

  —

  125

  4

  1

  Bridge of Weir Hospital

  143

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Brooksby House Hospital

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Broomhill Hospital

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Caithness General Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Calton Hospital

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cameron Hospital, Windygates

  —

  —

  —

  —

  124

  —

  —

  Campbell Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23

  Campbeltown Cottage Hospital

  46

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Canniesburn Hospital

  990

  402

  2

  40

  14

  349

  2

  Castle Douglas Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  54

  —

  —

  —

  Chalmers Hospital

  1

  2

  5

  1

  11

  —

  2

  Chalmers Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  257

  Cleland Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coathill Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coldstream Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Corstorphine Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  County Hospital Stornoway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cowglen Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Craigtoun Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Cresswell Maternity Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  225

  —

  —

  —

  Crieff Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Crosshouse Hospital

  19

  13,131

  1

  5

  —

  —

  2

  Patient's Choice
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what degree of patient's choice as to place of treatment was available(a) before and (b) after April 1991.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Tables 1 and 2 show the areas of residence and hospitals from which people were discharged in 1990–91 and 1993–94. The tables show that most people choose to be treated locally although general practitioners are free to refer people to the hospital of their choice.

  A wider choice of place of treatment for some specialties is also now available. Some treatments available only in major cities in 1991 are now available locally.
  209

  Health Board of Residence

  Hospital of Treatment

  A&C

  Ayr

  Bor

  D&G

  Fife

  FV

  Gram

  Daliburgh Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dalintart Hospital

  1ll

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dalrymple Hospital

  —

  1

  —

  166

  —

  —

  —

  Darnley Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Davidson Cottage Hospital

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dr. Gray's Hospital

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,929

  Drumchapel Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drumlanrig Hospital

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Duke Street Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumbarton Joint Hospital

  58

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary

  —

  4

  4

  8,446

  —

  1

  —

  Dunaros Hospital

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dunbar Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dundee Limb Fitting Centre

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23

  —

  1

  Dundee Royal Infirmary

  1

  —

  3

  1

  771

  16

  25

  Dunfermline and West Fife Hospital

  —

  1

  —

  —

  5,255

  8

  2

  Dunfermline Maternity Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Dunoon and District General Hospital

  464

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Duntocher Hospital

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Fortune Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Eastbank Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Eastern General Hospital

  1

  —

  20

  1

  12

  7

  —

  Edenhall Hospital

  —

  —

  5

  2

  8

  4

  9

  Edinburgh City Hospital

  10

  12

  679

  13

  324

  30

  11

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary

  59

  40

  734

  63

  712

  187

  14

  Edington Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Erskine Hospital

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  2

  1

  —

  1

  212

  9,065

  —

  Fleming Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  Forfar Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Forth Park Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  983

  —

  —

  Fraserburgh Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  60

  Garrick Hospital

  —

  8

  —

  606

  —

  —

  —

  Gartnavel General Hospital

  1,461

  186

  1

  31

  4

  227

  3

  Gesto Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gilbert Bain Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  1,460

  670

  4

  299

  42

  386

  48

  Glencoe Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glenrothes Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  188

  —

  —

  Hairmyres Hospital

  24

  131

  1

  —

  —

  1

  8

  Heathfield Hospital, Ayr

  2

  2,037

  —

  16

  1

  —

  —

  Helensburgh Victoria Infirmary

  41

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hillside Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Holmhead Hospital

  —

  101

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Homeopathic Hospital, Glasgow

  63

  25

  —

  4

  21

  19

  38

  Hunter Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Huntly Jubilee Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  189

  Ian Charles Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Insch and District War Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  6,783

  928

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Invergordon County Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inverurie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  56

  Irvine Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Johnstone Hospital

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kello Hospital

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kildean Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Kings Cross Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  —

  5

  Kirkcudbright Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  39

  —

  —

  —

  Kirklandside Hospital, Kilmarnock

  —

  144

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Knightswood Hospital

  118

  10

  —

  —

  —

  7

  —

  Knoll Hospital

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lady Home Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lady Margaret Hospital, Millport

  —

  68

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Law Hospital

  9

  1

  39

  2

  —

  8

  —

  Lawson Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leanchoil Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  58

  Lenzie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lewis Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Liberton Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lightburn Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Loanhead Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lochgreen Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  144

  —

  Lochmaben Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  210 211

  Health Board of Residence

  Hospital of Treatment

  A&C

  Ayr

  Bor

  D&G

  Fife

  FV

  Gram

  Lochmaddy Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lockhart Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Longmore Hospital

  1

  2

  175

  1

  97

  17

  4

  Mackinnon Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Maidencraig House

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  165

  Maud Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  Mckelvie Hospital

  42

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mearnskirk General Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Meigle Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mid Argyll Hospital

  15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Migdale Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Milesmark Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  646

  —

  —

  Moffat Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  72

  —

  —

  —

  Monklands District General Hospital

  10

  3

  2

  —

  2

  14

  1

  Montfield Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Montrose Royal Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Morningfield Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Nairn Town and County Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlea Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  Newton Stewart Hospital

  —

  1

  —

  119

  —

  —

  —

  Nicolson Mackenzie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  Ninewells Hospital

  18

  19

  6

  6

  1,716

  43

  132

  Nithbank Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Northern General Hospital

  —

  —

  13

  2

  47

  34

  —

  Oban County Hospital

  300

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  1

  389

  53

  1

  Peterhead Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  43

  Philipshill Hospital

  52

  28

  —

  7

  —

  10

  —

  Portree Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Princess Margaret Rose Hospital

  5

  15

  101

  60

  123

  95

  24

  Queen Margaret Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  936

  —

  —

  Raigmore Hospital

  10

  2

  1

  —

  1

  1

  532

  Randolph Wemyss Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  424

  —

  —

  Ravenscraig Hospital

  78

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rhsc Drumchapel

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Roadmeetings Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Roodlands General Hospital

  —

  —

  30

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Ross Hall Hospital

  99

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ross Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rothesay Victoria Hospital

  275

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rothesay Victoria Hospital Annexe

  16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Roxburghe House

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  137

  Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital

  4

  —

  —

  —

  9

  1

  3,825

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  11,474

  272

  1

  1

  3

  —

  —

  Royal Northern Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Samaritan Hospital

  106

  55

  —

  1

  —

  18

  1

  Royal Victoria Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Victoria Hospital, Edinburgh

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ruchill Hospital

  14

  6

  —

  —

  —

  12

  —

  RHSC, Edinburgh

  1

  3

  232

  8

  358

  35

  39

  RHSC, Glasgow

  1,365

  415

  3

  118

  21

  324

  13

  Sauchie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  106

  —

  Seafield Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  33

  Seafield Sick Childrens Hospital

  1

  1,255

  1

  37

  —

  —

  —

  Simpson Memorial Maternity Pavilion

  —

  2

  —

  4

  8

  3

  —

  Sister Margaret Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southern General Hospital

  3,221

  414

  3

  108

  8

  102

  7

  Spynie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  53

  St. Andrews Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  726

  —

  —

  St. Brendan's Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Columba's Hospice

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. John's Hospital At Howden

  1

  —

  7

  2

  9

  106

  —

  St. Margaret's Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Mary's Hospital

  28

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Michaels Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Vincent's Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stephen Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  8

  1

  —

  —

  100

  11,746

  1

  Stobhill Hospital

  204

  81

  2

  17

  3

  210

  2

  Stonehouse Hospital

  4

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stracathro Hospital

  —

  6

  —

  —

  9

  1

  1,114

  Strathblane Childrens Home Hospital

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  212 213

  Health Board of Residence

  Hospital of Treatment

  A&C

  Ayr

  Bor

  D&G

  Fife

  FV

  Gram

  Thomas Hope Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  70

  —

  —

  —

  Thomson House

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thornhill Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  39

  —

  —

  —

  Tippethill Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tor-na-dee Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Turner Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Turriff Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16

  Udston Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ugie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Vale of Leven District General Hospital

  4,368

  2

  —

  —

  —

  49

  1

  Victoria Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  5

  —

  —

  —

  13,392

  1

  1

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  513

  75

  —

  11

  1

  10

  2

  West Highland Hospital

  1,133

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wester Moffat Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Western General Hospital, Edinburgh

  18

  24

  503

  308

  1,563

  313

  12

  Western Infirmary, Glasgow

  2,250

  806

  2

  86

  24

  475

  19

  Whitehills Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Witchburn Hospital

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Woodcot Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Woodend General Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3,775

  All Hospitals (220)

  39,148

  32,185

  8,372

  11,362

  30,861

  25,322

  41,312

  Notes

  Source: SMR1.

  Ref: Unit2/94459.

  Date: 11 October 1994.

  Table 1—NHSiS—Scottish resident discharges from non-psychiatric and non-obstetric specialties, by hospital: year ended 31 March 1991

  Hospital of Treatment

  GG

  High

  Lan

  Loth

  Ork

  Shet

  Tay

  WI

  Aberdeen City Hospital

  —

  2

  —

  —

  15

  34

  3

  —

  Aberdeen Maternity Hospital

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  1

  337

  —

  9

  455

  593

  101

  21

  Aberfeldy Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  —

  Aboyne Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Adamson Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Annan Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arbroath Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  128

  —

  Arduthie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arran War Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ashludie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  293

  —

  Astley Ainslie Hospital

  —

  —

  2

  95

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Ayr County Hospital

  2

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ayrshire Central and Maternity Hospital

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Balfour Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  1

  750

  —

  —

  —

  Ballochmyle Hospital

  6

  —

  6

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bangour General Hospital

  9

  51

  37

  2,559

  —

  —

  17

  2

  Bannockburn Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Beatson Oncology Centre

  1,989

  26

  378

  20

  —

  —

  15

  22

  Belford Hospital

  —

  830

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belhaven Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belvidere Hospital

  2,080

  —

  1,198

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  Biggart Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Birdston Hospital

  25

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blairgowrie Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  103

  —

  Blawarthill Hospital

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bo'ness Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bon Secours Private Hospital

  18

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bonnybridge Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Borders General Hospital

  1

  1

  2

  67

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bridge of Earn Hospital

  4

  —

  —

  5

  —

  1

  1,658

  —

  Bridge of Weir Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Brooksby House Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Broomhill Hospital

  135

  —

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Caithness General Hospital

  —

  1,448

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Calton Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cameron Hospital, Windygates

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Campbell Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Campbeltown Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  214 215

  Hospital of Treatment

  GG

  High

  Lan

  Loth

  Ork

  Sher

  Tay

  WI

  Canniesburn Hospital

  2,565

  33

  633

  21

  —

  —

  14

  19

  Castle Douglas Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Chalmers Hospital

  1

  2

  2

  1,043

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Chalmers Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cleland Hospital

  4

  —

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coathill Hospital

  —

  —

  40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coldstream Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Corstorphine Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  451

  —

  —

  —

  —

  County Hospital Stornoway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  213

  Cowglen Hospital

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Craigtoun Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cresswell Maternity Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Crieff Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  38

  —

  Crosshouse Hospital

  20

  —

  6

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Daliburgh Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  72

  Dalintart Hospital

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dalrymple Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Darnley Hospital

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Davidson Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dr. Gray's Hospital

  1

  13

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Drumchapel Hospital

  108

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Drumlanrig Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Duke Street Hospital

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumbarton Joint Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary

  —

  1

  41

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dunaros Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dunbar Hospital

  —

  39

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dundee Limb Fitting Centre

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  67

  —

  Dundee Royal Infirmary

  13

  15

  2

  13

  3

  —

  5,881

  2

  Dunfermline and West Fife Hospital

  1

  1

  —

  14

  —

  —

  26

  —

  Dunfermline Maternity Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dunoon and District General Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Duntocher Hospital

  200

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Fortune Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  89

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Eastbank Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  74

  —

  —

  —

  Eastern General Hospital

  1

  —

  4

  3,934

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Edenhall Hospital

  2

  3

  1

  173

  —

  1

  8

  2

  Edinburgh City Hospital

  34

  24

  32

  5,011

  1

  —

  76

  4

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary

  75

  107

  152

  15,274

  —

  4

  89

  21

  Edington Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Erskine Hospital

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  11

  3

  44

  70

  —

  —

  4

  —

  Fleming Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Forfar Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  401

  —

  Forth Park Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Fraserburgh Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Garrick Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gartnavel General Hospital

  9,311

  16

  355

  15

  —

  —

  13

  62

  Gesto Hospital

  —

  35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gilbert Bain Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,274

  —

  —

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  16,323

  55

  4,011

  35

  1

  5

  191

  135

  Glencoe Hospital

  —

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glenrothes Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hairmyres Hospital

  358

  2

  7,038

  7

  —

  —

  2

  1

  Heathfield Hospital, Ayr

  4

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  7

  —

  Helensburgh Victoria Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hillside Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  Holmhead Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Homeopathic Hospital, Glasgow

  197

  10

  56

  47

  1

  —

  17

  4

  Hunter Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Huntly Jubilee Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ian Charles Hospital

  —

  59

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Insch and District War Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  8

  —

  4

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Invergordon County Hospital

  —

  150

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inverurie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Irvine Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16

  —

  Johnstone Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kello Hospital

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kildean Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kings Cross Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  731

  —

  Kirkcudbright Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kirklandside Hospital, Kilmarnock

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  216 217

  Hospital of Treatment

  GG

  High

  Lan

  Loth

  Ork

  Shet

  Tay

  WI

  Knightswood Hospital

  492

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Knoll Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lady Home Hospital

  —

  —

  31

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lady Margaret Hospital, Millport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Law Hospital

  32

  —

  10,652

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lawson Memorial Hospital

  —

  375

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leanchoil Hospital

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lenzie Hospital

  37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lewis Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,181

  Liberton Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  204

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lightburn Hospital

  87

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Loanhead Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lochgreen Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lochmaben Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lochmaddy Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18

  Lockhart Hospital

  —

  —

  214

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Longmore Hospital

  —

  3

  3

  1,684

  —

  —

  5

  2

  Mackinnon Memorial Hospital

  —

  699

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Maidencraig House

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Maud Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mckelvie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mearnskirk General Hospital

  158

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Meigle Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  98

  —

  Mid Argyll Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Migdale Hospital

  —

  16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Milesmark Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Moffat Hospital

  —

  —

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Monklands District General Hospital

  201

  5

  9,904

  7

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Montfield Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  183

  —

  —

  Montrose Royal Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Morningfield Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nairn Town and County Hospital

  —

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlea Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newton Stewart Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nicolson Mackenzie Hospital

  —

  121

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Ninewells Hospital

  43

  38

  21

  28

  1

  1

  14,241

  4

  Nithbank Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northern General Hospital

  —

  —

  4

  466

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Oban County Hospital

  —

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  5,496

  —

  Peterhead Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Philipshill Hospital

  1,222

  —

  92

  6

  —

  —

  2

  5

  Portree Hospital

  —

  44

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Princess Margaret Rose Hospital

  8

  36

  41

  4,024

  2

  3

  29

  4

  Queen Margaret Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Raigmore Hospital

  —

  12,240

  —

  8

  —

  5

  10

  664

  Randolph Wemyss Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ravenscraig Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rhsc Drumchapel

  68

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Roadmeetings Hospital

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Roodlands General Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  1,372

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ross Hall Hospital

  24

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ross Memorial Hospital

  —

  359

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Rothesay Victoria Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rothesay Victoria Hospital Annexe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Roxburghe House

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital

  2

  55

  —

  5

  89

  144

  7

  2

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  131

  —

  14

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Royal Northern Infirmary

  —

  62

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Samaritan Hospital

  2,677

  4

  468

  —

  —

  —

  7

  7

  Royal Victoria Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  197

  —

  Royal Victoria Hospital, Edinburgh

  —

  —

  —

  242

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ruchill Hospital

  1,799

  1

  111

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  RHSC, Edinburgh

  3

  65

  31

  3,181

  3

  3

  82

  —

  RHSC, Glasgow

  5,270

  78

  1,898

  37

  —

  —

  28

  43

  Sauchie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Seafield Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Seafield Sick Childrens Hospital

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Simpson Memorial Maternity Pavilion

  1

  —

  2

  91

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sister Margaret Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southern General Hospital

  8,013

  31

  616

  8

  —

  1

  16

  64

  Spynie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Andrews Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  218 219

  Hospital of Treatment

  GG

  High

  Lan

  Loth

  Ork

  Shet

  Tay

  WI

  St. Brendan's Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  St. Columba's Hospice

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. John's Hospital At Howden

  1

  —

  126

  7,480

  —

  —

  1

  —

  St. Margaret's Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  —

  St. Mary's Hospital

  185

  —

  97

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Michaels Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  27

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Vincent's Hospital

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stephen Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  24

  —

  32

  22

  —

  1

  192

  7

  Stobhill Hospital

  11,631

  20

  1,705

  26

  —

  —

  6

  12

  Stonehouse Hospital

  32

  —

  5,644

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Stracathro Hospital

  1

  7

  —

  2

  82

  85

  2,731

  —

  Strathblane Childrens Home Hospital

  36

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde Hospital

  —

  —

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thomas Hope Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thomson House

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thornhill Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tippethill Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  48

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tor-na-dee Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Turner Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Turriff Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Udston Hospital

  —

  —

  17

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ugie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Vale of Leven District General Hospital

  76

  1

  4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Victoria Cottage Hospital

  5

  —

  88

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  1

  1

  —

  11

  —

  —

  13

  —

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  8,700

  2

  337

  1

  —

  —

  5

  3

  West Highland Hospital

  —

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Wester Moffat Hospital

  —

  —

  21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Western General Hospital, Edinburgh

  32

  201

  48

  12,426

  1

  —

  164

  3

  Western Infirmary, Glasgow

  9,837

  65

  447

  54

  —

  —

  17

  88

  Whitehills Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  —

  Witchburn Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Woodcot Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Woodend General Hospital

  —

  16

  —

  —

  68

  102

  18

  7

  All Hospitals (220)

  84,412

  17,862

  46,771

  60,504

  1,548

  2,444

  33,354

  2,710

  Notes

  Source: SMR 1.

  Ref: Unit2/94459.

  Date: 11 October 1994.

  Table 2—NHSis—Scottish resident discharges from non-psychiatric and non-obstetric specialities, by hospital; year ended 31 March 1994

  Health Board of Residence

  Hospital of Treatment

  A&C

  Ayr

  Bor

  D&G

  Fife

  FV

  Gram

  Aberdeen City Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  564

  Aberdeen Maternity Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  6

  1

  2

  6

  25

  7

  30,525

  Aberfeldy Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Aboyne Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  46

  Adamson Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,611

  —

  —

  Annan Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  82

  —

  —

  —

  Arbroath Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arduthie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  51

  Arran View Nursing Home

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arran War Memorial Hospital

  —

  376

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ashludie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Astley Ainslie Hospital

  1

  1

  2

  1

  3

  8

  1

  Ayrshire Central and Maternity Hospital

  —

  426

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Balfour Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ballochmyle Hospital

  9

  7,260

  —

  44

  —

  —

  —

  Bangour Village Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bannockburn Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  Beatson Oncology Centre

  1,897

  590

  23

  108

  13

  1,031

  20

  Belford Hospital

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belhaven Hospital

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belvidere Hospital

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Biggart Hospital

  —

  254

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blairgowrie Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blawarthill Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  220 221

  Health Board of Residence

  Hospital of Treatment

  A&C

  Ayr

  Bor

  D&G

  Fife

  FV

  Gram

  Bon Secours Private Hospital

  32

  27

  —

  4

  —

  12

  —

  Bonnybridge Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24

  —

  Borders General Hospital

  —

  —

  8,095

  19

  1

  —

  —

  Brechin Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bridge of Earn Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  1

  23

  —

  —

  Bridge of Weir Hospital

  212

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Broomhill Hospital

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  Caithness General Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cameron Hospital, Windygates

  —

  —

  —

  —

  138

  —

  —

  Campbell Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  Campbeltown Hospital

  122

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Canniesburn Hospital

  1,081

  384

  1

  55

  8

  254

  8

  Castle Douglas Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  47

  —

  —

  —

  Chalmers Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Chalmers Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  203

  Cleland Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coathill Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coldstream Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Corstorphine Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cowglen Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Crieff Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Crosshouse Hospital

  10

  18,816

  9

  112

  1

  —

  1

  Daliburgh Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dalintart Hospital

  64

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dalrymple Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  108

  —

  —

  —

  Darnley Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Davidson Cottage Hospital

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dr Gray's Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3,632

  Drumchapel Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Duke Street Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumbarton Joint Hospital

  63

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary

  3

  11

  4

  11,605

  1

  1

  —

  Dunaros Hospital

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dunbar Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dundee Dental Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  76

  1

  8

  Dundee Limb Fitting Centre

  —

  —

  —

  —

  41

  —

  —

  Dundee Royal Infirmary

  4

  2

  —

  —

  1,170

  20

  41

  Dunfermline and West Fife Hospital

  1

  —

  —

  —

  560

  —

  —

  Dunoon and District General Hospital

  409

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Fortune Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Eastbank Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Eastern General Hospital

  —

  —

  20

  —

  25

  11

  1

  Edenhall Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Edinburgh City Hospital

  7

  15

  916

  31

  347

  61

  20

  Edinburgh Dental Hospital

  1

  3

  27

  —

  53

  15

  —

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary

  19

  21

  606

  47

  672

  215

  14

  Edington Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Erskine Hospital

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  2

  —

  —

  —

  258

  10,409

  —

  Fleming Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  21

  Forfar Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Forth Park Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  —

  —

  Fourhills Nursing Home

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fraserburgh Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  35

  Garrick Hospital

  —

  13

  —

  1,014

  —

  —

  —

  Gartnavel General Hospital

  795

  89

  —

  26

  4

  149

  2

  Gesto Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gilbert Bain Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School

  50

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  1,730

  615

  6

  347

  44

  386

  52

  Glen O'Dee Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  Glencoe Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glenrothes Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  132

  —

  —

  Greenfield Park Nursing Home

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hairmyres Hospital

  37

  219

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  Helensburgh Victoria Infirmary

  81

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hillside Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Holmhead Hospital

  —

  93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Homeopathic Hospital, Glasgow

  59

  36

  9

  17

  13

  28

  21

  Huntly Jubilee Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  232

  Ian Charles Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Insch and District War Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  8,077

  1,135

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  222 223

  Health Board of Residence

  Hospital of Treatment

  A&C

  Ayr

  Bor

  D&G

  Fife

  FV

  Gram

  Invergordon County Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inverurie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  77

  Irvine Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Islay Hospital

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Johnstone Hospital

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kello Hospital

  —

  —

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kildean Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Kincardine O Neil War Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  74

  Kings Cross Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  76

  2

  8

  Kirkcudbright Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  44

  —

  —

  —

  Kirklandside Hospital, Kilmarnock

  —

  189

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Knightswood Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lady Home Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lady Margaret Hospital, Millport

  —

  71

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Law Hospital

  5

  1

  28

  3

  —

  14

  2

  Lawson Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leanchoil Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  39

  Lenzie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Liberton Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lightburn Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Little Cairnie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lochgreen Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  99

  —

  Lochmaben Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  12

  —

  —

  —

  Lochmaddy Hospital

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lockhart Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lynebank Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  45

  —

  —

  Mackinnon Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Maidencraig House

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  150

  Maud Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23

  McKelvie Hospital

  46

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mearnskirk General Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Meigle Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merchiston Hospital

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mid Argyll Hospital

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Migdale Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Milesmark Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  172

  —

  —

  Moffat Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  48

  —

  —

  —

  Monklands District General Hospital

  11

  9

  1

  —

  2

  32

  1

  Montfield Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Montrose Royal Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Morningfield Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  Nairn Town and Country Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlea Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Newton Stewart Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  75

  —

  —

  —

  Nicolson Mackenzie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ninewells Hospital

  26

  18

  7

  5

  2,137

  53

  147

  Northern General Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oban County Hospital

  416

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  6

  1

  1

  —

  463

  57

  2

  Peterhead Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  62

  Portree Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Princess Margaret Rose Hospital

  2

  17

  87

  49

  99

  83

  27

  Queen Margaret Hospital

  3

  2

  —

  —

  9,995

  12

  —

  Raigmore Hospital

  3

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  820

  Randolph Wemyss Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  411

  —

  —

  Ravenscraig Hospital

  95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Roadmeetings Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Roodlands General Hospital

  —

  —

  16

  1

  3

  —

  —

  Ross Hall Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ross Memorial Hospital

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Rothesay Victoria Hospital

  268

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rothesay Victoria Hospital Annexe

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Roxburghe House

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  139

  Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3,841

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  126,765

  369

  2

  2

  1

  3

  —

  Royal Northern Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Samaritan Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Victoria Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Royal Victoria Hospital, Edinburgh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ruchill Hospital

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  RHSC, Edinburgh

  2

  —

  272

  11

  477

  39

  40

  RHSC, Glasgow

  1,277

  371

  5

  135

  20

  160

  15

  Sauchie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  77

  —

  224 225

  Health Board of Residence

  Hospital of Treatment

  A&C

  Ayr

  Bor

  D&G

  Fife

  FV

  Gram

  Seafield Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  56

  Simpson Memorial Maternity Pavilion

  1

  2

  3

  —

  16

  5

  —

  Sister Margaret Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southern General Hospital

  2,851

  414

  5

  168

  19

  143

  20

  Southfield Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Spynie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  96

  St Andrew's Hospice

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St Andrews Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  990

  —

  —

  St Brendan's Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St John's Hospital At Howden

  59

  25

  167

  47

  818

  287

  99

  St Margaret's Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St Mary's Hospital

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  St Michaels Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stephen Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  16

  1

  2

  1

  130

  14,594

  2

  Stobhill Hospital

  363

  114

  5

  30

  3

  203

  4

  Stonehouse Hospital

  2

  4

  2

  —

  1

  2

  —

  Stracathro Hospital

  3

  —

  —

  —

  19

  1

  619

  Strathblane Childrens Home Hospital

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Stratyclyde Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  The Ayr Hospital

  7

  7,982

  —

  79

  —

  —

  2

  Thomas Hope Hospital

  —

  —

  5

  96

  —

  —

  —

  Thornhill Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  35

  —

  —

  —

  Tippethill Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tor-na-dee Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  33

  Turner Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  79

  Turriff Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24

  Udston Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ugie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Vale of Leven District General Hospital

  5,377

  1

  —

  —

  1

  91

  1

  Victoria Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Victoria Geriatric Unit, Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  1

  —

  1

  —

  14,860

  4

  —

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  505

  79

  —

  21

  5

  20

  —

  West Highland Hospital

  1,551

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Wester Moffat Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Western General Hospital, Edinburgh

  125

  66

  1,108

  506

  2,424

  612

  44

  Western Infirmary, Glasgow

  3,148

  978

  5

  81

  27

  665

  7

  Western Isles Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Whitehills Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Woodcot Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Woodend General Hospital

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  3,798

  All Hospitals (213)

  47,821

  41,117

  11,462

  15,125

  38,455

  29,916

  45,967

  Table 2—NHSiS—Scottish resident discharges from non-psychiatric and non-obstetric specialities, by hospital; year ended 31 March 1994

  Hospital of Treatment

  GG

  High

  Lan

  Loth

  Ork

  Shet

  Tay

  WI

  Aberdeen City Hospital

  —

  5

  —

  —

  34

  44

  1

  —

  Aberdeen Maternity Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  4

  429

  6

  6

  490

  726

  294

  26

  Aberfeldy Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  —

  Aboyne Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Adamson Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  —

  Annan Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arbroath Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  182

  —

  Arduthie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arran View Nursing Home

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arran War Memorial Hospital

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ashludie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  162

  —

  Astley Ainslie Hospital

  —

  —

  1

  128

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Ayrshire Central and Maternity Hospital

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Balfour Hospital

  —

  1

  —

  —

  907

  —

  —

  —

  Ballochmyle Hospital

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bangour Village Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bannockburn Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Beatson Oncology Centre

  3,498

  37

  1,481

  2

  —

  1

  63

  42

  Belford Hospital

  —

  1,173

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Belhaven Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  59

  —

  —

  —

  —

  226 227

  Hospital of Treatment

  GG

  High

  Lan

  Loth

  Ork

  Shet

  Tay

  WI

  Belvidere Hospital

  27

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Biggart Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blairgowrie Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  51

  —

  Blawarthill Hospital

  16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bon Secours Private Hospital

  172

  —

  80

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bonnybridge Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Borders General Hospital

  1

  2

  7

  72

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Brechin Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26

  —

  Bridge of Earn Hospital

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  362

  —

  Bridge of Weir Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Broomhill Hospital

  149

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Caithness General Hospital

  —

  1,701

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cameron Hospital, Windygates

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Campbell Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Campbeltown Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Canniesburn Hospital

  3,016

  15

  744

  7

  1

  1

  7

  25

  Castle Douglas Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Chalmers Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Chalmers Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cleland Hospital

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coathill Hospital

  —

  —

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coldstream Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Corstorphine Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cowglen Hospital

  15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Crieff Cottage Hospital

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50

  —

  Crosshouse Hospital

  22

  4

  12

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Daliburgh Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  124

  Dalintart Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dalrymple Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Darnley Hospital

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Davidson Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dr Gray's Hospital

  —

  23

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Drumchapel Hospital

  188

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Duke Street Hospital

  30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumbarton Joint Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary

  4

  —

  53

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Dunaros Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dunbar Hospital

  —

  47

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dundee Dental Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  806

  —

  Dundee Limb Fitting Centre

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  86

  —

  Dundee Royal Infirmary

  15

  12

  6

  6

  —

  —

  7,677

  2

  Dunfermline and West Fife Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dunoon and District General Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Fortune Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Eastbank Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  91

  —

  —

  —

  Eastern General Hospital

  —

  —

  8

  4,763

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Edenhall Hospital

  —

  —

  1

  117

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Edinburgh City Hospital

  19

  12

  34

  6,965

  1

  —

  148

  4

  Edinburgh Dental Hospital

  2

  1

  15

  4,220

  —

  —

  6

  —

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary

  35

  100

  95

  17,067

  1

  2

  89

  10

  Edington Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Erskine Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  4

  1

  70

  83

  —

  —

  7

  —

  Fleming Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Forfar Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  58

  —

  Forth Park Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fourhills Nursing Home

  101

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fraserburgh Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Garrick Hospital

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gartnavel General Hospital

  5,998

  11

  250

  4

  1

  —

  5

  20

  Gesto Hospital

  —

  32

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gilbert Bain Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,453

  —

  —

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School

  334

  —

  113

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  16,757

  89

  4,704

  98

  1

  2

  182

  95

  Glen O'Dee Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glencoe Hospital

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glenrothes Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greenfield Park Nursing Home

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hairmyres Hospital

  338

  1

  8,741

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Helensburgh Victoria Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hillside Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Holmhead Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Homeopathic Hospital, Glasgow

  245

  21

  79

  46

  2

  4

  22

  7

  228 229

  Hospital of Treatment

  GG

  High

  Lan

  Loth

  Ork

  Shet

  Tay

  WI

  Huntly Jubilee Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ian Charles Hospital

  —

  42

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Insch and District War Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  13

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Invergordon County Hospital

  —

  132

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inverurie Hospital

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Irvine Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18

  —

  Islay Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Johnstone Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kello Hospital

  —

  —

  29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kildean Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kincardine O Neil War Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kings Cross Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  888

  1

  Kirkcudbright Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kirklandside Hospital, Kilmarnock

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Knightswood Hospital

  60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lady Home Hospital

  —

  —

  27

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lady Margaret Hospital, Millport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Law Hospital

  32

  2

  13,534

  14

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Lawson Memorial Hospital

  —

  813

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Leanchoil Hospital

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lenzie Hospital

  26

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Liberton Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  453

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lightburn Hospital

  17

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Little Cairnie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  Lochgreen Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lochmaben Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lochmaddy Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  Lockhart Hospital

  —

  —

  207

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lynebank Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mackinnon Memorial Hospital

  —

  723

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Maidencraig House

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Maud Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  McKelvie Hospit l

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mearnskirk General Hospital

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Meigle Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  66

  —

  Merchiston Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mid Argyll Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Migdale Hospital

  —

  70

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Milesmark Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Moffat Hospital

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Monklands District General Hospital

  200

  —

  10,787

  8

  —

  1

  3

  —

  Montfield Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  150

  —

  —

  Montrose Royal Infirmary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  —

  Morningfield Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nairn Town and Country Hospital

  —

  35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlea Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newton Stewart Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nicolson Mackenzie Hospital

  —

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ninewells Hospital

  44

  74

  22

  53

  1

  —

  15,365

  10

  Northern General Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oban County Hospital

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  5

  1

  —

  10

  —

  —

  7,844

  —

  Peterhead Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Portree Hospital

  —

  34

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Princess Margaret Rose Hospital

  11

  27

  40

  3,722

  3

  2

  41

  —

  Queen Margaret Hospital

  3

  —

  —

  11

  —

  —

  37

  —

  Raigmore Hospital

  4

  13,821

  —

  7

  1

  3

  6

  685

  Randolph Wemyss Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ravenscraig Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Roadmeetings Hospital

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Roodlands General Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  1,824

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Ross Hall Hospital

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ross Memorial Hospital

  —

  217

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  Rothesay Victoria Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rothesay Victoria Hospital Annexe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Roxburghe House

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital

  —

  44

  —

  1

  85

  160

  21

  4

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  227

  1

  32

  4

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Royal Northern Infirmary

  —

  189

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Samaritan Hospital

  24

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Victoria Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  232

  —

  Royal Victoria Hospital, Edinburgh

  —

  —

  —

  518

  —

  —

  —

  —

  230 231

  Hospital of Treatment

  GG

  High

  Lan

  Loth

  Ork

  Shet

  Tay

  WI

  Ruchill Hospital

  196

  —

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RHSC, Edinburgh

  10

  72

  36

  3,757

  1

  4

  100

  5

  RHSC, Glasgow

  4,941

  71

  1,657

  17

  3

  2

  11

  27

  Sauchie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Seafield Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Simpson Memorial Maternity Pavilion

  2

  2

  5

  519

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Sister Margaret Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southern General Hospital

  11,427

  35

  786

  27

  —

  2

  18

  74

  Southfield Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Spynie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St Andrew's Hospice

  2

  —

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St Andrews Memorial Hospital

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  St Brendan's Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  St John's Hospital At Howden

  142

  121

  382

  12,044

  —

  4

  120

  —

  St Margaret's Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50

  —

  St Mary's Hospital

  205

  —

  129

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St Michaels Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  23

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stephen Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  17

  4

  57

  33

  —

  —

  219

  2

  Stobhill Hospital

  15,319

  9

  2,175

  14

  —

  1

  7

  14

  Stonehouse Hospital

  87

  —

  7,839

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stracathro Hospital

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  3,363

  —

  Strathblane Childrens Home Hospital

  123

  —

  27

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stratyclyde Hospital

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  The Ayr Hospital

  5

  4

  3

  6

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Thomas Hope Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Thornhill Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tippethill Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  31

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tor-na-dee Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Turner Memorial Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Turriff Cottage Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Udston Hospital

  —

  —

  37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ugie Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Vale of Leven District General Hospital

  148

  3

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Victoria Cottage Hospital

  1

  —

  81

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Victoria Geriatric Unit, Glasgow

  42

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  1

  2

  —

  23

  —

  —

  53

  —

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  14,746

  6

  865

  6

  —

  1

  1

  2

  West Highland Hospital

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wester Moffat Hospital

  —

  —

  16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Western General Hospital, Edinburgh

  247

  358

  207

  22,648

  3

  —

  388

  17

  Western Infirmary, Glasgow

  17,254

  69

  799

  35

  —

  —

  36

  120

  Western Isles Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,712

  Whitehills Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Woodcot Hospital

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Woodend General Hospital

  2

  15

  —

  —

  240

  143

  16

  —

  All Hospitals (213)

  96,598

  20,742

  56,366

  79,543

  1,867

  2,707

  39,248

  3,087

  Charity Regulations
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to initiate a review of(a) charity regulations and (b) the role of the Scottish Charities Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has no plans at present to initiate a review of Scottish charity regulations.

  The current legislative provisions relating to charities in Scotland are based on the 1989 policy statement "Charities in Scotland: A Framework for Supervision". The existing structure followed extensive consultation, which included the voluntary sector. Some regulations were brought into force only in 1993 and are in advance of equivalents proposed for England and Wales.

  The role of the Scottish Charities Office includes the investigation of misconduct or mismanagement in the administration of charities. The office, which began work in July 1992, has conducted investigations in cases where
  232
  evidence of misconduct and mismanagement has been uncovered and has initiated court proceedings leading to the suspension of trustees and orders of court protecting charity property. Some recent examples, which have been reported widely in the media, indicate that the regulatory regime in Scotland and the Scottish Charities Office are effective against misconduct or mismanagement in the administration of charities. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has no plans to review its role at present.

  Psychiatric Patients
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has in relation to the needs of long-stay psychiatric patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government's policy is that the care provided to people with mental health problems should match their needs and should be
  233
  provided to them in homely settings in local communities, rather than in institutions. The Secretary of State has, therefore, established a programme of bridging finance, totalling approximately £15 million per annum, to facilitate the transfer from institutional to community care. Health boards, local authorities and housing agencies are working together, with the involvement where appropriate of the Scottish Office, to plan the transition in detail. Resources will transfer from health boards to local authorities, reflecting changes in lead responsibilities for providing care to certain clients. The detailed implementation of this approach is for local negotiation between the agencies concerned.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in response to his plans to transfer 600 long-stay mental health places into the community in 1994-95; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Secretary of State has received representations this year on all aspects of care in the community only three of which specifically related to the number of transfers.

  Every discharge will continue to be considered on the basis of clinical judgment based on individual assessments of needs and how these needs could best be provided. The scale and pace of transfers are properly matters of local negotiation between the agencies concerned.

  The figure of 600 transfers is the current estimate of transfers that could reasonably be funded each year with support from the £15 million available annually under the bridging finance scheme.

  Urban Programme
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the projects in Inverclyde which are to receive financial assistance under the urban programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Projects in Inverclyde approved for urban programme funding are set out in the table. A closing date of 30 November 1994 has 234
  been set for local authorities to submit to the Scottish Office applications for the next round of approvals.

  Sponsored by Strathclyde Regional Council

  Bow Farm Home Support Service

  Greenock East Credit Union

  Inverclyde Women's Aid

  Larkfield Youth Cafe

  St Kenneth's Day Care Centre

  Bow Farm Community Caravan Project

  Local Communications Project

  Threshold Printing Project

  Kelburn/Woodhall Community Resource Centre

  Inverclyde Home Safety Group

  Gibshill/Weir Street Caravan Project

  Greenock Employment Action Group Special Needs Initiative

  Larkfield Ladybird Pre-5 Centre

  Craigend Resource Centre

  Inverclyde Community Development Trust

  Light Trust/Link Group Community Nursery

  Strone/Maukinhill Youth Worker

  SW Greenock Creche

  Greenock High School Supported Study

  Link-In Creche Workers East Greenock

  Caravan Project—Strone/Maukinhill

  Elderly/Disabled Resource Centre Port Glasgow

  Community Support Unit

  Community Caravan Kelburn/Woodhall

  Apex Pm-Employment Training/Counselling

  Sponsored by lnverclyde District Council

  Strone/Maukinhill Neighbourhood Centre

  Grieve Road Community Hall

  Lady Octavia Centre

  Drugs Task Force
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the report of the Scottish drugs task force will be published.

  Mr. Lang
  The report of the drugs task force led by my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State will be published tomorrow. Copies of the report, entitled "Drugs in Scotland: Meeting The Challenge" will be placed in the Library. The wide-ranging review carried out by the task force and the many recommendations contained in its report point the way ahead for a more effective and better co-ordinated response to the drug misuse problem in Scotland. I am very grateful to the members of the task force for the contributions they have made.

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

Baroness Rawlings
Miss Patricia Elizabeth Rawlings, having been created Baroness Rawlings, of Burnham Westgate in the County of Norfolk, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Carrington and the Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.

Lord Gladwin of Clee
Derek Oliver Gladwin, Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Gladwin of Clee, of Great Grimsby in the County of Humberside, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord McCarthy and the Baroness Gould of Potternewton, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Stratheden and Campbell—Lord Stratheden and Campbell— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Milk Marketing Reorganisation
3 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What benefits the consumer of milk and milk products can expect from the reorganisation of milk marketing.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, consumers will benefit in the longer term from the increased competition brought about by deregulation of the milk market. The opportunity now exists for processors to supply what the consumer wants and to secure supplies of raw milk to meet the demand for their products.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, if the price of milk per farmer is to increase—and it is—if the dairy companies and the major retailers protect their margins, as they surely will, and if the supply of milk is artificially restricted by quota so that the market cannot in fact work, how is the consumer supposed to benefit from the shambles which has resulted from the Government's so-called deregulation of the milk market?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the consumer can expect a number of benefits. In a more competitive environment the dairy companies will have more incentive to provide what the consumer wants, and a processor with a product which is in demand should be able to obtain a guaranteed supply of raw milk without having to worry, as he does at present, that supplies will be cut off on the so-called "equality of misery" principle. It is up to processors to respond to the market, and in time we may
118
see a wider range of high value dairy products of British rather than imported origin on the supermarket shelves. There may also be more regional or other niche products.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister referred to the long-term effects of the increase, but what about the short term? Are newspaper reports correct in saying that milk will increase by anything from 3p. to 6p. a pint as a result of the amalgamation?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I see no justification for the claims made by some dairies that Milk Marque prices will lead to a rise in the price of a doorstep pinta of between 2p. and 3p. I must say that I have not seen figures quite as high as those quoted by the noble Lord. I suspect that the companies may be preparing for price rises under the current arrangements and that they are seeking to blame them on the changes arising from deregulation. In itself the new system should cause little change in the price of a pinta—a price which, incidentally, is considerably lower in real terms than it was 10 or even 15 years ago.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can the Minister tell to the House what is the future for the existing small co-operatives of dairy farmers under the reorganisation?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the opportunities open to small co-operatives will, I believe, be even brighter than they are at present. They will be free to source their supply from anywhere they like. They will be free to sell in a way that they themselves agree with their customers. Moreover, there will be no imposition of a levy as there is at present on direct sales of milk and that will be a considerable benefit to the small producer.
Lord Desai: My Lords, can the Minister explain why there is no completely deregulated milk market in any region in the United States? Can he cite any other country in which milk deregulation has been practised?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not an expert on what happens around the world. I only know what is best for Britain. The deregulation of the milk market is very much in the national interest. A major part of the justification for it is our desire not to see the market for high value dairy products handed on a plate to our continental competitors at the expense of dairy processors at home.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the problem is that British dairy farmers are well able to supply our market but they do not have the quota that allows them to do so? Can he perhaps tell the House what are the prospects for inter-country trading of quota, that is making quota tradable between member states of the European Union?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend has put his finger on an important point. The UK does not have enough quota to meet its needs and that is why we have successfully resisted recent proposals by the European Commission to cut quotas. We secured a small quota increase last year and we continue to argue for freedom to trade quotas across member state borders. I cannot,

119
unfortunately, hold out any immediate prospect of success in that area principally because, as my noble friend will be aware, quotas are currently tied to the land and therefore cannot be treated as a freely tradable commodity.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister says that he does not see any justification for an increase in the price of milk. Does he expect an increase in the price of milk?
Earl Howe: My Lords, that is up to the dairy companies to decide after 1st November. However, I do not expect an increase of the order that is quoted in some newspapers.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the Minister give the House any really good reason why the Government for once should not leave well alone?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have already explained the benefits to consumers. There will be benefits throughout the industry. All the industry will enjoy the same commercial freedoms enjoyed by those in other sectors. They will be able to take their own business decisions in a normal commercial environment; producers will be free to sell their milk to whomsoever they wish and processors will have the freedom to decide from whom they buy their milk. This can only be to the advantage of the industry generally.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister used the phrases "the long term" and "in time". How long is the long term?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is longer than the short term.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree with me that the Milk Marketing Board has given excellent service to consumers and producers alike for the past 50 years. Will he give an assurance to the dairy producers of this country that their interests will be safeguarded under the present regime?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am on record as saying that the Milk Marketing Board has served this country well over the 60 years of its existence, but times have moved on and the market is now very different, as the noble Lord will know. One of the requirements under the Agriculture Act 1993 was that Ministers should be satisfied, before approving the Milk Marketing Board's reorganisation scheme, that Milk Marque's trading practices take account of the interests of purchasers of milk. They were so satisfied, and I am confident that all in the industry will seize the opportunities that now lie ahead.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, perhaps I may assist the noble Earl in his definition of the long term. Does he recall that John Maynard Keynes defined the long term as "when we are all dead"?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it will be sooner than that as far as milk is concerned.

Housing Benefit: Policy
3.7 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to change the present method of, or criteria for, payment of housing benefit.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Government are carrying out a review of housing benefit. No decisions have been taken yet except with regard to the rules for payment of housing benefit for convicted prisoners. Subject to parliamentary approval, from April 1995 benefit payments will be reduced from a maximum of 52 weeks to 13 weeks.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer but is he aware that the figures I have show that during the past financial year the total housing benefit paid was £8.5 billion? That benefit is still rising. While one cannot switch all that money to a house building programme, is the Minister aware that that sum would build between 250,000 and 300,000 houses for rent by local authorities and housing associations? When will the Government end this stupid policy of stopping councils building houses and embark on an increased house building programme which would help the building industry, the housing situation and the country's economy as a whole?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord ignores one important point. If the £10 billion—it is £10 billion—spent on housing benefit this year, 1994–95, were removed from housing benefit and used to build houses, many people who currently rely on housing benefit to pay their rent would find themselves without houses.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, when the DoE decontrolled private rents and forced up social rents by 5 per cent. a year in real terms, what did the Government expect would happen to the housing benefit bill? Did the DoE tell the DSS that for every pound the Department of the Environment saved in housing subsidy the DSS would have to pay out a further 75p in housing benefit? In other words, is not the problem of housing benefit entirely one of the Government's own making?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government made no secret of the fact that as a result of two of the major decisions made over the past 15 years housing benefit would increase. First, we accepted that as we withdrew the subsidies on bricks and mortar and concentrated more on helping the individuals who require help housing benefit would increase. Savings were made in that transfer of resources. In addition, we always acknowledged that the deregulation of the private rented sector would increase the housing benefit bill. Our concern is to make sure that it does not

121
continue to increase to an extent that means that the total social security bill increases beyond the taxpayers' ability to pay.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that as a result of his policies he has forced many more families into dependency on benefit, thereby making it harder for them to move into work?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness ignores the fact that one major result of our policy is that there has been an increase in the number of privately rented tenancies becoming available. That is an important aspect of our policy. We were prepared to accept that housing benefit costs would increase as a result of more privately rented housing coming on to the market.
Lord Desai: My Lords, is not the Government's policy very bad economics? Is the Minister not aware that as a result of freezing council house sale receipts of approximately £7 billion and not allowing that money to be spent on further house building the Government are having to spend another £10 billion to support the homeless? Is it not the failure of private house building and renting which has caused the homelessness in the country?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I said to the noble Baroness a few moments ago, the private rented sector has increased since 1988.I believe that the noble Lord confuses two figures: first, the capital receipts from our splendidly successful policy of council house; sales (which the party opposite has always opposed) and, secondly, the amount being given in housing benefit to those people who require help with their rents. That is the kind of policy which I should have thought the Labour Party ought to approve.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the more houses that are built, whether by the public or the private sector, the lower rents are likely to be? Surely he knows the theory of market forces. Would it not therefore be as well and encouraging if, as my noble friend suggests, local authorities were allowed to use their own money to build more houses, as they want to do? Finally, does he not agree that the present situation gives rise to a new phenomenon of Rachmanism subsidised by the Government?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me a number of questions. As I said before, the money recovered from council house sales is not exactly the same as the money which is spent annually on helping those people who require help with their rent. As the noble Lord knows—the question has been answered often enough—the issue of allowing councils to spend the money they receive from council house sales is tied tip with the total amount of public spending in the country. We have always made it clear that that has to be a decision for the Government in the decisions that we make annually about the capital spending of local authorities.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister totally misunderstood the thrust of my supplementary
122
question. I did not for one moment suggest that £10 billion could suddenly be switched into a building programme. I suggested that within the review which is taking place the Government should be considering making more finance available, perhaps from that total, in order to finance a building programme. There are half a million building employees on the dole, houses are needed, and that action would also provide finance for the Government's own coffers.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we already finance a building programme via the Housing Corporation. The expenditure in this financial year on new build will be of the order of £1.5 billion. When added to the private investment which comes into the housing association sector, that means that approximately 55,000 homes have been provided for families who would otherwise have remained homeless or living in inadequate accommodation.

Private Finance Initiative
3.14 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made with the private finance initiative in adding to the level of investment in public sector projects.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, good progress has been made. In the last three months several steps have been taken covering a range of projects with a total capital expenditure of £3.75 billion.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, while the Government's pronouncements on the issue of the private finance initiative are very clear, serious administrative delays are being encountered in particular projects, even relatively small ones? Is he also aware that there is a real problem in the apportionment of risk on these projects because some of the risks are not quantifiable in commercial terms when they verge on the political? Therefore, does he not agree that until those two issues of administrative delays and the proper apportionment of risk are overcome further progress could be impeded?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry to hear the noble Lord's allegations of delays owing to administrative procedures. Certainly, I shall take that on board and look into the matter. As regards risk, I ought to make it clear to the noble Lord that obviously there has to be a genuine transfer of risk before any private finance initiatives can go ahead. I accept that there has to be a proper apportionment of risk. The Government are looking to share risks, but obviously not all risks can be transferred to the private sector. I must make clear to the noble Lord that there must be a genuine transfer of risk to those involved in the private sector.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, as a result of the economic policy of this Government, overseas investment in the UK has been far greater than it has been in any of our European partners? Does he further agree that if Her Majesty's

123
Government were to adopt the Social Chapter, our competitive position would be impaired and inward investment would dry up?
Lord Henley: My Lords, with all respect to my noble friend that is not, strictly speaking, relevant to the Question on the Order Paper. However, I can assure my noble friend that of the order of 40 per cent. of all inward investment from both Japan and the United States to the European Community comes to this country.
Lord Kingsdown: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that, if the private finance initiative is to cut the burden of capital expenditure on the public sector borrowing requirement, PFI financing must be as attractive to public sector bodies as other forms of finance? Does he agree that that will not be so if those bodies can obtain non-repayable grants on which there is no capital charging, and perhaps not even notional capital charging?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think I understand the point made by the noble Lord. Certainly I accept that it has some validity. Obviously we want to see a level playing field between the public and private sector here. As I made clear to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, we want to see a degree of shared risk between both the public and private sectors.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the Minister explain what he means by the expression "level playing field" between private and public sector investors? What is the meaning of "transfer of risk"? How is "apportionment of risk", to use the noble Lord's phrase, to be determined? Is it not all determined by the Treasury in the end? What are the rules which the Treasury applies to this particular procedure?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord will find that the expression "apportionment of risk" was used by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I tried to make clear that we want to see a degree of transfer of risk to the private sector. If people are going to put money in, there must be risk involved. If there is no transfer of risk to them, there is little point in seeking private sector finance.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Lord, but I cannot understand the expression "transfer of risk". Either there is risk in the sense of an equity risk, or there is no risk because the Government are standing behind the project. How does the noble Lord apportion or transfer—whatever expression he uses—risk in one sense against certainty in another sense?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is never absolute certainty. Those who put money in risk that money. They may not receive the return they expect. In the case of, let us say, the Channel Tunnel railway, will investors receive the return they expect on the money they have put in? That is what I mean by a transfer of risk. There will be a degree of risk. Those people putting in money might lose that money.

Armed Forces: NATO Commitment
3.20 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What effect the recent Brussels summit will have on the number and deployment of personnel in the United Kingdom armed forces; and whether they are satisfied that the United Kingdom is able fully to meet its NATO requirements.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the decisions reached at the Brussels summit in January will have no direct impact on the number and deployment of personnel in the United Kingdom armed forces. The decisions will, however, influence the future development of our defence policy and may thus affect the posture of our forces indirectly. I am satisfied that we are able fully to meet our commitment to NATO.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that welcome and satisfying reply. Nevertheless there are still grave suspicions that the British Army in particular is greatly stretched. Some of the decisions made at Brussels could make it extremely difficult for our army to carry out all the responsibilities unfairly imposed upon it.
Is the Minister also aware of the anxiety of our American and Commonwealth allies about the tremendous growth of the German nation, now our allies? Is the Ministry in touch with those countries to discuss that somewhat unattractive element in NATO?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should remind the noble Lord that the Germans have been our allies for many years. I expect them to continue to be our allies within NATO which, after all, has had over 40 years of success in providing security for this country. I trust that the Germans will continue to be our allies in NATO for many years to come.
As to the noble Lord's first point, I accept that our armed forces are asked to undertake a great many tasks and that sometimes some individual units and servicemen will be sent on unaccompanied tours more frequently than is desirable. However, as to whether our armed forces can meet our commitments and whether there will be sufficient stability, I think it best if I repeat the assurances my right honourable friend gave yesterday to another place. He emphasised that one of the themes for the remainder of this Parliament will be that the Government now offer stability so far as concerns the fighting strength of our armed forces.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as the Government have wisely recognised that our reserves and territorials are a vital part of preparedness for any future emergency—as

125
indeed they were in the past —can my noble friend give an undertaking that in order that they may be effective their equipment and training will be kept up to date?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thoroughly endorse everything my noble friend says. I had lunch today with representatives of TAVRA who briefed me fully on the needs and requirements of the Territorial Army.
Lord Richard: My Lords, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition says that there is no such thing as a free lunch. However, I listened carefully to everything that they had to say. I can give an assurance that the Territorial Army and the other reserves will have the training and equipment necessary for them to perform their role.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Lord anticipate any objections from Belgium to the United Kingdom army being able to obtain ammunition when required? Have the Government made arrangements with our partner Belgium to be able to obtain ammunition in the future should they need it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can give an assurance to the noble Lord that the Army will have whatever ammunition it needs on whatever occasion. As regards the tone of the noble Lord's question, I slightly regret the inflection that the noble Lord put on his words about, again, an ally and another member of NATO.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us are a little unhappy about the recent reductions in the strength of the infantry, in particular the elimination of the second battalion in several of the Guards' regiments? Is he really happy that it will be possible for us to curry out our commitments with that reduced provision?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am satisfied, as are other Ministers and Service chiefs in the Ministry of Defence, that we shall be able to meet our commitments in the future. I certainly understand my noble friend's concern. It is a worry that he expressed in the defence debate last summer. I can only repeat the assurance that my right honourable friend the: Secretary of State gave yesterday to another place that we now wish to see stability so far as concerns the fighting strength of our armed forces, and that includes the infantry.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister has responded to a number of questions about overstretch. Indeed, overstretch is a problem that your Lordships have recognised. Perhaps I may refer to the press report of a speech by the Secretary of State for Defence, Mr. Rifkind, to the Royal United Services Institute on 27th September. He stated:
"Parliament, and in particular the Public Accounts Committee, quite rightly in my view, expect Ministers and officials to take responsibility for, and explain, decisions taken years before. The excuse that this was someone else's responsibility is, quite simply, not acceptable".
Does that mark a change in government policy?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that it marks any change in government policy. I do not think
126
that I have sought to hide behind the decisions of those who went before me, whether they are members of the party of which I happen to be a member or of the party opposite.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, will the participation by the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force in NATO exercises this winter be in any way curtailed due to the demands made on the air transport force by the recent crisis in the Gulf?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware of any plans to curtail participation in the exercises. However, I prefer to take advice on the matter and I shall write to the noble and gallant Lord.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, will the Minister tell us when there is likely to be a chance of 24 months between unaccompanied tours?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I prefer to give what might be described as an evasive answer and say, shortly. That would be easier than giving a more precise figure.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House whether there is likely to be legislation in the next Session which will ensure the flexible use of the Territorial Army in the event of various crises?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously I cannot comment in advance on the Queen's Speech at state opening. I can inform my noble friend that units of the Territorial Army of platoon strength are due to serve, or are serving at present, in the Falklands.

Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
3.27 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 64 [Functions of Ministers and office-holders]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 81A:
Page 54, line 41, leave out ("subsection (2) or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 81C, 81K, 82C and 82D. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if at the same time we consider Amendments Nos. 81HB, 81HC, 81D and 82B all of which are in the names of other noble Lords but refer to the same subject matter.
In Committee the Government undertook to reflect further on the list of functions which will be excluded from the order-making powers of this part of the Bill and to bring forward amendments to extend the list. Government Amendments Nos. 81A, 81C, 81K and 82D fulfil that undertaking. The amendments are in response to particular concerns which were expressed about the status of the courts and tribunals under Part. II of the Bill.
The Government share the concern of your Lordships that courts and statutory tribunals should not be, nor be seen to be, susceptible to any outside pressure or influence. We made that clear in Committee. Indeed we had thought it unlikely that any truly judicial functions of courts or tribunals would fall within the scope of the power at all. Already in Clause 64(2) we have excluded the functions which are an exercise of the jurisdiction of certain courts. We did not make that exclusion because those functions fell within the scope of the power. The exclusion was made, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde explained in Committee, in recognition of the importance of the principle of judicial independence and our commitment to it.
I once again reaffirm our commitment to that principle. However, in recognition of the concerns which were expressed at Committee stage about the adequacy of the list of courts and the absence of any exclusion for tribunals, I am moving these amendments to make it clear that any exercise by an office-holder of the jurisdiction of any court or tribunal which exercises the judicial powers of the state could not be the subject of an order under Clause 64 and could not, by that means, become susceptible to contracting out. I hope that that will reassure your Lordships.
With regard to Amendment No. 82C, concerns were expressed at Committee stage about the proposed power of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to contract out the functions of court service staff who are currently appointed under Section 27 of the Courts Act 1971 and who are by law civil servants.
As my noble friend explained at the time, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has been consulting the senior judges about what functions it might be inappropriate to contract out as a matter of principle. The outcome of those consultations is to be found in Amendment No. 82C. The effect is to exclude from possible contracting out of the functions of the court service any function which amounts to an exercise of judicial discretion or of judicial decision-taking or advising in the exercise of such a discretion or decision-taking, together with any power of arrest.
As to other functions, only those which are prescribed in an order to be made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor could be contracted out and the amendment would require him to consult the Lord Chief Justice, the President of the Family Division, the Vice-Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls before the order is made about what its effect, if any, may be on the proper and efficient administration of justice.
We believe that this amendment will preclude the inappropriate contracting out of court service functions, while providing for flexibility to consider other proposals on their merits. The discussions with the senior judges have shown that it is easier to decide whether a particular activity could be appropriately contracted out, rather than to define in advance in general terms that which is appropriate. The order-making power arrangement will mean that specific proposals will each be afforded an opportunity for consideration and this seems the most practical way to decide on their appropriateness.
As has been made clear before, the Government are determined to uphold the probity of the judicial process and the proper working of the courts. We believe that the statutory requirement to consult the senior judiciary and the power of Parliament to annul any order should ensure that these factors are given full weight when any particular proposal is being considered on its merits. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are, of course, grateful for the steps that the noble Earl has outlined, but there still remain serious questions about whether or not—I take his phrase—the probity and independence of the judicial process will be secured by these proposals. Amendment No. 82C states:
"The Lord Chancellor may, with the concurrence of the Treasury as to numbers and salaries, appoint such officers and other staff for the Supreme Court and county courts as appear to him appropriate for the following purposes, namely … maintaining an administrative court service … discharging any functions in those courts conferred by or under this or any other Act … and … generally carrying out the administrative work of those courts".
I think that most of us who have either practised in the courts or sat modestly part-time in the courts or, in the case of many noble and learned Lords present, who have sat full-time in various courts, would conclude that it is not appropriate to separate out those who serve the courts in an administrative capacity entirely from those who serve the courts in a judicial capacity. It troubles us to read the words:
"The Lord Chancellor may, with the concurrence of the Treasury … appoint such officers and other staff … as appear to him appropriate".
What happens if the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury do not agree? Who is to decide? That is, I regret to say, a recurring theme throughout the debates that we have had on this and related topics in your Lordships' House. There is a real prospect that decisions relating to the judicial process will be dictated by the Treasury, will not be protected by the Lord Chancellor or his department and that wholly inappropriate powers will be contracted out, without judicial scrutiny, without judicial control.
To go further with the amendment as it stands, new Clause 27(3) states:
"the Lord Chancellor may enter into contracts with other persons for the provision for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) above"—
which I have just read—
"whether by those persons or by sub-contractors of theirs, of officers and staff for the Supreme Court and county courts".
That should not, as a matter of deep principle, be the subject of subcontracting to private companies or individuals. The deep principle for which I contend is that the provision of judicial legal services ought to be a public service with the particular ethos that that requires.
Even the lowliest clerk in the most obscure county court or district registry, in my experience and deep belief, recognises a duty to the judicial process quite beyond the mere fact that he or she is a salaried employee. If one destroys that ethos—and there is a significant danger that that will happen—we shall come to regret it.

129
The functions of those employees, however lowly they are, are extremely important to the public. They deal with insolvency, bankruptcy, challenges to local election results. They deal, for example, with quite important and delicate matters, confidential matters involving children in family cases and deeply confidential matters relating to public interest immunity. All those matters are far too important to be contracted out in the way which is specified in the amendment.
I recognise, of course, that the Minister has tried to meet our concerns and I regret to say that, for the reasons I have indicated quite briefly so far, those concerns have not been allayed. To reiterate and endorse what Lord Justice Purchas said on a recent occasion, judicial independence is not narrowly confined to the independence of an individual judge trying a particular case. It is infinitely more subtle than that and it depends on the whole of the court service being accountable in a way which will not be provided.
One looks further at the new Clause 27(3):
"the Lord Chancellor may enter into contracts with other persons".
Will they be contracts of the kind that we have seen with the prison service? Whenever a parliamentary Question is put to the appropriate Minister the answer comes back preordained: "These are questions of commercial confidentiality". If that is the route set out for our journey, we on this side of the House are not willing to embark upon it.
Is this really simply a device to pave the way to the privatisation of the courts' services which will be subject to the discipline of an inappropriate market? Is it really intended simply to begin to raise court fees in accordance with the demands of contractors and subcontractors? Will that not mean that the person of modest means—that is, the person who has more than £70 per week disposable income and who will not obtain full legal aid—will simply be excluded from our civil justice system? I regret to say that the new clause shows all the lamentable characteristics of so many others in the past two years—I limit that to my own experience of your Lordships' House—which is a dogmatic approach to matters which are not susceptible of dogmatic treatment.
A previous Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said on more than one occasion— and I respectfully agree—that the prime function of the Lord Chancellor is to defend the independence of the judiciary. I, and we on this side of the House, have serious concerns about what is being proposed here. One cannot separate the judge sitting in court from those who serve his courts and our system. I take it that the noble Earl is confirming that it is the Government's view in putting forward these linked amendments that there is no prospect of privatising any aspect of industrial or similar tribunals such as social security or rent review tribunals. I should be grateful for his specific acknowledgement of that. I take it that that is what is meant by the exclusion of any body which may be,
"exercising the judicial power of the State"
which is not a phrase with which I am familiar.
130
I know that time is pressing and there is much to be discussed. I hope that noble Lords will forgive my simply raising those questions, which, I repeat, are of deep concern, in relation to the way in which we conduct judicial business in this country. That way of conducting judicial business is fundamental to the benefits that we have as a society living in this country.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I ventured to speak in favour of an amendment made in July to Clause 58, which is now Clause 62. The amendment, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, focused attention upon the fact that the exclusion of functions in order that the judicial function should be protected was inadequate. In the debate that followed, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, conceded that there was room for anxiety. There were important points about judicial function, such as magistrates, tribunals and others, which needed to be attended to. I am delighted, and I in no way look upon it as a coincidence, that the noble Earl arriving on the scene has produced a formula which deals with that particular concern—and deals with it quite adequately. The phrase,
"tribunal or body exercising the judicial power of the State",
is lifted straight out of Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981; it is the definition of a court. It seems to me—and I discussed the matter with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice—to be an adequate way of protecting judicial functions. We had, both of us, one concern; namely, to what extent it was clear that implied in the judicial function, as we both thought was the case, would be the question of what is now referred to, as a term of art, "case flow management"; that is, management by the judiciary, by the judges and by intervention in the administration of cases to ensure that they come on quickly and with the minimum of expense. It is an activity that is very developed in America, Canada and Australia. We wanted an assurance that that would be looked upon as being an inherent part of the judicial function. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice wrote to the Lord Chancellor expressing that concern. I am happy to say that the reply which came today—the Lord Chief Justice has provided me with a copy—gives the assurance:
"Judges in giving directions and otherwise in 'managing cases' are exercising the jurisdiction of the court, indeed that is what gives such acts their authority in law. Nothing which is being considered for the future and which may enhance or change the judges' case management functions will, I believe, change that situation and hence those functions will not become susceptible to contracting out".
So that particular anxiety has been removed.
With regard to the amendment just referred to, I believe that there are, on the face of it, adequate safeguards. There is to be inserted in the proposed new Section 27,
"No order under subsection (3) above shall authorise the contracting out of any functions the discharge of which would constitute—

(a) making judicial decisions or advising persons making such decisions;

(b) exercising any judicial discretion or advising persons exercising any such discretion; or

(c) exercising any power of arrest".

131
Subsection (6) provides that,
"Before making an order under subsection (3) above, the Lord Chancellor shall consult with the senior judges as to what effect (if any) the order might have on the proper and efficient administration of justice".
Speaking for myself, and with the concurrence of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, I thank the noble Earl for paying such careful regard to the anxieties that we expressed, which appear now to be adequately catered for.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I rise to speak to an amendment that stands in my name within this group, Amendment No. 81HB. It deals with what is perhaps an associated matter though one that is not entirely on the same ground as the amendment to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, spoke. It aims to exclude from the scope of contracting out the quasi-judicial functions currently exercised by local authorities.
I raised this matter at the last stage on a day when the attention of several noble Lords—I include myself in their number—was a little distracted by the game of musical chairs being played on the Government Front Bench. Perhaps our attention was not fully on the point. Certainly I felt that a little further explanation on the Government's thinking might have been given that day or on the following day of the Committee stage. I have therefore tabled an amendment on this matter again the better to understand the Government's thinking.
Currently, local authorities exercise a number of what I have described as quasi-judicial functions—in particular, development control in the field of town and country planning, and also licensing, which can cover a very broad area ranging from matters such as acupuncture and ear-piercing, through the licensing of premises providing food, music, dancing, entertainment and so on. The list that I gave last time concluded with wild animals in zoos. Development control, of course, covers the granting or refusal of planning permission. I believe that those functions need to be exercised with a sensitivity and understanding that local councillors mostly have, and certainly should have, and in a democratic and accountable context.
With regard to development control, the local authority draws up its own local development plan. Decisions have to be made in that context. Last night I sat on a planning committee in my own authority considering, for about an hour, whether or not to depart from the policy in our own previously agreed plan. At the end of that hour I felt that the applicant for planning permission and those who were objecting had had a very full and sensitive discussion of the problems that they had raised in a way that would simply not be possible if contractors carried out that function. Not only did we understand the issues very fully and were prepared to debate them in public, but we did so in a way which meant that, even if those who are concerned may not feel comfortable or satisfied with the results, at least they understand the processes which led to them. But as members of local authorities, we are bound by codes of conduct and have to make declarations of interest and
132
so on. I simply do not feel that contractors would be under the same sort of obligations or that the public would see them as carrying out the same kind of functions with that same responsibility.
At the previous stage, the Minister said, in connection with a different amendment referring to functions affecting the use or development of land—he had told me the previous day that such would be his answer on the point—that there would be no compulsion on local authorities to take action. The proposals in the Bill are simply to free individual local authorities to employ contractors where it seemed sensible and appropriate.
I fear that past behaviour is, as it were, the best predictor of future behaviour. Every example from the Government shows that, having first allowed contracting out, they then move from a permissive position to one that is mandatory. Rapidly, local authorities are required to contract out functions. I hope that the noble Earl will not feel that this is an attack on him personally; but I have to say that it is an attack on the Government in that I do not trust those weasel words.
The Minister also said that the broad approach taken in the Bill as it stands was the right one, as the Minister had to consider each case on its merits and would consult local authority associations in respect of local authority functions. He said that that would be the proper time to consider whether or not a function should proceed to contracting out. We have all experienced dissatisfaction in dealing with orders which do not lend themselves to the kind of scrutiny, revision or indeed overturning that one might wish to see.
For all those reasons, I tabled the amendments in my name in this group.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken about these amendments. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. When I saw his name as a speaker, I was alarmed, for fear that he might think that the Government had not gone far enough in meeting his concerns. I am bound to say that I am indebted to his flattery in saying that he believed it was not without coincidence that my arrival at the Dispatch Box in this particular department coincided with these amendments. I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord should exercise his imagination on these matters, even if sometimes it strays into the realms of fantasy. I merely tell him that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and indeed my present department considered carefully the suggestions and the worries that were expressed at Committee stage and acted upon them. The fact that that has met with the approval of the noble and learned Lord gives me great satisfaction.
I understand too the concerns felt by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, which he is right to raise because they are important. I hope that I shall be able to show him that they need not be so great as he feels them to be. He said that there was a very close relationship of trust between judges and court staff. He is entirely correct. There is a close relationship. The amendment excludes from contracting out those areas in which judges and staff work together most closely. In other areas each case will need to be carefully

133
considered on its own merits so as to ensure that the arrangements are such that good working relationships with the judges will not be jeopardised.
There is no reason in principle why judges should not be able to work as effectively with contractor staff as with civil servants, provided that it is in appropriate cases. I do not believe that contracting out will undermine the proper working of the courts or the probity of the process. Together with the exclusions from contracting out in the amendment, the requirement to consult the senior judiciary and have parliamentary scrutiny will ensure that contracting out will not be used where it would undermine the probity or the proper working of the courts.
I am sure that the noble Lord realises that there are some 10,000 people working in the courts service. Many of the functions are routine. But it is impossible to say that none of those functions could appropriately be contracted out as a matter of principle.
The noble Lord was concerned too about the concurrence of the Treasury. Everyone is always worried about that kind of thing. I can only reassure him that subsections (1) and (2) of the new Section 27 replicate the terms of Section 27 as it currently stands. If the Treasury does not concur, the appointments may not be made. That is the present position.
The noble Lord quite rightly said that the lowliest clerk recognises his loyalty to the judicial process. The lowliest clerks will not be contracted out if they are involved with the judicial decision-making; of course, cleaning the courts and other such services could well be.
The noble Lord was also concerned about the fact that contracting out might make things more expensive. I do not believe that that will be so. In fact the contrary should be the case. It is the whole purpose of the contracting out process. The purpose of allowing competition is in order to seek out the benefits and to provide a better service and better value for money. If that was not found to be the case, contracting out would not follow. The noble Lord let his imagination run a little faster than it normally does by asking whether this was not in fact intended to be the privatisation of the courts. I can tell him that the Government have no intention of privatising the courts.
The noble Lord referred to industrial tribunals and social security appeal tribunals. The government amendments, including Amendment No. 81K, exclude functions, the exercise of which constitutes the exercise of jurisdiction of any court or tribunal exercising the judicial power of the state. Industrial tribunals and social security appeal tribunals do exercise the judicial powers of the state. So when those functions are exercises of their jurisdiction they are excluded. In any event, industrial tribunals and social security appeal tribunals are not office holders within the meaning of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was concerned that when she moved an amendment earlier everyone's attention was distracted by what she described as "musical chairs" on the Government Front Bench. I am glad that she pays such attention to what the Government do. However, I am sorry that it resulted in the rest of your Lordships apparently not paying so
134
much attention to her amendment. I can understand her distress that that happened. Her amendments seek to exclude any quasi-judicial function of a local authority. The term "quasi-judicial" is a somewhat old-fashioned one which has lost specific meaning in administrative law. It is now generally taken loosely to refer to any decision-making function which is subject to judicial review under the principles of administrative law. I am bound to tell the noble Baroness that her amendments therefore go very wide and would preclude consideration of contracting out where in fact it would be entirely appropriate to do so. We believe that each case should be considered on its merits.
The noble Baroness was concerned about the local authority staff who are subject to codes of conduct whereas contractors are not. We intend to deal with the issues of probity and impartiality in later amendments. Perhaps I may deal with those points at that time. I can assure her that there are comprehensive safeguards in the Bill and the existing law which address her worries.
The noble Baroness was concerned as to whether or not local authorities would be forced to contract out. We have made quite clear that the provisions are only enabling provisions. It will be for a local authority to decide how far to use a contractor to carry out a specific function if a relevant order has been made.
I hope that, with those thoughts, I have been able to allay some of the anxieties, although I realise that they were not great, that were expressed. I remain grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for giving the welcome that he did, although it did not go quite as far as that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. We cannot expect everything always and I am grateful for the welcome that he gave.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 81B:
Page 54, line 41, after ("(2)") insert or ("2A)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 81B I shall speak also to Amendment No. 81F. It is a pleasure on this occasion to be faced by a Minister who knows a great deal about the police service. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, spent many years dealing with police matters and will therefore understand the arguments that I put forward. That is in contrast to the Minister who was dealing with an almost identical amendment at Committee stage, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is not an expert on police matters but it is reasonable to assume that his replies expressed Government thinking on the police service. If so, his reply—to be found at Hansard, col. 266 on 20th July—reveals a disturbing lack of understanding and a narrow view of police work that in my view is potentially disastrous for our society.
The noble Lord listed what he described as the most important statutory functions of the police service. They were, firstly, stop and search; secondly, entry, search and seizure; and, thirdly, arrest and detention. Those he saw as the core functions of the police service—a

135
woefully narrow view of police work. What about the preservation of the Queen's Speech (the Queen's peace, the Speech is obviously on all our minds). Authorities as diverse as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and Robert Peel—a previous Home Secretary—felt that the preservation of public tranquillity was a prime duty of the police service. Also, the prevention of crime was seen as an essential duty —in fact, the primary duty— of an efficient police service. Those were the words used in 1829 when objectives were laid down for the Metropolitan Police; that an efficient police force would be best shown by the prevention of crime. The arrest and detention of offenders came some way down the list.
In my view, the present Government's attempts to slim down the police duty to some mythical central core of crime detection will be wholly counter-productive. Only 40 per cent. of police work is directly related to crime. Moreover, 82 per cent. of calls by the public to the police have nothing whatever to do with crime. It is extremely important that that context is understood. Police work in attempting to catch criminals or detect crime is wholly dependent upon being situated within a context where the public are dependent upon them for many other services.
The idea that police work is all about chasing criminals has more to do with American television series such as "Hill Street Blues", "Starsky and Hutch" and "Hawaii Five-O", than anything to do with the reality of policing in a complex, multi-ethnic, multi-class society. I do not suppose that any of your Lordships are fans of "Hill Street Blues", but there is a passing resemblance between the Home Secretary and the SWAT team lieutenant who wanted to take a tank into the ghettos of New York. The fact that one-in-six of New York schoolchildren are carrying weapons to school is indicative of to what that style of policing may lead.
The deputy commissioner of the metropolis, in an article in the Sunday Observer, reminded us again that the narrow view of police work as merely enforcement was what led to the 1981 Brixton riots and, more recently, to the riots and wholesale destruction of parts of Los Angeles. The police service in this country has absorbed the lessons of the 1981 riots which were spelt out in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. Similar conclusions were drawn in America from the Watts riots in the 1960s and the other riots that occurred more than 30 years ago. Unfortunately, those lessons were forgotten by subsequent police chiefs and politicians in this country.
The Home Office in this country and its current Ministers do not appear to have remembered the lessons of 1981 and earlier riots. To some extent, because the police service absorbed those lessons, the current friction between many thinking police officers and the Home Office is apparent. To be effective police work must be embedded in the community; firstly, because most policing is done by the community itself. Ninety per cent. of all crime arrests result directly from action or information from the public and not clever police detective work. Secondly, unless police are known, trusted and respected, the public will not provide them with information. For example, the current successes of
136
"Operation Bumblebee", which have been widely trumpeted, are because police are concentrating on known burglars—that is, information received about individuals —and not because they are finding new burglars.
Trust and respect in relation to the police are built up precisely through the wide range of ancillary jobs performed by police officers. Such things as looking after lost dogs, receiving property lost in the street, rescuing people from fires, dealing with attempted suicides, the homeless, the mentally ill and traffic are all essential parts of building up respect and trust in the community. If police work is fragmented by chopping off those various tasks they may, individually, be done more cheaply, but we shall be left with a police service that can no longer carry out its core functions because of the loss of public support.
The Minister described certain court tasks as routine functions. But he ignores the fact that those routine functions are carried out within a context of human relationships; he ignores totally human psychology and the fact that an organisation such as the court service, the police service and communities are dependent upon a subtle network of relationships. It is not simply a question of carrying out mechanistic, routine tasks.
As more Securicor or Group 4 type organisations are set up to carry out single functions inevitably there will be fewer police officers, and they will become more remote from the communities they serve. They will become increasingly confined to an enforcement role, obsessed with response times and statistics. Those, as we know, can have disastrous results on the complexities of policing. We will see a more alienated and more resentful community, especially in our deprived inner city areas. Ultimately, I believe, it will lead to American style, crime-ridden ghettos. There will be no reduction in crime levels and an increase in urban violence and decay.
Contracting out ancillary police services may enable the police to concentrate more on their alleged core role. It sounds like a simple course of action towards improved efficiency, but that is exactly what is wrong with that specific remedy. It is too simple; it is simple-minded and simplistic. The Government operate on a model of human behaviour which, in many ways, dates from a 17th century Newtonian model of mechanics dependent more upon nuts and bolts, levers and pulleys than on the much more subtle and sophisticated quantum mechanics of today. If one considered taking a simple model like that of human behaviour and takes what is really appropriate to human beings, to organisations and to society, which is an organic model, then a police service, society, things like the court service become more like a living organism than a simple machine. It has a supporting structural skeleton which operates with simple joints and levers; but to function that skeleton requires muscles and a complex chain of chemistry with interacting enzymes, hormones and tissues.
An effective police service depends entirely upon that complex of supportive relationships and networks within the community which operates in the same way as body chemistry. If Ministers proceed in stripping

137
from this organic system not only the fat but also the flesh they will end up with a perfectly articulated and working skeleton, but one which is totally unable to function on its own account. I beg to move.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I was glad to put down my name to this amendment and to Amendment No. 81F. As the noble Baroness has explained, a similar amendment was put down at the Committee stage—and it was in my name—but owing to a railway strike, unfortunately I was not here to move it. I read with great interest the exchanges which took place on that occasion. One result is that the present version differs from the previous version in that it makes no reference to the Security Service. I was glad to see firmly on the record that the functions of that service and the director fall outside the provisions of Clause 64, as it now is, and that any amendment relating to those functions would be, to use the word employed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, negatory. That is not a word which I had previously encountered but its meaning at any rate is clear.
The amendment is designed to probe the Government's intentions relating to the police. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, has explained, the discussion at the earlier stage was not very successful in eliciting information and I support her in thinking that it is right to have another shot. It has been recalled that on the last occasion the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was especially anxious that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, should reply to what was essentially a police debate and we must be most grateful to the Prime Minister for so promptly making arrangements for that to be possible.
On the last occasion the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked the specific question (at col. 266 of the Official Report of 20 th July) whether the police national computer was to be privatised. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, did not know but promised to write. As I suppose that I was as much involved as anyone in setting up the original police national computer, I was naturally interested. I am glad to say that today I have received a copy of the letter which in the end the noble Earl wrote to those who had taken part in the debate. The letter says in effect that the Government are indeed thinking of contracting out the computer but that, as it is not provided in pursuance of any specific statutory requirement, it falls outside the scope of the Bill. I find that reply just a little disquieting.
The Bill itself provides in Clause 66(1) (a) that a function is excluded from Section 64 if,
"its exercise, or a failure to exercise it, would necessarily interfere with or otherwise affect the liberty of any individual".
I understand that in that context "liberty" means physical liberty. But the way in which a computer can operate can quite clearly affect the liberty of the subject as so interpreted. If it mixes up names and produces a list of previous convictions or a record of criminal activity for the wrong person, it could well happen that that individual could be arrested or at any rate hauled off to the police station for questioning and his liberty would indeed be affected. It is really asking too much to believe that the material fed into the computer could
138
never be wrong? I find it just a little unsatisfactory that the Government's acknowledged desire to go for contracting out in this context takes no account of the safeguards which would cover it were action being taken under Clause 64.
We know that the Home Office is now conducting an inquiry in private designed to identify functions which the police can shed to private security firms, local authorities or what-have-you and, on the other hand, those core functions which the police must retain as involving the exercise of police powers or the potential use of legitimate force which should be delivered only by police constables. The trouble is that police responsibilities, as we have always known them, go well beyond this rather narrow definition of core functions, as the noble Baroness has so clearly brought out. As she said, it is not the only job of the police to catch criminals. In fact only a small proportion of applications to the police are concerned with crime. The very widely held fear is that the whole character of policing in this country, the traditions of peacekeeping, of crime prevention and service to the community, which have given the police in this country such a high reputation throughout the world, may be at risk.
Over many years the community has come to depend on the police to carry out what could be described perhaps as essentially social service functions. If now, at the behest of the Treasury, in which I once had the honour to serve, we go too far in dropping those functions, the police could end up simply as a law enforcement agency, as indeed is the position in some other countries. I can well remember that once in Manhattan I asked a police officer for help in finding an address. The reply went well beyond my knowledge of some of the more basic words of the American language but the message, that it was not his function to act as a guide, was only too clear. I am not suggesting that an order is likely to be made under the Bill forbidding our police from helping members of the public or from talking to strangers; but in a modest way that incident serves to illustrate the different attitude that we have to the police in this country.
Accordingly, these amendments, the drafting of which may or may not be ideal, are designed to put a barrier in the way of the police being obliged to go too far in withdrawing from their vital social service role and the activities which help to build up public trust, or at the very least to elicit some assurances from the Government. Following all the time and money which were wasted on the Sheehy Report, the very considerable defects in the recent police legislation introduced into this House and the somewhat disquieting information about the police national computer, I should like to be sure—perhaps a little surer than I am at present—that the police service is safe in the Government's hands.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, we on these Benches support these amendments, strongly believing that the Home Office review of core ancillary tasks for the police represents a far more serious threat to our police service than the Police and

139
Magistrates' Courts Bill ever did. It must merit primary rather than secondary legislation should the review ever reach that stage.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what has been said, but I am puzzled by the drafting of Amendment No. 81F. I can understand why some noble Lords may wish to exclude a function where contracting out would adversely affect the ability of the police to carry out their duties. However, as drafted, would not the amendment also exclude instances where contracting out beneficially affects the police in carrying out their duties? If so, is that desirable?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will forgive me if I make a short intervention on the amendment. I did not take part in the debates in Committee on this point. I wish to express to my noble friend a measure of anxiety. I hope that he will consider it and do his best to allay it.
There are some unpleasant echoes in my mind of proposals originally put forward in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill of which I need not remind my noble friend because he played a very helpful role in the passage of that legislation. I have long believed that contacts between the police and the community should be broadly based. It would be most unfortunate if one of the principal consequences of this measure should be a diminution of the contacts between the police and the community and a narrowing of them to those more unpleasant and almost hostile duties of law enforcement.
I do not like the idea of an increasing partnership between central government and private security firms. That gives me all kinds of uneasy vibrations. I do not wish to detain your Lordships' House, but I wish particularly to echo some words used by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. He referred to the tradition of peacekeeping and crime prevention in this country being police duties. I believe that any change in the police function and their situation, or an alteration in the pattern of reporting and responsibility which they owe, should be handled with great care. Therefore, I say to my noble friend, in no spirit of controversy or nagging, that I hope that he will look carefully at this point; I, for one, feel great anxiety about it.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, perhaps I may first declare an interest because I own a vehicle which carries abnormal loads. Under the clause will the Minister be able to make an order permitting the contracting out of escorting of abnormal loads by the police to other contractors? If so, what kind of parliamentary scrutiny is offered for such orders?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I know that when the debate took place in Committee a number of anxieties were expressed about the Home Office review of police core and ancillary tasks and how the review might relate to the contracting out provisions in Part II of the Bill. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, reminded us, expressed disappointment that I was not present in the Chamber in my then capacity as Home Office Minister. I was deeply flattered that he should have noticed my
140
absence and minded. However, in view of the fact that that anxiety was expressed, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, very kindly expressed his gratitude to the Prime Minister in seeing that I am here today. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, when she was discussing the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill in Committee, never expected to find me sitting here. I find myself rather like a rotten penny which has turned up again on a different occasion.
Noble Lords: Never!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, when one sees the names attached to various amendments, it is rather like the scenario for the criminal justice Bill and the police Bill being re-enacted. The noble Baroness said a very important thing; namely, that the police must be known, trusted and respected. I agree with that entirely. I hope that they will never give the kind of reply which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, experienced in Manhattan, even if he did not quite understand the language used. I am sure that that disrupted his sensitive ear, but I understand that he gathered the message from the policeman fairly succinctly. I believe that that is something which would not happen in this country. I hope that it never will.
I may be able to give noble Lords some reassurance. When I was at the Home Office I was deeply appreciative of the fact that I had some involvement with the police for whom I have the greatest respect. I have always regarded it as a great privilege to be involved there. I noticed that the police were rightly concerned about the amount of work being put on them year after year. First, one Bill would be passed and then another. The police asked, "How much more work is going to be put on us?"
The purpose of the review of the core and ancillary tasks is to try to find out what it is really important for the police to do so that they can concentrate their efforts on those tasks and leave to others what can be more adequately done by them. The core tasks should be left wholly with the police. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil when he says that contacts between the police and the public should be broad based. I know that he found it difficult to appreciate this at the time but I remind him that that was the philosophy behind the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill; namely, to give to the people in the localities the responsibility for the policing of their areas, making sure that police authorities had the responsibilities they needed to ensure that that policing was efficient and local. That legislation was also designed to ensure involvement between the police and the public. However, I can understand my noble friend's anxiety that any change should be handled with care.
I would like to try to reassure noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, who knows a very great deal about the police, considering her longstanding involvement with that service, about the Government's intentions. As was made clear in Committee, I would like to stress that functions which affect individual liberty or which involve the powers and

141
rights of arrest, search or seizure of property are excluded from the order-making power by virtue of Clause 66.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked about the escorting of abnormal loads. Functions which are not statutory do not fall within the scope of the Bill. I am unsure whether that is a statutory function and whether it fulfils the other criteria within the scope of the order. I shall investigate the point and let him know.
The Government consider that exclusion will put beyond doubt the fact that the core function of the police falls outside the scope of the order-making power in Clause 64. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will be reassured on that. That does not mean that the employment of contractors may never be considered for some activities. For example, under existing powers police forces throughout the country have employed contractors in such areas as catering and ground maintenance. It is very likely that that will extend to other support areas such as IT services, cleaning, vehicle maintenance and so forth. Those activities may, at present, be carried out under existing powers by contractors. Although I know that change can be uncomfortable, I think that it is right and proper to ensure that such support services can be exposed to competition so as to ensure that value for money is achieved. The Bill will not alter that position in any way.
The Home Office review of core and ancillary police functions will consider the most cost-effective way of providing core police services and it will explore how best to deliver what are called "ancillary services". The order-making powers in Part II are not concerned with transferring functions from the police to another agency. I would emphasise again that core functions are excluded by virtue of Clause 66, which places matters which affect individual liberty and entry, search or seizure of properly outside the scope of the order-making powers in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was concerned that the review of police functions was secret. It is not secret. In fact, it has been fully discussed by all police and local authority associations in a group which has been set up specifically for that purpose. An interim report will shortly be published which will summarise the review's progress to date. I hope that that will allay any misapprehensions which the noble Lord or others may have about that review, which is not intended to change the basic role of the police.
Most importantly, I can again assure your Lordships that the order-making power in Clause 64 will not be necessary in order to implement the outcome of the review. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, that throughout the review the Government have made it quite clear that they have no intention of changing the current role of the police in our society. The police will continue to help and to reassure the public. The Government want a broad-based police service which polices by consent.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, raised during Committee the question of whether some police activities such as crime prevention, school visits or the tracking of missing persons could be contracted out.
142
Those activities are carried out in fulfilment of general common law duties of the police. Government policy, as was reaffirmed in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, is to give greater responsibility to the chief constables for the efficient and effective running of their force, and for there to be less government interference in the day-to-day running of police forces. It is the chief constables, not the Government, who have the statutory duty to direct and control their forces. At present there is nothing to stop a chief constable, with the consent of his police authority, from making use of private contractors in connection with those activities. Again, the contracting out order-making power would not apply to those activities.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was concerned about the position of the police national computer. I can advise him that the Government are looking actively at the possibilities of contracting out the operation and maintenance of the police national computer. We do not believe that there are any overriding objections of principle and the Home Office hopes to announce by the end of the year whether, and if so when, a market test might take place. However, I should point out that the decision here on whether or not to consider market testing or the use of private contractors is in no way dependent on the passage of the Bill. The contracting out order-making power in Clause 64 will not be required, as there are no statutory restrictions which would prevent such a test proceeding. Therefore, the matter does not arise under the Bill.
I know of the anxieties that have been expressed both today and at earlier stages as well as on the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill about the police and their relationship with the public. They are very important concerns. It is essential that the police and the public should have a mutual respect one for the other and- each to the other. I hope that what I have said this afternoon in answer to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, has been able to reassure her that the Government wish to see that continue. I hope that some of the concerns which the noble Baroness understandably expressed will not materialise.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether the House will give me leave to ask for clarification. The noble Earl has given us a broad raft of things which will not be affected by the Bill. I did not hear of one instance where this provision might be required to do anything which was virtuous. If that is the case, what possible objection can there be to the amendment?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the objection to the amendment is that it is not necessary. The functions which would come within the scope of the power in the clause are narrowly defined. They would only lie within its scope if they met all the conditions in Clause 64. They are, for example, that the function is conferred upon the office holder within the meaning of Clause 74(1); that the function is exercisable by virtue of any enactment or rule of law by a member of the officer holder's staff or by a civil servant assigned or appointed

143
to assist in the exercise of those functions; and that the function is not excluded by Clause 66. That excludes from the scope of the power those functions the exercise of which would necessarily interfere with the liberty of the individual. Of course, there would be no need to use the order-making power if it was already possible to employ contractors to carry out those functions. Those are the hoops that would have to be gone through before any action could be taken.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, before my noble friend completes that complex operation of sitting down, perhaps I may ask him one question. In the light of the assurances that my noble friend has given, which I very much welcome, what does he find objectionable in the amendment?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, fundamentally, the amendment is not necessary. There is no virtue in making an amendment to the Bill which will not add to the advantages of the Bill and which will not help the work of the police. It is not clear that any of the functions would fall within the framework or be appropriate for consideration for contracting out. That is why we would prefer not to accept the amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I am confused by that response. If it makes no difference whether the amendment is in or out of the Bill, it seems to me that we might as well have it in and make it clear that police functions will not be contracted out. The only functions that were mentioned by the Minister which are currently contracted out are cleaning and catering for which there are existing powers. If the Minister cannot give any examples of other functions which might be contracted out which Clause 64 is intended to cover, I cannot see any objection to including the amendment within Clause 64.
I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said about having a broad-based series of contacts with the public. The danger of contracting out is that one reduces or shrinks the size of the police service until eventually it becomes so small that it has no room to do crime prevention or community policing work or to carry out a broad range of functions such as accepting lost dogs. The latter is an example of something with which the police are required to deal by statute which Ministers might think of contracting out. It is an obvious example that is often talked about. The problem is that that would require an amendment to be made to the Dogs Act 1906. Presumably, under these provisions, Ministers could decide to contract out the reception of lost dogs. However, that is the sort of thing that the public welcome the police dealing with. If one finds a dog, it is often convenient to take it to the local police station. That is also a convenient place at which to report a lost dog.
It is important that the police service retains that range of public services so that the public continue to have contact with police officers. If the number of police officers is reduced, the opportunities for such contact diminish. The anxiety that we are pursuing in the amendment is that the whole nature and style of policing in this country might change. We could end up with a
144
force that is expected merely to enforce unwelcome laws. The police would then lose public support and respect. That is a serious matter of principle. Therefore, it is a matter upon which I should like to test the opinion of the House.
4.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 81B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 108; Not-Contents, 168.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L

Lester of Herne Hill, L

Airedale, L

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lockwood, B

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Longford, E

Bancroft, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Barnett, L

Mallalieu, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L

Birk, B

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McCarthy, L

Bottomley, L.

McNair, L

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Meston, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Milner of Leeds, L

Carter, L.

Mishcon, L

Chapple, L

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L

Mulley, L.

David, B.

Nelson, E

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Desai, L.

Peston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donoughue, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Redesdale, L

Eatwell, L.

Ennals, L.

Richard, L.

Erroll, E.

Rochester, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Ezra, L.

Falkland, V.

Seear, B

Fitt, L.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L

Shannon, E

Geraint, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stedman, B.

Gregson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grey, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Halsbury, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hamwee, B.

Haskel, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Healey, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.[Teller.]

Tonypandy, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tope, L.

Howie of Troon, L

Tordoff, L. [Teller]

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hunt, L.

Varley, L

Hylton-Foster, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L

Jacques, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jeger, B.

Whaddon, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wharton, B.

Judd, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

145

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Harvington, L

Ailsa, M.

Hayhoe, L.

Aldington, L.

Henley, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hesketh, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hives, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Holderness, L.

Ashbourne, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hood, V.

Astor, V.

Howe, E.

Balfour, E.

Inchyra, L.

Birdwood, L

Inglewood, L.

Blatch, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blyth, L.

Killearn, L.

Boardman, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Borthwick, L.

Knollys, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Lindsay, E

Brookeborough, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Bruntisfield, L.

Lucas, L.

Burnham, L.

Lyell, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cadman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Chancellor.]

Campbell of Croy, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mancroft, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Merrivale, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mersey, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Middleton, L.

Chesham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B

Clanwilliam, E.

Milverton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Monson, L.

Coleridge, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Comwallis, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Courtown, E

Mottistone, L.

Cox, B.

Mountevans, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mountgarret, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cross, V.

Moyne, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Munster, E.

Davidson, V.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

De Freyne, L.

Newall, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northesk, E

Denman, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Derwent, L.

Onslow, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Donegall, M.

Orkney, E

Downshire, M.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Effingham, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L

Ellenborough, L.

Pender, L.

Elles, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elton, L.

Reay, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renton, L.

Fisher, L.

Renwick, L.

Flather, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Foley, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rodney, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gisborough, L.

Seccombe, B.

Goschen, V.

Sharpies, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gray, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gridley, L.

St Davids, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strange, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Harlech, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

146

Swansea, L.

Ullswater, V.

Swinfen, L

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Teviot, L

Vivian, L.

Teynham, L.

Westbury, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wigram, L.

Torrington, V.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Trumpington, B. [Teller.]

Wolfson, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.50 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 81C, I should say that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 81D.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 81C:
Page 54, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 55.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 81A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 81D not moved.]
[Amendment No. 81E had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 81F not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 81G:
Page 55, line 8, at end insert (", provided that such persons render proper account to Parliament on the exercise of their functions.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 81HA. This is the first of a pair of anti-Sleaze amendments which apply to the contracting out of central government functions. A later pair of amendments deals with the contracting out of local authority functions.
The first of the amendments is new. It was not tabled in Committee and therefore I should like to spell out the argument. Basically, it is designed to tackle the issue of quangos.
As seen at Bournemouth, the Government were split, and honourably split, with regard to Maastricht and the European fault line. Much of the debate has been about the democratic deficit. And yet, those who have been so concerned about the loss of democratic sovereignty in Europe have not always been seen to be defending two institutions which are highly respected in Europe for their competence and probity; that is, the British Civil Service and British local government.
We are seeing the disappearance of the Civil Service and the destruction of local government because of the transfer of functions to quangos, which are increasingly accountable not to Parliament and not to local authorities but to the Minister who appointed them. Quangos and Next Steps agencies within the Civil Service this year will cover about two-thirds of all central government function and in local government, quangos are outspending all of local government put together. In the process, that new patronage state means

147
that we lose ministerial responsibility; we lose the unity of the Civil Service; we lose the consensus governing its objectivity, integrity and impartiality.
Why are quangos so objectionable and why, therefore, are we moving the amendments? There are three reasons. First, they make bad decisions. By definition, they are single-issue bodies with no responsibility for the wider consequences of their actions. They have an interest in exporting their costs to other bodies. By definition, they are single-issue, blinkered and without a wider view. One only has to look, for example, at the absurd lack of interface between the Benefits Agency and the Child Support Agency. Both are Next Steps agencies. They are not integrated; they are fragmented. Therefore, when a father's ability to pay maintenance falters, income support cannot easily and speedily pick up and support the income of the parent with care.
Similarly, in local government health authorities wish to export the convalescent elderly on to social services departments which are not resourced to cope. In other words, by definition, because quangos are single-issue bodies they fragment services which should be integrated. They undermine the broader concept of value for money and concern for the needs of the users. Therefore, our first objection to quangos is that they make bad decisions.
This amendment deals with our second objection, which is concerned with the problem of public probity. Local and central government are governed by codes of conduct but quangos are not. Their appointments are secret; their audit is secret; their meetings are secret; their budgets are secret; and their members' names and addresses are secret. And yet they are spending our money in our name without our knowledge and consent and without our approval. However good the quality of the service which some quangos may provide, they must provide it in the light. Otherwise there is inevitably suspicion, which is too often well founded, of "cronyism" and sleaze.
One has only to look at some of the stories regarding the Welsh Development Agency. One has only to read the report of the Public Accounts Committee which found 26 cases of public business being conducted improperly. That is a scathing indictment of the patronage state. Incidentally, if those activities occurred within local government, councillors would be sent to gaol.
Our first objection to quangos is that they make bad decisions and our second objection is that their public probity is questionable. The third is the problem with regard to the democratic deficit. Councillors and MPs are elected. Both can be ejected and rejected. Civil Service departments are open to direct scrutiny by Parliament. However, when the Child Support Agency moved from targeting fathers who refused to pay to targeting fathers who were already paying but from whom the Treasury hoped to squeeze a bit more, that involved making a policy move which was never intended by Parliament; but Parliament had no control to rectify that matter because those Next Steps agencies
148
were beyond the parliamentary reach. That could not have happened in a department for which a Minister was directly accountable.
When, at the end of the 19th century, Gladstone and Salisbury corralled quangos such as Poor Law boards, school boards, metropolitan boards and so on into the newly invented local government system of county councils and urban, rural and district councils, they did so precisely to overcome the problem of fragmentation; precisely to increase probity; and precisely to produce accountability. I suggest to your Lordships that we should today reaffirm those Victorian values.
These two amendments go some little way towards that. The first of the amendments provides that such bodies should report directly to Parliament so that Parliament may hold them to account. That is Amendment No. 81G. The second, Amendment No. 81HA, provides that former permanent secretaries and Ministers who in office have established quangos or agencies or who have privatised functions should then not, in the space of two years, be the direct beneficiary by holding directorships or chairmanships, whether it be of BT, Cable and Wireless, British Gas or even BUPA.
No one should be thought to be making private profit out of public office, public duty and public service. It brings us all into disrepute. How can we believe that Ministers and senior civil servants are making decisions in a properly disinterested way when they are so quickly rewarded for their so-called disinterested decisions? It is indecent. We all know it and we all feel uncomfortable about it. We should do something about it. The second amendment goes some little way towards achieving that.
Any MP or councillor who has been canvassing is told two things on the doorstep. First, they are told, "You are all alike". Secondly, they are told, "You are only in it for what you can get". We are creating a culture of cynicism which dishonours politics.
We are all delighted that recently the Prime Minister appeared to acknowledge that those 2,000 or so quangos need to be brought out into the light from the shadowland of "cronyism" by asking the relevant Minister, Mr. Hunt, to publish names, to appoint from a list and to require meetings in public. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I have moved similar amendments, during the passage of previous Bills, which noble Lords opposite rejected. I am delighted to see that the Prime Minister now appreciates that we were right at the time and that we won the argument if not the vote. Certainly, recent Gallup polls have shown how widespread is now the view of the public that all parties—and I have to say, especially the governing party —are now believed to be infected by sleaze and dishonour. We must clean those stables.
I accept fully that the amendments only tinker with the problem and that the departmental shadowing committees are not yet sufficiently competent. We need a much wider reform of all the processes and procedures within Parliament. But these two amendments would signal the need, first, to bring central government quangos into a "get-attable" framework by Parliament over and beyond the Public Accounts Committee. The

149
second amendment would return us to the culture of the Northcote/Trevelyan reforms which, in the 1850s, removed patronage from the Civil Service.
I ask the House to go along with the Prime Minister, to reaffirm those Victorian values, to start to clean up politics and to bring them back into a proper repute. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am bound to say that your Lordships have listened to a most astonishing speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. Indeed, she used some very extravagant words. She said that the amendment was all about "sleaze", "dishonour" and clearing up politics; that it was about private profit being made out of public service; about being rewarded with quick appointments; and, finally, that the whole thing was "indecent". In my view, that has very little to do either with the amendment or with the Bill. As far as accountability is concerned, I entirely understand the concern that those who are responsible for statutory functions should be accountable to Parliament; of course they should. Moreover, functions which are contracted out should not disappear from public view just by virtue of their being contracted out. However, Amendment No. 81G is not necessary in order to achieve that aim.
Clause 67 provides that the Minister or office-holder on whom the function is conferred will remain responsible for anything which is done or which is omitted from being done by contractors who are employed by him to carry out a function. The clause safeguards all existing lines of accountability. That ensures that Ministers and office-holders will remain accountable to Parliament and will be legally liable in the same way as they are at present for their own acts and omissions and for those of their employees. Those authorising contractors will be responsible for ensuring that the function is carried out properly. It is right that they should be accountable for any decisions which may be taken on their behalf. Where requirements to report on activities to Parliament already exist, these will of course remain in place.
The noble Baroness was concerned about Next Steps agencies. The Next Steps project has increased accountability by making the workings of government far more visible and easily understood by the public. The publication of framework documents, key annual targets and annual reports has significantly increased the information which is available both to Parliament and the public. Moreover, it has been made clearer than ever before just who is responsible for what. It also allows for more thorough parliamentary scrutiny.
The noble Baroness then had a good go at quangos as if they were something wicked and awful. I do not believe that they are. Indeed, there is nothing in the contracting out part of the Bill which transfers the responsibility of any Minister, office-holder or local authority to any other body. The Bill would merely allow for the employment of private contractors to carry out functions which can be currently undertaken by public servants. It is misleading to suggest otherwise.
150
The noble Baroness also referred to the Public Accounts Committee. Its report does not say that propriety has been a victim of Civil Service reforms. In fact, it acknowledges that it is important that the drive to provide improved services at a reduced cost should be sustained. That is precisely what we are doing. The message of the report is that we must ward against any risk that propriety could be compromised as beneficial change is introduced. I, for one, could not agree more. The whole point of the reforms is to make public services more accountable to the public and less wasteful and so bring about better management of public money.
The noble Baroness used the unfortunate word "sleaze" which is heard so frequently these days. I must tell the noble Baroness that I believe her amendment goes far too far. There are many occasions when persons who have advised a Minister about contracting out a function should not then be involved in the exercise of that function. Of course I understand that. For example, it may be a condition of the award of any contract in connection with the work of the official receiver that no one may bid if he, any partner of his, or any associated firm has been involved in advising my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade about contracting out such work. That bar also extends to advising potential bidders.
As I said, the amendment goes too far. Ministers will wish to be able to receive advice from those people who have specialist knowledge about a particular function. It would be a nonsense if potential contractors could not respond in detail to a consultation exercise for fear of not being able to bid for a contract awarded within the following two years.
Further, a Minister may wish to commission market research about a function. For example, if a Minister does commission such research it is right to ask whether it is correct that such people should be prevented from bidding for any subsequent contract. In order to make decisions, Ministers need to receive advice from many quarters. To place a bar on any adviser bidding for a contract subsequently would be detrimental to that advice. Of course —and this is a point the noble Baroness completely failed to recognise—there is advantage in there being movement of people from the public sector into the private sector. There is guidance as to how people should conduct themselves. But to say that anyone who has given advice to a department should be debarred from participating in any contract within two years is, I believe, an absurdity which really does not need to be entertained. I understand a little of the concern of the noble Baroness. However, if I may say so—and to use a colloquial expression—I believe that she went over the top with her anxieties in a quite unnecessary way.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, needless to say, I do not believe that the noble Earl's honour is in any sense in doubt. All I can say is that I really do not believe that he is living in the real world of perceptions out there as regards what is happening to the Government—I do not say "our Government"—in terms of issues of sleaze. For example, why does the Minister think that the Prime Minister set up at the weekend a

151
Cabinet review on quangos under Mr. David Hunt in order to spearhead a Cabinet drive against the sleaze factor now afflicting the Tory party? Has the Minister not heard of it? Does he not share the Prime Minister's concerns? Does he believe that Mr. Hunt will be wasting his time? Further, does he think that Mr. Hunt does not have a problem to identify, redress or resolve? I must say that I was slightly puzzled by the Minister's complacency in believing that all was well in the best of all possible worlds at the very time his Prime Minister is flagging up a problem and asking one of the most senior members of the Government to address it.
As regards the defence of quangos, the Minister did not at any stage touch upon the real problems that I tried to suggest are inflicted upon us by quangos in terms of their blinkered decision-making, their lack of public transparency and the questions relating to the inadequacy of the probity of their methods. That is now a widespread concern which is shared by parliamentarians, pressure groups, civil servants and certainly by academics, the judiciary and the Public Accounts Committee. What a pity that the Minister has not seen fit to read some of that material and, perhaps, also share that concern. He could then have helped us overcome some of those problems.
Finally, the Minister said that he saw no disadvantage—and, indeed, much advantage—in people moving from the public to the private sector. We are certainly not opposed to movement between those sectors. However, what we object to is senior Ministers of the Crown who have been instrumental in devising policies in the name of public interest then appearing quite quickly, and in quite indecent haste, to benefit from them both financially and personally. I am astonished that the Minister does not perceive that as a rather ugly and unpleasant phenomenon. However, as we have other amendments to debate, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 81GA and 81H had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 81HA not moved.]
Clause 65 [Functions of local authorities]:
[Amendments Nos. 81HB and 81HC not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 81HD:
Page 55, line 39, at end insert:
("(2A) Where a Minister by order provides in accordance with subsection (2) above that a function of a local authority may be exercised on its behalf by another person, the authority concerned may, notwithstanding any regulations defining conduct as anti-competitive made under the provisions specified in subsection (2B) below, make compliance with any matter which would otherwise be so defined an express provision of the contract made between the authority and the authorised person (and in particular provisions to ensure that persons resident in the area affected by the contract derive some benefit from it).
(2B) The provisions to which the power in subsection (2A) refers are—

(a) sections 7(1A) and 9(4) (aaaa) of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980;

(b) sections 4(5) and 7(7) of the Local Government Act 1988; and

(c) section 9 of the Local Government Act 1992.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 81JA, 82CA, 82CF and 82CJ. This set of amendments concerns value for money and contract compliance. Contract compliance seeks to ensure—this is what Amendment No. 81HD seeks to ensure—that if a local authority wishes to insert conditions in a contract with regard to the employment of the long-term unemployed, women and disabled people, then as long as that applies to all potential contractors, it should not be regarded as anti-competitive. Any potential contractor wants not only to win a contract but, having won it, to perform within it as cheaply as possible thus maximising his profit. Part of the process of performing as cheaply as possible consists of exporting one's costs onto others.
If we let them, waste disposal contractors would dump and pollute. However, we do not let them do that and contract compliance ensures that environmentally friendly policies are pursued. If we let them, building contractors would take little or no responsibility for health and safety at work, but we do not let them do that. We insist that they observe standards of social responsibility and that they do not export their costs onto others.
Indeed we often talk about planning gain attached, for example, to a shopping centre in that one obtains a park or a créche in consequence of that shopping centre. Certainly one of our complaints about quangos is that they comprise single service bodies, such as water authorities, precisely because it is in their interest to maximise their profits by exporting their costs to others. For example, water companies carried out 21,000 disconnections last year, and hepatitis and dysentery increased three-fold. Environmental health bodies must pick up the bill for that. Cheapness often results in greater costs to other people.
However, staff in local authorities and in government should be in a position to act more sensibly than that, and to seek proper value for money by ensuring that when a contract is placed it does not generate additional costs elsewhere. Indeed it may even add benefits to the local economy. That is why contracts that embody contract compliance, and are not merely the cheapest possible ones, ensure that contractors observe such conditions as loop back into the local economy, and not just the money savings to be gained from a cheap contract as we would expect them to do. They should consume their own smoke so to speak and should not undermine other policies that a local authority is anxious to promote. If that is not done, one saves £1 on a contract and spends £2 elsewhere on other local authority activities.
This amendment would allow local authorities to insert into contracts such conditions as would ensure that the contract offers the best value for money. The conditions would apply to all contractors. If a contractor

153
did not like the conditions, he need not tender. The amendment empowers local authorities to act as guardians for their local interests.
In Committee we tabled an amendment on local labour which the Minister, at the time, argued was contrary to EC law. But a more general amendment would allow local authorities to reach some of those in the group referred to, who for the most part tend to be the long-term unemployed. I am now talking about the long-term unemployed because the Government have spent £4 billion in the past few years on inner city initiatives aimed at building employment in inner cities. However, all research has shown that where Government have funded such schemes—UDCs, action areas, housing trusts and the like—where they have created new jobs, for every three new jobs that have been created two have been stripped out from elsewhere in the local community. Some 80 per cent. of jobs in London's Docklands were taken by outsiders and little benefit spilled over into the local area.
We know that in the inner cities some half of those under 25 are unemployed. We know the situation is even worse for ethnic minorities and the disabled. We know that those unemployed quickly—unfortunately, this is often permanent —become the long-term unemployed. Therefore what is saved on contractors' bills by going for the cheapest contract has to be spent several times over by the local authority in making good vandalism, installing security television cameras, providing extra policing and dead-end training schemes which lead to no real local jobs. The Department of the Environment stated in its document entitled Assessing the Impact of Urban Policy which was published in June,
"Residents see little direct or indirect benefit coming from most of these schemes".
There is nothing new about requesting contract compliance which will ensure, for example, that a contractor is required to employ some element of the long-term unemployed. The Government, for example, have imposed similar conditions with respect to religious affiliation in Northern Ireland and they are to be commended for that. Similarly, we would like to argue the case of women workers, especially those who head single-parent families and who are often shunted or coralled into low-paid, part-time work. We believe we should be able to protect their interests through contract compliance.
A further group which finds it difficult to enter the labour market comprises disabled people. The Minister is expert in this field. We know that the disabled have two to three times the unemployment rate of able-bodied people. The jobs traditionally carried out by those either in the formal or the informal quota system are disappearing. We know that disabled people may have better attendance records than most non-disabled people and that the cost of adaptations in the workplace are modest. But we also know that disabled people are up against not only the handicap of personal disability but also the disability of employer prejudice. The Government accepted—when the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, tabled his Question on this subject yesterday—that education and voluntary persuasion should be backed by statutory law. That is coming but
154
in this amendment we are asking that local authorities should have the power to insert into their contracts those very same conditions as the Government, we understand, will shortly impose on private contractors and local authorities more generally on a compulsory basis.
When we argued this matter in Committee, the Minister insisted that to support such an amendment would be illegal under European law. I have taken quite a lot of advice on this matter and I must say that, as I understand it, member states have considerable flexibility in permitting such contracts. It appears from the Beentjes case that the scope of contract conditions should not be limited or discriminatory on grounds of nationality. In other areas contract compliance could be inserted that would not be contrary to the Treaty of Rome or to EC law where local authorities deemed it was in their best interests. I hope, with that argument, that we may be able to persuade the Minister to support these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, Amendment No. 81HD, with which the others are grouped, attempts to propose that matters defined as anti-competitive in the legislation governing compulsory competitive tendering for local authorities should not be treated as anti-competitive when an order is made under subsection (2) of Clause 65.
I do have to say that I am at a loss to understand why. The order-making power in Clause 65 is an enabling power and will not force local authorities to contract out work. They will be able to choose whether or not so to do. In contrast, the provisions listed in Section 2B of the amendment apply only when local authorities wish to retain in-house work which is subject to the compulsory competitive tendering regime.
During Committee stage, as the noble Baroness well remembers, we discussed similar amendments at some length. We discussed, as I remember it, many other matters, some of which some Members of the Committee seemed to think were varying on irrelevance to the amendments with which we were concerned. But those amendments would have allowed local authorities—as the noble Baroness will remember—to apply conditions to contracts for such work in order to secure the employment of local labour, women and disabled people. This would mean treating work contracted out as a result of an order under this section differently from all other public purchasing. The Government do not believe that the case for doing so is so proven.
First, let me repeat what I said at Committee stage: local labour clauses are in breach of EC legislation and the Commission has already intervened in cases where they have been proposed. I appreciate that the noble Baroness has taken advice. So have we, and I am convinced that that is still the case. But obviously, as the noble Baroness makes that point, I am quite prepared to give a commitment to have another look at these particular amendments and, perhaps again by means of correspondence, write in greater detail to the noble Baroness assuring her that her amendment is in breach of EC legislation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I wish to emphasise that the amendment does not address the issue of local labour but the issue of the long-term unemployed. According to the advice that I have been given although those groups may overlap, to target the long-term unemployed is not forbidden by EC law. Therefore, it is entirely possible, legally, for the amendment to be taken on board.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Baroness. My advice is that her amendment is in breach of EC legislation. I do not think that we shall get far arguing the point at the Dispatch Box. As I said, I can give the noble Baroness an assurance that we shall have another look at the matter. Obviously, I should be the last to wish to do anything that might possibly be in breach of EC legislation. I do not understand the reaction of noble Lords opposite to that remark.
Other contract compliance clauses may also be regarded as discriminatory by the European Court. Again, I shall have a further look at the matter. They are also prohibited by Part II of the Local Government Act 1988. In addition, we should not forget that an underlying foundation of public procurement policy is that public purchasing decisions should be based on value for money. That is a matter that I shall come to later when I deal with Amendment No. 81JA, which seeks value for money savings. Decisions should be based on value for money, otherwise there can be additional costs for both local and national taxpayers.
It may help if I set out the legislative framework within which local authorities would have to operate following an order under Clause 65. These are the existing rules on public procurement.
First, the Treaty of Rome affects all public purchasing contracts and prohibits public purchasers, or those purchasing certain goods and services with public money, from taking any action which restricts the free movement of goods or the freedom to provide services, or which discriminates on grounds of nationality.
Secondly, the EC public purchasing directives, which apply to all local authorities, lay down criteria for the selection of contractors and award of contracts. The main aim of the EC procurement directives is to prevent discrimination against companies and workers of other member states. Authorities may exclude contractors from tendering only on prescribed grounds such as previous offences or grave professional misconduct; or if they fail to meet standards of economic or financial standing or technical capacity. All contractual matters must be made known in advance and must not offend against general principles of EC law which I have mentioned.
Thirdly, the terms of the UK legislation—Part II of the Local Government Act 1988—mean that local authorities may not refer to non-commercial matters at any stage during the process of letting or terminating a contract for the supply of works, goods or services. Matters such as the composition of a potential contractor's workforce are defined as non-commercial, so local authorities cannot use their procurement decisions to achieve social objectives.
156
That is all in line with our policy. It is a general principle of government policy that social aims such as urban regeneration and equal opportunities should not be pursued through commercial contracts. As the noble Baroness well knows, we have a raft of other policies and provisions to support those social aims. I shall not now repeat the speech which I made at Committee stage in which I demonstrated to the noble Baroness that we have seen long-term unemployment fall, both among disabled people—although not as much as we would like—and among others; but obviously more can possibly be done.
We support the objectives of economic regeneration and ensuring that there is not unfair discrimination. However, contract compliance is not the way to achieve those ends.
Amendment No. 81JA seeks to ensure that orders under Part II specifying local authority functions cannot be made unless the Minister can show that substantial value for money savings will be achieved. There are a number of problems with the amendment.
First, because of the focus on savings alone, contracting out of functions could be prevented where that was done principally in order to secure improvements in quality. That might also include value for money, but not necessarily value for money savings. I am sure that the noble Baroness would not wish to rule out the capacity of the private sector to improve the standard of service at the same—or on occasions even greater—cost as incurred by public servants currently. Competing for quality is about improving quality and standards as well as reducing costs.
Secondly, the scheme of the Bill is to enable Ministers to lay orders under Clauses 64 and 65 which would specify functions which they consider may be appropriate for contracting out. As an order requires an affirmative resolution in each House, Parliament would then have the opportunity to debate whether the function so specified was indeed appropriate, taking into account the principles and safeguards laid out in the Bill.
Of course, the Minister would be able to say whether he thinks savings are likely. But at that stage no decision as to whether to contract out would necessarily have been taken; nor would it be possible for either the Minister, the office holder or any local authority to undertake the detailed evaluation necessary to satisfy the condition which the amendment seeks to impose. An order would typically be followed by a competitive tender to choose a provider based on the criterion of securing the best value for money, which I distinguish from value for money savings.
Thirdly, the Minister will not necessarily be well placed to assess the outcome of contracting out. The local authority itself will often be in the best position to evaluate the pros and cons of contracting out. As we have already sought to make clear, it is for the office holder or local authority to give the authorisation to employ contractors and not the Minister.
Having pointed out the problems, I believe that the noble Baroness can be assured that sufficient safeguards are in place to ensure that office holders and local authorities would satisfy themselves that contracting out would provide good value for money before authorising

157
a contractor to carry out one of their functions. That is because Clause 67 makes sure that all the present accountability arrangements, including scrutiny of the decision to let a particular contract by the Public Accounts Committee or the district auditor, would remain in place.
I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel that on this occasion it is not necessary to pursue her amendments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that conciliatory reply. With the leave of the House, I should like to request the Minister to indicate whether, were he to find between now and Third Reading that the amendment is not contrary to EC law— as I believe to be the case, and as my professional advice indicates—he would come back at Third Reading with his own amendment embodying it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, to put it briefly: no. The fact that the amendment is contrary to EC law is merely one plank in my arguments. As I explained to the noble Baroness, the amendment is not considered desirable on other grounds. I can give no assurance that I would bring it back at Third Reading.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It clarifies in my mind that the Government are saying that while they support the principles and policies of urban regeneration and equal opportunities, they would not seek to carry those through into commercial contracts. Why not? If commercial contracts do not carry urban regeneration and equal opportunity issues, then other bodies—the local authorities in particular—have to compensate for their failure so to do. Therefore, the savings to the commercial contractor are more than offset by the additional cost to the local authorities which have to make good that deficit in social responsibility.
If the Government will not support us in trying to privatise social responsibility—which is what the amendment seeks to do—and ensuring that nobody, and certainly not commercial contractors, is exempt from the social responsibility of caring for the longer term unemployed, women, ethnic minorities and the disabled, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
5.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 81HD) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 160.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Barnett, L.

David, B.

Birk, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Blackstone, B.

Desai, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Diamond, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Donoughue, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Eatwell, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Ennals, L

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Fitt, L.

158

Foot, L.

Mulley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Nicol, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Peston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Healey, L

Prys-Davies, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B. [Teller.]

Richard, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Hooson, L.

Seear, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Serota, B.

Hughes, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Jeger B

Stedman, B.

Judd, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L

Kirkhill, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lockwood, B.

Tonypandy, V.

Mallalieu, B.

Turner of Camden, B

Masham of Ilton, B.

Varley L

Mason of Bamsley, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Westmorland, E

Milner of Leeds, L.

Whaddon, L.

Mishcon, L.

White, B.

Molloy, L.

Williams of Elvel, L

Monkswell, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Ailsa, M.

Effingham, E.

Aldington, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E

Elles, B.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Annaly, L.

Elton, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Erroll, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Ferrers, E

Astor of Hever, L

Fisher, L.

Astor, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Balfour, E.

Gisborough, L.

Beloff, L.

Goschen, V.

Blatch, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Blyth, L.

Gridley, L.

Boardman, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harlech, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Burnham, L.

Harrowby, E

Butterworth, L.

Harvington, L.

Cadman, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Henley, L.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Hives, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Holderness, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Howe, E

Chelmsford, V.

Inchyra, L.

Chesham, L.

Inglewood, L.

Clanwilliam, E

Jeffreys, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Coleridge, L.

Kinnoull, E

Cornwallis, L.

Knollys, V.

Courtown, E

Laing of Dunphail, L

Cox, B.

Lauderdale, E

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Leigh, L.

Cratborne, L.

Lindsay, E

Cross, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon. E

Cumberlege, B.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Davidson, V.

Lucas, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Lyell, L.

Denman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Derwent, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Digby, L.

Chancellor.]

Dilhorne, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Malmesbury, E

Donegall, M.

Marlesford, L.

Dormer, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Downshire, M.

Merrivale, L.

159

Mersey, V.

Renwick, L.

Middleton, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Milverton, L.

Rodney, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mottistone, L.

Seccombe, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Sharples, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Moyne, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Munster, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

St Davids, V.

Nelson, E.

Stewartby, L.

Newall, L.

Strange, B.

Northesk, E

Strathclyde, L.

Onslow, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Sudeley, L.

Swifen, L.

Orkney, E.

Tebbit, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Teviot, L

Oxfuird, V.

Torrington, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Trumpington, B. [Teller.]

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Pender, L

Ullswater, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L

Rankeillour, L.

Vivian, L.

Rawlings, B.

Westbury, L.

Reay, L.

Wigram, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Rennell, L.

Wise, L.

Renton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.37 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 81J:
Page 55, line 41, at end insert (", and having regard to the views of,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a simple and straightforward amendment. I shall be brief.
Clause 65(3) states:
"A Minister shall not make an order under this section in relation to a local authority without first consulting … representatives of local government… associations of local authorities".
Such consultation recognises that they have expertise that has been garnered over many years which a Minister who is only temporarily resident in a department may not have. It also recognises that local authorities and local authority associations are obviously stakeholders in the outcome. The amendment simply adds the phrase,
"and having regard to the views of.
The amendment does not provide that the Secretary of State should accept those views blindly but should have regard to them, giving appropriate weight, due consideration and reflection. In other words, the amendment ensures that the consultation process is not a mere formality, the outcome of which and the findings of which the Government could ignore with impunity. It provides for a proper consultation process.
We should like to think that the amendment makes explicit what the Government intended in which case the Government can have no objection to the amendment. But if it is not what the Government
160
intended and they expect to treat consultation as a casual matter, that makes the amendment all the more important. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support the amendment on a matter which we have discussed on many occasions. I have often felt that the term "consultation" is sadly merely cosmetic when inserted in legislation. It would become the Government Front Bench to accept that "consultation" really means to take full account of what they are told. In other words, perhaps it is a trite way of putting it but it means to listen and not merely to hear.
My one anxiety about the amendment is that if the words are added after the reference to "consultation" in this part of the Bill, what effect might it have on other references to "consultation"? I should not want to devalue the term where it appears, having so often heard Ministers give assurances that by "consultation" they really do mean "having regard to the views of.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has probably made my case for me as well as it could be made. I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary. As it stands, the clause is perfectly sufficient. Taking account of and balancing the views of those consulted is implicit in the word "consultation". A Minister cannot simply ignore all views put to him—to do so would amount to no more than "informing" those concerned of his intentions and would not fulfil the requirement to consult.
However, the outcome of any consultation exercise may well be that there are opposing views about the order which is proposed. It is the job of the Minister responsible for the function involved to weigh carefully those different views and to reach a decision based upon those considerations. It would be impossible to impose an artificial requirement that he should have regard to all views without reference to their legality or merit. "Consultation" does not mean that the Minister will necessarily accede to the views of those consulted, but he must consider those views carefully before deciding how to proceed.
The Government have consistently made it clear that they are committed to consultation with local government about the use of the proposed order-making power. I should like to repeat that assurance. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will accept—particularly following the weighty arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—that on this occasion her amendment is probably not necessary.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I think it was deft of the noble Lord to pray in aid the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, when I thought that she was supposed to be supporting my amendment. However, I recognise and compliment the Minister on agility where one finds it. In the light of the Minister's comment and the fact that it is on the record, I ask leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 81JA not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 81JB:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause:
("Probity and impartiality in carrying out of functions by contractors
. For the avoidance of doubt the following provisions shall apply to those to whom functions are delegated under section 65 above as if those, to whom the functions are delegated are local authorities—

(a) Part III of the Local Government Act 1974 (Commissions for Local Administration);

(b) Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 (Accounts and Audit);

(c) section 31 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (Code of Conduct).").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendment No. 81JB standing in the names of myself and my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. Like the previous amendment, this is on the issue of probity.
By courtesy of my city council, I have a local authority diary. After listing the names of councillors and before listing the names of the committees on which they sit, the opening pages give the local authority code of conduct. For example, it states that if you have a private or personal interest in a question which councillors have to decide:
"you should never take any part in the decision",
neither speaking nor voting. That is unlike your Lordships' House where a more relaxed view is taken of such matters. It also gives guidance on other matters of probity, fiduciary duty, impartiality in the exercise of discretion. I suspect that on this occasion the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, may also confirm that her local authority diary carries such a code of conduct, whereas the Minister's may not.
The amendment seeks to ensure that no less standard of probity would apply where a function is delegated. It is an anti-sleaze amendment again, which, in today's climate, only the otherworldly would regard as unnecessary.
The new clause seeks to give substance to the Minister's assurance given at Committee that the powers of the Bill would not be used to undermine the impartiality and probity in the exercise of functions which affect the interests of the citizens. That was what the Minister told us at Committee stage. However, without such a clause, how can the Minister ensure what he said? How can his undertakings be fulfilled?
In local government, we not only have a code of conduct which I have mentioned, but we also have an ombudsman and an auditor who can disqualify and surcharge. As we know, the code of conduct has long been in force. When direct labour organisations were invented by the old LCC and the Webbs, they were invented precisely to break the cartels and improper practices of the private firms a century ago, tendering for public works. Clearly, certain professions are regulated by their peer groups—law, accountancy, architecture. But in some equally sensitive fields—for example, information technology where one is handling
162
confidential material or benefits work or areas of planning —there are no such regulations because professional groups are not widely supported. One has only to look at the failure of financial services to regulate themselves adequately to see that then: must be serious cause for concern.
Our first concern therefore is that private contractors are not regulated by the same code of conduct as currently applies to local government when the function is exported to them. We accept that on the second control over local government the ombudsman can investigate private as well as public contracts. But we are also worried about the role of the audit and the auditor. At Committee stage, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, seemed to us uncertain about the role and powers of the auditor. He suggested that the auditor would have access to documents and could demand an explanation. That is fine; but he did not seem clear whether the auditor could then have a clear right to take action and enforce action, such as a surcharge. Will the Minister please clarify what enforcing powers the auditor has to ensure that the same probity as we expect from local government will be embodied in commercial contracts?
The Minister said at Committee stage that it was hypothetical; it would depend on circumstances. Let me give the Minister a far from hypothetical example: what would happen if an authority contracted out its housing functions and the contractor then abused those functions by adopting housing policies so as to achieve a change in the social and political mix of the population by building stable communities in target wards? Would the auditor be powerless if Westminster's housing function had been contracted out, as opposed to his powers to investigate Westminster City Council, as he can at present?
In a report at the beginning of the year, Peat Marwick said:
"The contracting out of public services to private firms is likely to trigger an explosion in fraud and corruption".
That is not the Labour Party, it is Peat Marwick. They continue:
"Back-handers and slush money will flood public agencies as firms try to cut themselves into lucrative contracts".
It is quite wrong to legislate for contracting out, whether compulsory or voluntary, with all its invitation that Peat Marwick highlighted for us to be commercially exploitative, to cut corners and to engage in dubious practices without ensuring proper controls for probity.
This is an anti-sleaze amendment which I hope the Minister will accept. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too support this amendment for the reasons that were given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, and also because the amendment seeks to impose standards similar to those that apply to councillors, council officers and to council employees. The local authority associations and the Local Government Management Board have produced a code for local authority employees parallel to the one that has been adopted for councillors. Although it is not

163
statutory, it is nevertheless a very important document. I shall quote merely from one paragraph. It reminds local government employees that they are:
"expected to give the highest possible standard of service to the public … to provide appropriate advice … with impartiality",
and that,
"Employees will be expected, through agreed procedures and without fear of recrimination, to bring to the attention of the appropriate level of management any deficiency … [and] report… any impropriety or breach of procedure".
I am sure that we shall have assurances from the Minister that those to whom functions are delegated will be expected to meet the appropriate standards. But the experience must be that when functions are contracted out the distance that is inevitably and quite properly created—after all, that is the point of contracting out— somehow removes those who carry out the functions from the ethos, from the culture, that the contracting authority seeks to impose. In order to ensure that the standards apply—it seems to me that this must be an entirely uncontentious amendment—I hope that the Minister can indicate the Government's approval of the approach.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I had hoped for another speech similar to the previous one from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. But I suppose once is probably enough—
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in order to protect my reputation, perhaps I may remind the House that on the last amendment I merely asked a question.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note what the noble Baroness has to say. Questions can often be of considerable use in terms of putting one argument or another.
Perhaps I may express just the teeniest bit of surprise that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, came back with this amendment. As I believe she reminded the House, we discussed this matter at Committee stage. I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Strathclyde who responded. My understanding was that my noble friend had met most of her concerns. But obviously, if that is not the case, I will try to re-reassure the noble Baroness.
As we made clear in Committee, we do not want the role of the local government ombudsman to be in any way diminished. Nor do we want the provisions in this Bill to prevent a local authority auditor from carrying out his duty. And I am pleased to confirm again that these aspects of accountability would not be undermined by the provisions of the Bill as currently drafted. Local authority officers and members will remain responsible for ensuring that functions are properly carried out and that contractors' activities are monitored. These matters are already clear in law and in the Bill as drafted.
It is already the case that the auditor of a local authority's accounts has access to all of the documents he needs for the audit. This is so whether they are held by the authority, the contractor, or indeed anybody else. He is also entitled to demand explanations of any such documents from the person who is holding or
164
accountable for them. The district auditor would be able to audit the contractual arrangements to perform the function as part of the local authority's accounts. The Audit Commission is satisfied that no further amendment is necessary to achieve this.
I can certainly assure both noble Baronesses that there is no cause for concern that there might be the potential for the avoidance of proper probity in financial affairs. As I have explained, responsibility for the function carried out by a contractor remains with the local authority, which must ensure that the terms of its contract provide for proper financial control.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Can he then please clarify or enlarge on the point that we pressed with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in Committee and which I still do not believe the Minister has addressed (perhaps he will forgive me if he is going on to address it); namely, does the auditor have the power to surcharge?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the intervention of the noble Baroness was unnecessary. I shall come to the question of surcharge slightly later on. If the noble Baroness will bear with me, I shall make my arguments in my own way and in my own time.
Under Clause 67 the authority remains accountable and legally liable for the exercise of the function in question for all purposes. This means that the ombudsman's powers are not changed or diminished in any way.
Section 31 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 empowers the Secretary of State to issue a code of recommended practice regarding conduct of members of local authorities; it also provides for members' declarations of acceptance of office to include an undertaking to be guided by such a code. The code is concerned with standards of conduct in public life. It is therefore inappropriate to try to apply it to a person whom a local authority, following the making of an order made by a Minister, has authorised to exercise one of its functions. The essential lines of accountability remain with the local authority. This includes a duty to ensure, by whatever means are appropriate, that contractors act with propriety.
Obviously, care will be needed to ensure a professional approach to the task and ensure that any sources of potential conflict of interest can be limited. That might be by tender contract specification to minimise the element of discretion that is available to contractors; by excluding certain categories of bidder, by requiring separation of duties in organisational arrangements for carrying out the work, always with careful design of performance measures; or by instituting continuing procedures for declaration of directors' other interests. There may be cases where, having considered all relevant factors, market testing or contracting out would be considered inappropriate.
I now turn to the question of the potential surcharging of contractors. The auditor's powers are purely in relation to the local authority. He would be able to surcharge or disqualify local authority members only if they and not the contractor had been guilty of some illegality.

165
As I made clear earlier, and as I repeated yet again, responsibility for the function carried out by a contractor remains with the local authority. By the means that I have just suggested it must ensure that the terms of its contract provide for proper financial control. In these circumstances it is right that the liability to surcharge remains with the officers and members of the local authority; and where unlawful expenditure exceeds £2,000 the liability to disqualification again remains with members of the local authorities. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness, who, I am sure, does not think that I am "other worldly", would accept that her amendment is unnecessary to secure the objectives of accountability, openness and probity which the noble Baroness is pursuing. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. We accept his assurances about the ombudsman. I think we were clear about that before the debate. But I wish to come back to the question about audit. The Minister kept referring to the expectation that professional standards of behaviour would apply. I had expected him to say that and I hoped therefore that I had addressed that matter in my own remarks: I said that clearly it was straightforward where one is dealing with long-established professions such as law and accountancy; but to expect professional standards where there is no such notion as a "profession"—as with information technology or benefits administration—such references to an ethos which cannot exist is a very precarious basis on which to rest probity.
The Minister went on to say that the auditor, while he may investigate and demand information, could only surcharge or disqualify local authority members, and not the contractor himself, and that responsibility remains with the local authority. I understand that very well, and that is very clear where one is dealing with a particular aspect of the service. I do not think that we have any problem on the local authority side accepting that members take responsibility for a function where one part of that service —for example, cleaning or vehicle maintenance—has been contracted out. But what happens when an entire function—for example, the entire housing service (possibly in Westminster)—has been contracted out and therefore members cannot have the responsibility for the operation of that function? If they had a responsibility, the function itself would not have been transferred out, only merely a shopping-list of services. Would the Minister care to think again about the distinction between individual services, where, I accept, the procedure of surcharge may not be relevant, and the transference cut of a function, where the local authority itself has withdrawn from the exercise of a whole swathe of responsibility? If the Minister's words are correct, it means mat in so doing the public will not have the same safeguards coming from the auditor as they currently enjoy when the local authority performs this service. In other words, if a local authority contracts out a function as opposed to sub-sets of a function—its services—the public cannot have the assurance that full
166
probity will be maintained because the auditors' writ does not run. That is the point and that is the issue as I understand it.
I believe that we may have to return to this matter at Third Reading. It is very clear that, in the context identified by Peat Marwick of increased risk of fraud and corruption, at the point at which a function is transferred out the public lose the protection that government have seen fit to give them within local government. Frankly, that is not good enough.
6 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, very briefly, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that I am not sure that I can help the noble Baroness at all. I do not see her distinction between the function and the mere activity. It remains the case that members of the local authority will be responsible for specifying what the contractors are expected to do. In terms of ensuring probity, it is for them to ensure that a professional approach to the task will be undertaken. There are a number of different ways—by term contract, specification or whatever—in which they could do that.
I do not believe that I can take the noble Baroness any further. If she wishes to come back to this point at Third Reading, it is a matter for her to decide.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, before withdrawing the amendment, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may seek a final response from the Minister. Do the implications of his remarks mean that councillors or officers will be surcharged by the auditor for the contractor's action because they retain responsibility for it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I answered that point earlier. They could be surcharged but only if they and not the contractor had been guilty of some illegality; not for an illegality on the part of the contractor.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this is an extremely worrying area for local government. They will have contracted out their functions but retained responsibility and could possibly be surcharged for activities over which they can have no reasonable control. This is clearly a matter that we must explore further, perhaps at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 [Functions excluded from sections 64 and 65.):
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 81K:
Page 56, line 17, at end insert:
("( ) its exercise would constitute the exercise of jurisdiction of any court or of any tribunal which exercises the judicial power of the State; or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 81 A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 81KA:
Page 56, line 22, at end insert:
("; or
(d) it is a power to decide whether or not to issue proceedings against an individual in any court.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that I demonstrated during the course of our deliberations this afternoon just how keen I am on contracting out. It is a question of what one can contract out. But I felt that your Lordships would disapprove strongly were I to contract out the whole of today's proceedings. So I shall speak to this amendment standing in my name.
The purpose of the amendment is to exclude from contracting out any function which could involve a decision to take civil or criminal proceedings against a person. The Government have already said that they are considering contracting out the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office and the functions of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, although that does not appear specifically in the Bill. There is an extremely worrying story on the back page of Part 1 of the Financial Times today which refers to the fact that the Inland Revenue is planning to allow private companies to compete with its own staff for work involving the collation of sensitive financial information on individuals and companies. That is data provided to enable tax returns information to be verified. To put the Government on notice, I can only say that were the Government to move in that direction, the row would be absolutely deafening. I add that.
More generally on the subject of fraud and matters relevant to this amendment, there is a very important article in the Financial Times on page 33 about the fact that the incidence of that kind of crime is increasing steadily. It is therefore not a matter to be trifled with but, if anything, has to be taken more seriously. In such a matter the Government ought not to be dabbling in ideological issues.
With regard to the detail of the amendment, the particular office mentioned in the Bill is that of the Official Receiver. The Official Receiver is often involved in decisions about taking civil or criminal proceedings against individuals. As I understand it, at the present time the Official Receiver advises the Secretary of State—in this case I feel that that must be defined as the President of the Board of Trade—whether proceedings should be issued under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to seek the disqualification of any individual who has shown himself or herself unfit to be allowed the protection of limited liability status in his or her future business dealings. In many cases proceedings are issued with the Official Receiver as the applicant.
As I understand the matter, the Official Receiver is also responsible for reporting to the prosecution section of the Department of Trade and Industry offences which are discovered during the course of an investigation into
168
a company's affairs. To repeat, the Official Receiver is often involved in discussions about the decision whether or not to prosecute.
I am very much a layman in this matter, but it seems to me obviously inappropriate that functions of that sort should be conducted by the private sector. To me it is so obvious that I am totally amazed that the Official Receiver appears in the Bill at all. On a subsequent amendment my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis will deal with another aspect of the matter.
Let me say more generally that the level of reporting of both offences and unfit conduct by insolvency practitioners in voluntary liquidations and receiverships has itself often been criticised. It has been criticised by the National Audit Office in relation to disqualification proceedings. Therefore one has to ask the question— which is the purpose of the amendment—whether there is any sense whatever in anything to do with a decision to prosecute lying in the hands of insolvency practitioners. Is there any reason to believe that matters would improve if that were to happen?
I do not wish to criticise insolvency practitioners as a group. I do not wish to criticise accountants as a group. However, noble Lords will be aware that in recent years at least some of them have been seen not to operate to the highest standards. The profession itself—again, this is a matter to which my noble friend may return in a few moments—is asking questions about appropriate safeguards. In those circumstances yet again it seems to me that we should not move in any way towards weakening the public service element or in any way take any functions away from the Official Receiver. In this case—the matter will arise again in a few minutes— there are serious questions of conflict of interest as well as about the privacy of data to be considered.
I look for some government response. In my judgment—I wish the Government would say that they simply agree—this function of the Official Receiver, the function to do with disqualification and the function to do with civil proceedings in particular, should not be put out to the private sector. In my view the private sector should never be involved.
That is the reason for tabling the amendment. I am aware that a great deal of what happens as a consequence of this part of the Bill will arise only if and when the Bill becomes an Act, in which case we go over the detail again via various orders. But it would be enormously helpful, particularly for people in the field, if there were to be some government Statement and reassurance at this time to do with probity and a desire vigorously to deal with fraud. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, prided himself on contracting out his responsibilities this afternoon to others.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl to say that I have not contracted out my responsibilities; I have simply contracted out of speaking.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right to make the distinction. His responsibilities continue as they do with the Minister; it is merely the

169
carrying out of those responsibilities that is passed on to others. All that does is deprive us of the pleasure of hearing the noble Lord but gives us the advantage of having the pleasure of hearing his colleagues. I am sure that that will prove to be, in Civil Service jargon, an efficient and effective use of the noble Lord's time as well as that of the others and adds colour to the proceedings.
In Clause 66 we have already excluded from the scope of the order-making power, functions which necessarily interfere with or affect the liberty of any individual, subject only to one specific exception, on the face of the Bill. In effect that will exclude from the scope of the order-making power the bringing of all those legal proceedings, which will be mainly criminal proceedings, in which the defendant has to attend court on pain of some sanction. That reflects the Government's view that such decisions should not be contracted out by means of secondary legislation. Criminal proceedings often require the defendant to attend, on pain of a sanction, and the decision to issue proceedings will therefore be excluded by Clause 66(1) (a).
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that in his view civil proceedings should never be contracted out. But in most civil proceedings a defendant who fails to attend is only at risk of letting the action go undefended. Civil proceedings are often initiated as the result of routine decisions for which it might be entirely appropriate to consider contracting out. If we were to accept Amendment No. 81KA, it would exclude, through Clause 66, powers to instigate any proceedings against an individual in any court whatever. So it would extend to civil proceedings, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, wants and which I am bound to advise the House is undesirable.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene to say that if, in certain insolvency proceedings which may not involve any criminal offence, a person who is required to attend fails so to do, then sanctions can be invoked which are tantamount to criminal penalties.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall absorb the point of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. But we are of the view that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would go too far. It would prohibit extending the benefits of competition to areas where value for money might well be achieved and where there is no fundamental reason not to consider the possible employment of private contractors. An example, where a power to instigate proceedings may quite appropriately be carried out by contractors and which may help to illustrate the point, involves the proposals of the Department of the Environment, which were recently the subject of a consultation exercise, to permit the employment of contractors by local authorities to take decisions on local revenue collection enforcement. If contractors were used, the collection of local taxation arrears would involve contractors deciding whether or not to apply to magistrates' courts for liability orders
170
where rates, council tax or community charge payments were due but had not been paid, having checked that the final and reminder notices had been sent.
The significance of the liability order is that it enables the local authority to proceed with the next steps in enforcing payment, such as attachment of earnings, deductions from income support or levying of distress. The court will grant an order where it is satisfied that the individual in question owes the sum specified and when all the required procedures have been fulfilled. However, they are routine proceedings and such decisions are undertaken by junior members of the authority staff. Any decision to seek such a liability order would be carried out in accordance with the policies and guidance set by the authority. To retain the decision to apply for a liability order in-house would lead to duplication in work and a loss of efficiency in the process. It is right and proper that those routine functions be exposed to competition so as to ensure value for money in their delivery.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, was concerned about the official receiver being involved in decisions whether or not to prosecute. He was of the view that they should not be contracted out. But the official receiver reports on the conduct of directors to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State makes any decision to commence proceedings to disqualify directors.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Government asked the consultants, Stoy Hayward, to examine the extent to which the private sector could assist official receivers in the discharge of their functions. The work concentrated on their routine processing functions with a view to official receivers being able to concentrate on their investigative role. The whole object of exploring the possible involvement of the private sector is two-fold. First, there is the possibility of achieving greater gains in efficiency and effectiveness in the carrying out of their functions by employing private sector contractors. The second aspect relates to the investigative role of official receivers. The contracting out of routine processing tasks offers the possibility of releasing official receivers from the burden of those sorts of task and will enable them to concentrate on their prime work; that is, their investigative work. I would stress that no decision has yet been taken on which functions may be contracted out.
The noble Lord was worried about the Inland Revenue. The Board of the Inland Revenue, under existing powers, has the discretion to fulfil certain of its responsibilities by employing contractors. But tax inspectors cannot delegate their functions. They must exercise them personally. Therefore they do not fall within the scope of the order-making power of Clause 64.
I remain of the view that the Bill contains an exclusion for functions that affect the liberty of individuals and that that already excludes the ability to issue most criminal proceedings. As drafted, the Bill would enable the benefits of competition to be extended to areas where value for money could be increased. The nature of the order-making power means that both Houses of Parliament can debate the appropriateness of the contracting out of each specific function when an

171
order is to be made under Clauses 64 or 65. That would be considered by both Houses. I suggest therefore that Amendment No. 81KA is not necessary and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will feel that I was able to give the satisfaction for which he hoped.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for responding as fully as he did. If I may use a word he used in connection with my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, I shall need to look at and "absorb" some of his comments in order to understand them. Largely, I was not concerned with criminal matters.
It was explained to me earlier by one of the Minister's noble friends what the word "liberty" meant in this case. I am not now worried about that aspect of the matter. But even routine contracting out will involve the acquisition of information and therefore of influence, which could be dangerous. I must admit, however, that in looking at this matter the point made by the noble Earl about local authorities and contracting out is not one that I had examined and that is why I have to absorb what he had to say in order to know whether to proceed further. The matter will not go away because if the Government wish to move they have to place orders before your Lordships anyway and we shall be able to debate them in some detail. I was clearly probing to get the Government's views. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 81KB:
Before Clause 69, insert the following new clause:
("Discharge of functions by authorities
. —(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a local authority (a "contracting authority") may agree with any other local authority (a "supplying authority") that the supplying authority shall carry out for the contracting authority any activity or service which the contracting authority is required to, or may legitimately, carry out.
(2) An agreement under this section—

(a) may provide for activities or services to be carried out by two or more authorities jointly; and

(b) may include such terms as to payment as the authorities concerned consider appropriate.

(3) Anything requiring to be done by a supplying authority under an agreement under this section shall be treated as one of their statutory functions.
(4) This section is without prejudice to any other power under or by virtue of which a local authority may arrange for the carrying out of any of their activities or services by another authority.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is about cross-boundary tendering. The new clause would allow local authorities to tender across local authority boundaries. What is the situation at the moment? The Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 and the Local Government Act 1972 between them allow local authorities to supply goods and services to other authorities—for example, in a purchasing consortium or in the use of professional staff such as specialised planning staff. The 1972 Act specifically allows that a local authority may arrange for the discharge of any of its functions by any other local
172
authority. That seems clear enough. But since then guidance from the Audit Commission based on counsel's opinion and the CCT legislation of 1988 and 1992 have confused the issue for us.
May one DLO or DSO tender for a contract of another authority alongside private competitors and possibly even the authority's own in-house bid? We do not know. Given that the general framework of local government powers of ultra vires is drawn very tightly, it is essential that local authorities know the framework of the law within which they may operate. This clause would clarify it and so to that extent at the moment this is a probing amendment.
Why is such a power of a local authority to tender across boundaries so desirable? There are two arguments. First, it would produce better value for money for council tax payers. Secondly, it would facilitate local authority reorganisation. On the first argument—value for money for council tax payers— CCT was introduced to promote value for money. What the amendment would unambiguously permit—the situation at the moment is cloudy—is one local authority's DLO or DSO to tender alongside private contractors for another authority's work. Why not? Such a DSO or DLO would only win a contract if it indeed met the service specifications of the other authority as to the most cost-effective bid. If it did so it would offer savings to that authority.
There is sometimes a very under-developed private market for a service. One or two private firms might be running a hidden cartel. Where the purchasing authority might not have its own DSO to bid it could be very vulnerable to a rigged market. This amendment would offer value for money not only to the purchasing authority but to the providing authority. DLOs and DSOs are required to show a 5 per cent. rate of return and 85 per cent. of local authority organisations do precisely that. They are competitive. Others struggle. Extending the field in which they may tender and not confining them to one monopoly purchaser—their own local authority—would overcome the stop-go pattern of their work, would offer them economies of scale, would offer them more reliable training opportunities and would offer better and more effective use of expensive plant and vehicles. They would be more likely to be viable, they would be more likely to generate income for their own local authority and thus save their own local tax payers council tax.
The first argument is that a DSO or a DLO would win a contract of another authority only if it offered the best value for money. If it does, why should it not be in such a position to tender? Everyone then would benefit.
The second argument for supporting the amendment is that it would facilitate arrangements for local authority reform. The Government, rightly—they have had full support from this side of the Chamber though not always from their own Back-Benchers—prefer unitary authorities; authorities which are enabling and purchasing authorities as well as providing authorities. But it is clear that a few services may require a larger population base than the average sized unitary authority; for example, archive work, which was debated in your Lordships' House last summer. Such joint arrangements

173
and such lead authority arrangements already exist between districts; for example, over specialised housing; or between districts and counties over the arts or economic development; or even between county and county, as when they are running an airport or a secure unit for children. As the Audit Commission said, if a local authority is purchasing a service there is no difference in principle between that local authority purchasing it from a private contractor and purchasing it from another local authority provided it meets service specifications. This amendment would clarify the situation and would put such joint arrangements and such lead authority arrangements on a clear footing.
If the Government believe in competition as the most effective way of ensuring value for money, surely they must support an amendment which would allow another effective competitor to bid for a contract—that is, another local authority's DSO. It will not win unless it is the best. If it does; win, it is surely entitled to have it. If the Government say no, what are they frightened of? Is it that the bidding local authority is not good enough; that it will not win (in which case they do not have to worry); or that it would win if it were allowed to contract, and it would only so win if it were offering the best value for money. If the Government forbid it, the Government are costing its council tax payers more. Why should the Government artificially shelter the private sector from a properly competitive climate? I await the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this is an important issue and one that your Lordships have debated before. I shall not repeat the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness; but I agree with the points that she has made. I would merely say that if the Government truly mean that in the world of local authorities there should be maximum flexibility and, as the noble Earl has just reminded us, maximum effectiveness and efficiency, allowing as many options as possible can only be to the good. I do not agree with the Government's approach to the enabling authority. But if that is their approach, I should like to see lie best service delivery and the greatest choice of service delivery. It seems to me that the Government cannot be afraid of this amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am certainly not afraid of the amendment. While saying that I am unable to accept it—and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it—I am going to be, as always, as conciliatory as I am.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: A new man!
Lord Henley: My Lords, whether or not I am a new man is another matter which we can address on other occasions.
We accept that it makes sense to ensure that local authorities can operate in the most effective way. That is one of the fundamental objectives of the power in Clause 65 which enables local authorities to make use of contractors in appropriate cases. In respect of powers to enable local authorities to undertake work for each other, we believe that the powers are already available in England—I accept that the noble Baroness argued
174
that there is a degree of cloudiness—under the 1972 Act and the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 which offer a degree of flexibility.
The issue, though, has been raised as a consequence of the current exercise on local government reorganisation and the Government have expressed themselves as willing to look at suggestions which would achieve greater flexibility after reorganisation. In Scotland and Wales this has already begun. Clause 57 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, which is currently before the House, and Section 25 of the Local Government (Wales) Act are designed to clarify the law to ensure that in appropriate circumstances and with the proper safeguards reorganised authorities can tender for work and supply services to one another.
The noble Baroness's amendment is not appropriate for reasons which I shall explain. Local authorities themselves are not trading organisations and for them to become so, without adequate safeguards, could put taxpayers money at risk and could create unfair competition for the private sector companies who do not have the ultimate security of a tax base to underwrite their risk. Moreover, some authorities could decide to establish large trading empires if their powers were unfettered. It could allow local authorities to provide services where there are private sector suppliers available. I do not believe that is what local authorities should be doing.
The amendment would give local authorities a much greater latitude to supply services than we believe is appropriate and provide none of the safeguards which we consider necessary. In view of that, and given the confirmation that I have offered that the Government will be looking at suggestions from local government on this issue post-reorganisation, I hope that, having been as conciliatory as that, the noble Baroness will feel that she can now withdraw her amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It is the conciliatory nature of it which is baffling me. He seemed to be arguing two aspects which are completely incompatible. On the one hand he recognised that there is a real need for such an amendment, but that it would only apply after reorganisation had gone through. On the other hand, he said that it should not take place because local authorities are not trading organisations and that, if they were, adequate commercial safeguards were not in place. Which aspect is the Minister having? Is he saying that it is all right to introduce the measure but only after reorganisation or that it should not be introduced at all because local authorities are not trading organisations? The Minister was arguing two completely incompatible positions. I realise that time is pressing, but I urge him to clarify his position.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that what I was arguing was in any way contradictory. I was obviously saying that there were not the necessary safeguards in the noble Baroness's amendment but that there was something which could be done. However, we obviously want to discuss it with local government. We

175
shall certainly listen to its views—and I give that guarantee to the noble Baroness—and consider them and come forward with proposals. But it is as regards post-reorganisation that I am offering that.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may add this point. The Minister is touching on very important areas. Many of the authorities and potential authorities will be very much reassured if the Minister can tell the House now that consultation with the local authority associations will take place before the raft of orders which we expect fairly shortly. Can the Minister give an assurance that consultation will take place as part of the process rather than following on reorganisation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the assurance I gave to the noble Baroness is that we shall look at the suggestions from local government and that we shall look at this issue post-reorganisation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She is absolutely right because the Minister is saying that the Government may bring to this House and the other place recommendations from the Local Government Commission which will only be effective were this proposal to be in place, but that we shall not know whether it is or what the small print says until after such proposals have been brought. To use a colloquialism, that is really cart before the horse stuff. We need to know the clear ground on which one local authority may provide services for another to be confident that the proposals being brought forward will work when we are dealing particularly with specialist services requiring very different population bases.
The Minister's reply is simply not good enough. The matter should have been thought out well in advance by government. To take us down the road of local government reorganisation without a clear legal framework within which services can be provided, one authority for another, whether they are joint arrangements or lead arrangements, is simply not good enough for the local authority organisations. To say that it will happen afterwards, and not before or not concurrently, is an abdication of central government responsibility.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that I made it clear that we shall listen to the views of local government. We have already invited those views and they will come in. However, I cannot offer guarantees of decisions earlier than that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I realise that he is constrained by his brief. My criticism is directed to other places. This is an issue which should have been thought of well in advance. The legislative framework within which joint arrangements may be made to work should already be in place and not be merely tagged on as an afterthought in a debate on an amendment brought by us to a deregulation Bill. It is an absurd way of managing central government business. In the light of
176
what the Minister said it is perhaps not helpful to press this matter any further. With the leave of the House I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 [Powers of certain office-holders]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 81KC:
Page 57, line 45, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Peston. I wish to make it very clear at the outset that we see this provision as a potentially major change in the role of the insolvency service and I want to issue this very strong advice: in the likely event of a Labour Government being returned, and of any action having been taken by this Government to contract out the role of the insolvency service, we reserve the right to reverse that action; subject, of course, to any contractual obligations which have been entered into and provided that those contractual obligations are not unreasonable vis-à-vis the public interest.
Having said that, we have a number of serious anxieties about the whole concept. The first relates to the issue of cost which is dealt with in the Stoy Hayward Report. The situation would appear to come to this: because the larger firms of insolvency practitioners—in other words, the big six—would have the ability to take on a large volume of work and achieve substantial economies of scale as against the smaller practitioners, then there is a real risk that the big six will undertake pretty well all the available work between them. Indeed, it is said in the Stoy Hayward Report in particular that two of the firms with whom discussions took place felt that they were able to undertake between 25 per cent. and 33 per cent. of the entire work. I believe that that would restrict impartiality and independence. Because the market would be carved up effectively between the large firms, or perhaps even between a couple of them, there could be long-term cost implications in that as well.
The report indicates that the fees which were quoted by the insolvency practitioners were quite close to the costs incurred by the official receiver. But the hope was expressed that under formal tendering conditions the fees might be driven down. What would prevent these fees from rising, especially if most of the work was undertaken by something approaching a cartel? What if there were to be loss-leader business followed by rises in fees after contracts had been awarded? These are real anxieties expressed by many practitioners.
I also believe that if there is a fixed rate price for fees then there would be ineluctably an increase in public expenditure, particularly during a recession when case numbers would rise, as has been the case over recent years. The trouble is that once a rise has taken place as regards fees, based on historic experience it is quite unlikely that the fees would remain at that level. Historically, the number of insolvencies has never fallen back to previous levels during non-recession times.
I turn to the question of efficiency. At present there is no requirement for insolvency practitioners to appoint suitably qualified and/or experienced staff for the initial case work or interviewing. If there is a question mark

177
over the quality of cases which have to be referred back to the official receiver for investigation and also for monitoring, then one can have a situation where unsuitable, inexperienced staff would also not be efficient in terms of asset discovery and realisation. It is the creditors who would, in fact, pay the penalty for that.
I turn now to the third point, effectiveness. Contracting out would cause the official receiver problems in terms of accountability and responsibility. He remains responsible for each case, but in order to carry out those responsibilities he would depend on the insolvency practitioner's effective discharge of the delegated functions. There would be a major change in the role of the insolvency service. In particular, its professional staff would no longer inquire into the causes of failure but would simply investigate specific offences. Therefore, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act would be likely to be invoked. At present, those provisions would not apply to the OR when the OR investigates causes of failure and reports any offences that may come to light as a result of his inquiries.
The role of the official receiver in court would be impugned, in my view. Would the OR continue to be treated by the courts as impartial and independent? Is there to be a major change in his role as an officer of the court? If so, would primary legislation be needed for the enactment of that? I do not believe that any amendment of the court role of the OR could be simply defined by contract.
The National Audit Office's report on disqualification has highlighted a number of substantial failings by insolvency practitioners in preparing adequate reports for the disqualification of directors. That is some evidence that the necessary resources to identify cases and to provide sufficient information for further investigation—which is the role of the independent practitioners—might be under question. It is also a fact that at present the referral rate on possible offences that have been identified by insolvency practitioners is extremely low. Indeed, much work in that regard has been the result of the activities of the insolvency service. Therefore, we have serious doubts, based on experience, about the ability of insolvency practitioners to perform such work.
I turn now to the ethical considerations. The report has underlined serious conflicts of interest which could arise. However, having done that, the report does not identify any solutions; or remedies to the problem. The independence of the official receiver, which is based on long history, is dealt with on page 47 of the report. The report seeks to say that that is not a problem about which we need to worry unduly. I believe that that is not the case. I believe also that the accountancy profession—or many elements of it—has expressed great concern about that. I shall not weary the House with accounts of reports that have appeared in Accountancy Age, but they exist. I have them with me.
Creditors, bankrupts, directors and employees all look to the insolvency service as being a highly reputable, independent body, allowing for the orderly winding up of the affairs of insolvents. It is not simply a question of that service being involved in the detection of fraud or misconduct. After all, many quite innocent people
178
have to have recourse to insolvency. Such cases form the majority of those dealt with. As I said, I believe that the role of the insolvency service will be substantially impaired and altered by these proposals.
One of the strengths of having a single organisation is the experience—both individual and collective—that it amasses over many years. The insolvency service is able to identify cases that are connected. By that empirical practice, it can deal with frauds which might remain undetected if the connected cases were dealt with by different bodies. Contracting out will result in the loss of that network system.
As a former Minister in charge of corporate affairs, I should like to pay tribute to the way in which the insolvency service has operated and to the way in which it has utilised the experience it has gained. Why should it be impaired by these crazy notions of the Government? If this practice were to be invoked, I believe that the service would become much more expensive. Furthermore, it would be less effective and less efficient. I believe that the public interest would be at risk and, after all, that is what should be, in our judgment at least, the overriding consideration. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has given us the benefit of his concern about this part of the Bill. He asked why we have to have "these crazy notions of the Government" being put into practice. He said that it would result in a less effective, less efficient service. That may be the noble Lord's view and he is entitled to it, but he will understand if I do not go along with him. I do not think that these are "crazy notions" and I do not think that they will have the effect about which the noble Lord is worried. After all, Clause 69 ensures that a number of office-holders, including official receivers, may delegate the exercise of their functions to their own staff where it is not already possible for them to do so. As the noble Lord knows, official receivers are currently assisted in the discharge of their functions by assistant official receivers, by examiners and by a whole range of support staff. An official receiver will usually be attached to at least three or four county courts which have jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters and which will be responsible for the administration and investigation of many hundreds of bankruptcies and compulsory liquidations in any one year. That is a disagreeable thought, but it is a fact.
Clearly, the capacity to delegate tasks to their staff enables official receivers to plan for this far more effective and efficient discharge of their functions than if they all had to be carried out by one individual. The inclusion of the official receiver in Clause 69 also ensures that such office-holders are brought within the scope of the order-making power in Clause 64.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, knows and referred to the fact that Ministers asked Stoy Hayward Consulting to examine the extent to which the private sector could assist official receivers in the discharge of their functions. Stoy Hayward's second report was placed in the Library on 10th October. The report

179
identified that the option which would enable official receivers to concentrate more on their investigative role would be to contract out cases immediately upon the making of an insolvency order. I should emphasise that no decisions have been taken on the outcome of the review. Any decisions to contract out the work of the official receivers would of course be subject to the passage of this Bill and to the procedures set out in it, including consulting official receivers and obtaining an order which has to be approved by both Houses.
My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has instructed his officials to undertake preparatory work which would enable the preferred option, which was identified by Stoy Hayward, to be pursued. Of course, the proper discharge of their functions would remain the responsibility of official receivers. By virtue of Clause 67, they would be accountable for the acts and the omissions of any contractors who might carry out their work. Using contractors to carry out some of the official receivers' work, particularly at times of large, short-term fluctuations in the number of insolvencies will considerably enhance the capability of the service to respond to changes in workload effectively and efficiently.
We have, therefore, had a report from Stoy Hayward. No decision has yet been taken about what to do and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has given us his warnings. He was anxious that the large firms would be undertaking all the official receivers' work but no decisions have yet been taken. Competitive bidding usually guarantees the best price, and competition aspects will need to be considered. The contractors are most likely to be firms of insolvency practitioners because they have the expertise and the experience that is relevant to the work under consideration. There is a range of size of such firms; they need not all be large firms.
The noble Lord was anxious that contracting out will lead to increased fees, eventually if not immediately. I do not believe that that should be so because competition would ensure that contractors offer realistic bids. Part of the evaluation of each bid, looking across all the bids received, will be to look at issues such as the credibility of those who bid and their financial viability. Fears of loss-leading bids were expressed in relation to local government tendering. Re-tender exercises have shown that those fears are unfounded.
The National Audit Office report on directors' disqualification was also a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred. Allowing the official receivers to concentrate on investigation was the main reason for exploring contracting out. The National Audit Office report found that the recent recession had swamped official receivers with administrative work.
It is in order to enable the official receivers to do the job that they ought to do, and that for which they are set up to do, that we are trying to see whether there are ways of contracting out the more administrative work. No decision has been taken about that. If that were to be the case Parliament would be consulted.
180
It would be wrong to exclude the official receivers from the ability to have some of their work contracted out, should that prove to be desirable, which is what the amendment would achieve. I hope that on consideration the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will see that it would be best to leave that ability in the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, we dispute virtually everything that the Minister has said. We believe that it will have a major effect on the historic role of the official receiver. It is wrong to pray in aid examples about examiners, assistant official receivers and delegations to the county courts because there we are dealing with a public service. What the Minister has in mind is something quite different.
The firm of lawyers for which I am a consultant deals frequently with Stoy Hayward and it has a high regard for that firm. I hope that as a result of anything that I say about the report, the flow of work will not dry up. I must be accountable for that. However, I cannot pull my punches because I believe that the remit given to Stoy Hayward gave it no room for discretion. It could not say, "We believe that the whole system sought to be invoked by the Government is wrong". It was asked to assess the options for making use of the private sector for insolvency services. The firm was given a limited remit and therefore I do not blame it for reaching the conclusions that it has.
The Minister says that no decision has been made. However, Stoy Hayward was not able to pronounce on the principle. I do not agree with the Minister that competitive bidding normally ensures the best price. It might do in certain instances but it is a different animal from local authority compulsory competitive tendering. I believe that there is a real risk that we shall face a situation in which, merely because of the way in which large firms can go about their business and tender, they can exclude smaller firms from the market. In any event, I have doubts about smaller firms because I am not sure that they will be able to undertake such cases with the efficiency that is demanded of them and with the public duty involved.
If this had been another time I can assure the Minister that I should have sought to divide the House. Unfortunately, that is not seriously possible and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 58, line 2, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I reserve the right of an incoming Labour Government to deal with this matter along lines similar to those that I previously indicated.
The clause enables office holders to authorise officers to exercise any of their functions. Subsection (4) (e) refers to:
"the traffic commissioner for any traffic area".
The amendment seeks to exclude the traffic commissioner from the operation of this provision.
When this matter came before another place the Minister said that the clause means that the functions of the named officeholders will come within the scope of

181
the order-making powers in what is now Clause 64; that is, if an order is laid before Parliament, debated and approved, the functions can be contracted out or privatised. It is a list of proposed potential privatisations. Other parts of the list which the Government have put forward in the clause are objectionable but I shall not deal with that now. I wish to deal exclusively with the issue of the traffic commissioner.
Let us consider the role of the traffic commissioner. Under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 the traffic commissioner must consider applications for PSV operators' licences. He has the power to grant, to refuse or to qualify. Chapter IV of Part I of the Bill mentions the traffic commissioner on numerous occasions. It amends his extensive powers but it does not reduce them in any significant or material way.
If a public service vehicle operator's licence has been granted, who can revoke, suspend or vary it? It is the traffic commissioner. He is in a position to disqualify people from holding a PSV operator's licence. He is in a position to exercise his discretion, to hear objections to the grant of a licence outside the prescribed period. Can it seriously be justified that functions which relate crucially to road safety and the safety of passengers on public service vehicles should be put into the private sector?
Indeed, here we are dealing with functions which in many respects are quasi-judicial. The operator's livelihood can easily be affected by the decisions of the traffic commissioner. We say explicitly that such powers should be exercised only by public officers; that is, publicly accountable people. Does the Minister believe that it is right:, equitable, just and judicial that a private company should have such powers and obligations?
I believe that the issue is clear beyond peradventure. It is an exercise in ideology, in doctrinaire conservatism, upon which the Government have embarked. We believe that it is wrong and we reserve the right to repeal any actions that might be taken by the Government, subject to the caveats that I expressed previously. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I support the amendment. I am astonished that traffic commissioners should be included in this blanket provision. I can well understand that the Government may say that there are certain functions of the traffic commissioners—for example, having their tea brewed and their floor swept—which it may be possible to put out to tender. But that is not what the Bill says. It gives this and future governments and future Secretaries of State the right to get rid of all those functions, if they so wish.
That seems to me to be absolutely crazy. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, rightly said, this touches upon matters of public safety and the livelihood of people. I do not understand why we should allow such a blanket provision to go through on the nod.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this is similar territory to that covered on the previous amendment except that on this occasion it is not the official receiver which the
182
noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, wishes to exclude from the possibility of having services contracted out. Here we are dealing with traffic commissioners.
Traffic commissioners undertake a variety of functions, principally the granting of goods vehicle and passenger service vehicle operator licences and the registration of local bus services. Clause 69(4) (e), which the noble Lord seeks to delete, is intended to enable the traffic commissioners to authorise their officers to perform their statutory functions where it is not already possible for them to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will remember that the Carltona doctrine recognises the realities of 20th century public administration and that the volume of work and the variety of functions which are conferred on a Minister mean that a Minister could not possibly exercise personally each function which is bestowed upon him every time. Clause 69 recognises a similar difficulty in respect of the office-holders who are listed. Subsection (4) (e) puts it beyond any doubt that the staff of traffic commissioners may exercise functions on their behalf.
In line with provision elsewhere in Part II of the Bill, the traffic commissioners would remain accountable and would remain legally liable for the acts and the omissions of their staff in carrying out the functions. Clause 69 permits traffic commissioners to delegate their functions to their staff. Once that has been done, the functions fall within the scope of Clause 64. The functions may then be specified in an order under Clause 64 and once that has been approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses, the traffic commissioners may authorise contractors to carry them out on their behalf.
The inclusion of the traffic commissioners in Clause 69 does not mean that any decisions have been taken to contract out any of their functions. It merely retains the ability to specify the functions in an order at some future stage should that be desirable.
The purpose of the provision in Clause 69(4) (e) is to keep open the options for contracting out the more routine functions of traffic commissioners where there is minimal judgment. Most of their functions concern the administration of a licensing system for goods and passenger vehicle operators which presumes that operators will be granted a licence or an amendment to their licence if they meet specific criteria.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should like the noble Earl to clarify the matter. As I understand him, and I apologise if I misunderstand the situation, he said that the provisions are limited to enabling the delegation of the responsibilities of the traffic commissioners to their staff. Where does that appear in the Bill?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord will know the Carltona doctrine which says that although a duty may be laid upon a Minister, he can allow the civil servants to carry out the duties on his behalf. It is just the same in this case. The traffic commissioners may permit their duties to be carried out by their staff should that be thought desirable.

183
In almost all cases, it is clear whether those criteria have been met and there is no obvious reason why those cases should not be dealt with by a contractor. Where there is doubt over whether the criteria have been met, the traffic commissioners can decide to hold a public inquiry about an application. In 1993–94, applications decided after a public inquiry formed only 3.5 per cent. of all applications granted. There is no intention of contracting out the commissioners' public inquiry function.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Earl says that there is no intention. Is there any ability to do that in the future if there is such an intention? In other words, does the Bill prohibit somebody contracting out all the functions if he suddenly goes crazy and decides to do that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Bill provides the ability to contract out the administrative work and not the decision-making duties of the traffic commissioners. That is what is intended to be considered for contracting out. The ability should exist for an order to be made should it be thought desirable.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asks which clause refers to the traffic commissioners being able to delegate to their staff. It is Clause 69(1) and Clause 69(4) (e).
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is important to try to clarify the situation. Clause 69(1) would apply equally to the powers of the official receiver. The report prepared by Stoy Hayward recommends that the official receiver should be able to delegate his duties to the private sector if the Government decided to act in that way. Why would that not apply to the functions to which I have referred? It is important that the Minister should clarify that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not absolutely certain that I correctly understand the noble Lord's anxiety. I am apprehensive in case we have a Committee stage discussion on this matter.
The affirmative resolution of both Houses is required before any of those functions may be contracted out. That will be required for all orders under Clause 69(4). Perhaps I may be allowed to consider what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said in the cool light of day to see whether or not I have resolved the difficulties that he has. I do not wish to give the noble Lord a misleading reply. I believe that what I propose would be the best course to follow. I shall consider also what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may make clear what it is that I seek because the noble Earl is not sure that he understands my anxieties. I am saying that just as the words "an officer of his" apply to the official receiver, so they would apply in this case. When one talks about the official receiver, one is talking about potential delegation to the private sector. On that basis I am asking whether or not the words "an officer of his" could apply equally in respect of the delegation of traffic commissioners' functions. That is the question I pose to
184
the Minister who has been kind enough to indicate that he will write to me. We are extremely anxious about this issue. If my understanding is correct, the noble Earl has not really answered the point. It is a fundamental point.
We reserve the right to return to the issue at a later stage. It would be extremely helpful if, in the meantime, the Minister would write to my noble friend Lord Peston, who has overall charge of the Bill, and I. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 14 [Restrictions on Disclosure of Information]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 82A:
Page 111, line 14, leave out ("Paragraph 6 below applies") and insert ("Paragraphs 6 to 8 below apply").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple technical amendment to correct a drafting oversight. Without the amendment the safeguards provided for confidential information would not apply in all circumstances. The amendment ensures that all the provisions in the schedule are brought into play when they should be. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Amendments etc. for Facilitating Contracting Out]:
[Amendment No.82B not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 82C:
Page 115, leave out lines 4 to 22 and insert:
("2. For section 27 of the Courts Act 1971 there shall be substituted the following section—
"Administrative and other court staff.
27.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may, with the concurrence of the Treasury as to numbers and salaries, appoint such officers and other staff for the Supreme Court and county courts as appear to him appropriate for the following purposes, namely—

(a) maintaining an administrative court service;

(b) discharging any functions in those courts conferred by or under this or any other Act on officers so appointed; and

(c) generally carrying out the administrative work of those courts.

(2) The principal civil service pension scheme within the meaning of section 2 of the Superannuation Act 1972 and for the time being in force shall, with the necessary adaptations, apply to officers and staff appointed under subsection (1) above as it applies to other persons employed in the civil service of the State.
(3) If and to the extent that an order made by the Lord Chancellor so provides, the Lord Chancellor may enter into contracts with other persons for the provision for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) above, whether by those persons or by sub-contractors of theirs, of officers and staff for the Supreme Court and county courts.
(4) No order under subsection (3) above shall authorise the contracting out of any functions the discharge of which would constitute—

(a) making judicial decisions or advising persons making such decisions;

(b) exercising any judicial discretion or advising persons exercising any such discretion; or

(c) exercising any power of arrest.

(5) An order under subsection (3) above may authorise the contracting out of any functions—

(a) either wholly or to such extent as may be specified in the order;

(b) either generally or in such cases or areas as may be so specified; and

(c) either unconditionally or subject to the fulfilment of such conditions as may be so specified.

(6) Before making an order under subsection (3) above, the Lord Chancellor shall consult with the senior judges as to what effect (if any) the order might have on the proper and efficient administration of justice.
(7) An order under subsection (3) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(8) References in this section to the contracting out of any functions are references to the Lord Chancellor entering into contracts for the provision of officers and staff for the purpose of discharging those functions.
(9) In this section—
"the senior judges" means the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the Vice-Chancellor and the President of the Family Division;
"the Supreme Court" includes the district probate registries." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to the above amendment when moving Amendment No. 81 A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 82CA to 82CD not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 82CE:
Page 118, leave out lines 14 to 34.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move the above amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Peston, in whose name it has been tabled. I shall be relatively brief, though I am tempted not to be because we are now dealing with an issue about which I feel most strongly. I reiterate the advice that I gave to the House in relation to the earlier amendments that I moved.
The parts of the deregulation Bill that we are now considering propose minor changes to existing Acts which will have the effect of removing specific barriers for the privatisation of Companies House. No further legislation would be required. We take the view—and we believe that it is in the interests of the public—that such a service ought not to be contracted out by simply including it in a fairly minor clause; indeed, it is too important a service. We believe that it is quite wrong to resort to the Bill in the way that the Government have done in this respect.
Companies House is a very important place. It regulates business; it compiles and provides information on companies; and it is a great help to entrepreneurs and to people who are embarking upon litigation. It has very important staff responsibilities in that it employs over 1,200 staff, mostly at Cardiff, which is the headquarters, but also in London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds. I believe that the overwhelming feeling of people who are concerned with the area is a deep anxiety about the removal of Companies House from the public sector. It is seen as an impartial, independent and successful service. It is impartial because it is staffed by civil servants who provide a similar service without prejudice or favour to everyone
186
who requires it. Indeed, many functions performed by Companies House are quite beyond the minimum required by law and are undertaken without charge to the customer.
In terms of quality, any loss of staff and their skills through contracting out would have the effect of reducing the quality of the service, especially if new workers were required to learn and apply the complexities of company legislation, which are extremely extensive and difficult these days. It also provides value for money. The introduction of the profit motive would be reflected not only in a reduced quality of service but also in increased fees to customers or in general taxation.
As with the insolvency service, it was my privilege to work very closely with Companies House for over five years as the Minister in charge of those affairs. I believe that the work undertaken by Companies House has, historically, been of very great benefit to the public. I do not believe that what is proposed is right. Moreover, I do not believe that the Government have produced any compelling reasons for such a change. The burden of proof rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Minister. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, having first been worried about the official receiver and the traffic commissioners, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis is now worried about the Registrar of Companies. He is perfectly correct to say that the standard of Companies House is very high and should remain so. However, the noble Lord must recognise the fact that the registrar receives nearly 4 million documents every year. A review of Companies House was announced in 1992 in order to examine the best means which would enable it to deliver its services as best it could. As part of that process, consultants were appointed to look at the options for the future of Companies House. Their report described a number of options for involving the private sector more closely in the activities of Companies House. The President of the Board of Trade announced on 19th July that he had asked the consultants further to consult the market on how best to contract out the services of Companies House in order to gain the commercial expertise, the investment and the technological skills of the private sector.
The consultants have been seeking the views of Companies House, those of its customers and users and also those with the best business information in the industry, on the approach to be taken. I should emphasise that no final decision has been taken on the use of contractors for the functions of Companies House. An important announcement will be made when the further work to which I referred has been completed. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am much obliged. Were the consultants able to ask the users, and the others to whom the Minister referred, whether they approved of the contracting out which the Government

187
now suggest? Were they given that option, or was it merely a case of saying, "Well, if we are going to contract out, what is the best way to do it?"
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as far as I know, the consultants were asked to give their advice on contracting out If they did not think that that was a very suitable proposal I have no doubt that they would have said so. To the best of my knowledge, there was no inhibition on them in that regard. However, I shall look into the matter.
The whole purpose of the current review will be to secure continuing improvements in the services to customers as well as better value for money while at the same time ensuring that the present high standards which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is so keen to preserve are preserved. The powers of the Bill do not remove any function from the public sector. Responsibility for any functions of Companies House which were contracted out would remain with the registrar who would specify and look after any contract.
I can only remind the noble Lord that the registrar receives nearly 4 million documents a year. The Companies Act and other legislation require that such documents are delivered "to the Registrar". If a contractor were appointed under Part II of the Bill to process any of those documents—and it is the processing of the documents that we are concerned with—it would obviously be essential to ensure that the documents were delivered to the offices of the contractor and not to the registrar himself. The powers in Schedule 15 allow the registrar to direct that documents for filing should be addressed to a contractor where appropriate.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, would remove the powers to which I referred. If that were to be so, it would effectively jeopardise the smooth running of the contracting out operation. It would obviously be very inefficient for the registrar to take delivery of 4 million documents a year and then have to forward them on to the contractor. That would adversely affect the speed with which the documents appeared on the register at Companies House and therefore would work to the detriment of those who were seeking information about companies.
Companies House is regarded widely by its customers as providing an efficient service. One of the objectives of the further work which the consultants have been asked to carry out is to test the reactions of its customers, and its users, and of the business information industry, to contracting out. Their responses will be taken into account in making a final decision. As regards asking the views of people, I think that that answers a point about which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was concerned: that if, having sought the views of those people, it was discovered that those people thought what was proposed would be bad, it would be for the consultants to take that into account and pass that information to my right honourable friend.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. He is right to say that I am worried about a whole series of issues here. The one we are
188
dealing with now is one which affects Companies House. The Minister has said that the Government will ensure that the reactions of company users and others will be tested. That depends, however, on the question that is put to them. The question could be, "Would you rather that Companies House continues to operate more or less along the lines that it does at the present time"— of course there is always room for improvement— "basically within the public sector"? Or, it could be, "What is the best option for contracting out?" There is a world of difference between those two approaches. What I am asking the Government here—I would invite the Minister to intervene at this stage, with the leave of the House—is what question will be put to the users and the public. Will it be a broad, fundamental question as to whether Companies House should remain in the public sector, or will it be the other question that was dealt with by the consultants? I am perfectly prepared to give way to the Minister if he is inclined to answer that question here and now.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord invites me to answer his question. He asks a specific question. What I have told him is that the objective of the work which the consultants have been asked to do is to test the reactions of customers and users, and of the business information industry, to contracting out. As I have said, the noble Lord asks a specific question. I shall find out the specific answer. I think it would be much better for me to do that rather than to give him an answer across the Dispatch Box. My understanding is that the consultants have been conducting a wide range of interviews and discussions to test the reactions of people. The noble Lord has asked me what specific question has been asked. I believe it would be better for me to write to him on that matter.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister because the answer that he was invited to give cast even more doubt on the whole issue and therefore I shall not embark further upon that course. I endorse what the Minister had to say about present high standards being preserved. If one were to contract out, and the undertaking to whom the service had been contracted out made an unholy mess of it, who would then deal with the position? Would it not be far more expensive, as regards public expenditure, to try to rectify that situation? What would happen if there were serious doubts about the propriety of the way in which information was not being given to the public when it was demanded? All these are important issues. Once one has contracted out a service, it is difficult to build back those present high standards which the Minister so eloquently commended. I should have said—I shall end on this note—that the best way to preserve those high standards is not to interfere with the service in the public sector at the present time. We reserve the right to come back to this issue, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 82CF to 82CJ not moved.]
Clause 72 [Provisions with respect to orders]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 82D:
Page 58, line 22,leave out ("subsection (3), or, as the case may be,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to this earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 83 not moved.]
Clause 74 [Interpretation of Part II]:
[Amendment No. 83A not moved.]
Schedule 16 [Repeals]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 84 to 90:
Page 123, line 7, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 34 and insert ("The whole Act.").
Page 124, line 25, column 3, leave out second ("in").
Page 124, line 26, column 3, leave out from ("51") to end of line 29.
Page 124, line 29, at end insert:
("1972 c. 70. The Local Government Act 1972. In Schedule 29, paragraph 43.").
Page 124, line 43, at end insert:
("1973 c. 65. The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Section 157.").
Page 126, line 15, at end insert:
("1985 c. 13. The Cinemas Act 1985. In Schedule 2, paragraphs 4 and 5.").
Page 126, line 51, at end insert:
("1989 c. 38. The Employment Act 1989. In Schedule 6, paragraphs 3 to 5.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I wish to move Amendments Nos. 84 to 90 en bloc. My noble friend spoke to these with Amendment No. 35. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 90A:
Page 127, line 23, at end insert:
("1994 c. 20. The Sunday Trading Act 1994. Section 5.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment to repeal Section 5 of the Sunday Trading Act. It is necessary to repeal Section 5 because Part I of the Shops Act 1950, to which it refers, is itself being repealed by Clause 20 of this Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 127, line 23, at end insert:
("1994 c. 20. The Sunday Trading Act 1994. In Schedule 4, paragraph 23.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to this with Amendment No. 35. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 77 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 91A:
Page 61, line 19, after ("15") insert (", 17, 18").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if it is convenient to the House, in moving Amendment No. 91A I shall speak also to Amendment No. 91B. These are technical
190
amendments to bring into effect automatically, two months after Royal Assent, the changes relating to Sunday betting, charges for admission to Sunday sport and the associated employment protection for betting workers on Sundays. These provisions will come into force two months after Royal Assent without the need for separate commencement orders. Accepting the amendment will mean that a definite date for the start of Sunday racing can be fixed, thereby assisting the horseracing and greyhound industries in planning fixtures. In our view the two-month period is sufficient to advise interested parties such as police, courts, industrial tribunals, local authorities and the racing and betting industries of the changes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 91B:
Page 61, line 20, at end insert:
("() Schedule 7,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 61, line 38, after ("12,") insert ("(Licensed premises at international ports: permitted hours),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to this earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 62, line 6, leave out ("day") and insert ("days").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and I put down at the Committee stage. We put it down in the same terms at this stage for two reasons. The first was that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who replied to the debate, read out the brief that was prepared for him, obviously with increasing dismay and incredulity. He promised to consider the arguments that had been put forward.
The second reason is that the noble Earl, having barely changed his hat, replied on the matter in his usual clarity, and indeed most helpfully, because he conceded part of our case. Perhaps I ought to say that in speaking to Amendment No. 93 I shall also be speaking to Amendment No. 94. I see that in the table of groupings Amendment No. 94A has been grouped with it, but I have been unable to find that in the Marshalled List.
Clause 77 deals with regulations. Subsection (4) is the subsection which invariably appears whenever the button on the computer for regulations is pressed. It states:
"The remaining provisions of this Act… shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint".
7.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. The noble and learned Lord said that he could not find Amendment No. 94A in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that Amendment No. 94A is included on the third Marshalled List of Amendments. I wonder whether perhaps the noble and

191
learned Lord does not have the third Marshalled List and is working from the second Marshalled List or some other document. However, the amendment is included. I see the noble Lord, Lord Peston, nodding in agreement.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I have a defective list. I am obviously in the hands of the House. I propose to speak to Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 and to leave Amendment No. 94A if that is convenient to the House.
Lord Henley: My Lords, since Amendment No. 94A is in effect the Government's response to Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 I shall certainly speak to Amendment No. 94A when I respond to the noble and learned Lord's amendments. I hope that he will find Amendment No. 94A in the name of my noble friend satisfactory to some extent in meeting the purpose of Amendments Nos. 93 and 94.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I believe that I now know what Amendment No. 94A must contain in which case I welcome it warmly so far as it goes. I have now been handed a copy of the amendment, and I see that my copy of the Marshalled List was defective.
I quoted subsection (4) as it stands. Amendment No. 93 changes "day" to "days". I imagine that that is acceptable to the Government.
The subsection continues:
"and different days may be so appointed for different provisions or for different purposes".
In our view that latter part is unnecessary. I gather that the Government amendment removes the words "for different provisions or".
The latter part of the subsection is unnecessary. It is intended to obviate an argument that only one regulation may be made and if that regulation appoints different days for different provisions, or different days for different purposes, then such regulation will be ultra vires. That argument is inconceivable of success in any rational court.
As I indicated, the noble Earl wrote to me saying that Clause 76 will almost certainly be needed to come into force on different days for the purpose of different repeals in order to coincide with the coming into force of the provisions to which the particular repeals relate. Clause 76 brings into effect Schedule 16, the repeals schedule. The argument is that different dates are required for different purposes. I say nothing as to the concession which is now apparently the subject matter of Amendment No. 94A except that I welcome it as valuable if the computer is re-programmed to omit that particular clause.
The argument in favour of the inclusion of reference to different purposes is, in my submission, misconceived because the clause does not state that the remaining sections and schedules of the Bill shall come into force but that the remaining provisions of the Bill shall come into force. Each of those repeals is a separate provision. Therefore, it is quite unnecessary to add the little phrase
192
to the effect that different days may be provided for different provisions. That is already implicit in the word "provisions".
Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord in replying will accept the amendments if only on those grounds. There are two grounds. First, it is inconceivable that any such regulations would be held to be ultra vires if the whole of the final part of the subsection is omitted, and, secondly, the beginning of the subsection refers to different provisions, which include the individual provisions, for example, the individual repeal provisions. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord reminded us at Committee stage my noble friend Lord Strathclyde undertook to take the matter away and consider it with the parliamentary draftsman. We considered the matter further. That is why we came forward with Amendment No. 94A, which I believed would satisfy the noble and learned Lord. Obviously it fails to do so.
I understand what the noble and learned Lord is getting at. Obviously, I hesitate to take issue with the noble and learned Lord. But I have to say that I am firmly advised that if we do not have the words,
"and different days may be so appointed for different purposes"
there would be real doubt as to whether we could commence a particular provision on different days for different purposes.
The noble and learned Lord said that if we did not have the words which he wishes to delete it was inconceivable that a court would interpret the matter other than as we wished it to be construed. It is always possible that the courts might construe Clause 77(4) just as we would wish without the words after the semicolon. The noble and learned Lord may be over-egging the situation when he uses the word "inconceivable". I do not believe that it is wise to run that risk.
Having said that, I have the greatest respect for the noble and learned Lord. Obviously I am prepared to have another look at the issue. However, I ask him to withdraw his amendment and allow us to move our Amendment No. 90A.
Noble Lords: My Lords, it is Amendment No. 94A.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for correcting me. It is Amendment No. 94A. Between now and Third Reading perhaps I may further consider the matter and possibly take it up by means of correspondence with the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. Obviously, in view of that offer, I must beg leave to withdraw the amendment. If I can myself be of any help in discussion, I am, of course, at the noble Lord's disposal. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 94A:
Page 62, line 8, leave out ("for different provisions or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the light of the assurance that I have given to the noble and learned Lord, I beg to move Amendment No. 94A.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is,
"The daintiest last to make the end most sweet".
It remains only to say thank you.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Summer Time Order 1994
7.42 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch)The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch) rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 27th June [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft order before your Lordships this evening has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and has been approved in another place.
The order is, in itself, uncontroversial in that it continues for a further three years, from 1995 to 1997 inclusive, the existing arrangements for the start and end dates of summer time. This will mean that next year— that is 1995—summer time will start at 1 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time on Sunday 26th March and will end at 1 a.m. GMT on Sunday 22nd October. Similarly, in 1996, summer time will run from 31st March to 27th October. In 1997 it will run from 30th March to 26th October.
The starting and ending dates and times conform with the 7th European Directive on summer time arrangements. The start date in March has always been common to all the countries concerned, but in the past, and indeed in the current year, 10 states have ended summer time in September, while the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom have had a derogation to end summer time in October.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree with and share the Government's pleasure that in this instance our continental European partners have seen the advantage of the British way of doing things, so that the 7th directive provides that, after a further year, all the members of the Union will end summer time in October—that is, as we and the Irish already do.
Thus, from 1996, while the United Kingdom's arrangements remain as they are, everyone will be able to take it that throughout the year the clocks here will be one hour different from those of most other countries in western Europe.
It is tempting to move on to the wider question of policy; that is, whether our arrangements for time as a whole, both in winter and in summer, should be the same us those widely employed elsewhere in western Europe, inside and outside the present European Union. However, I shall resist that temptation.
As your Lordships will be aware, the subject of this evening's debate is much narrower, and therefore seeks the agreement of the House to the continuation of the present arrangements for a further three years, as set out in this order. I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 27th June. [22nd Report from the Joint Committee]— (Baroness Blatch.)
7.46 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, on the face of it, this is a simple order. As the noble Baroness said, we should be grateful to our European partners for coming into line with Great Britain, and at our convenience. However, I believe that the order should be seen in the wider context of an issue which the noble Baroness said she was unwilling to pursue: the wider question of our time scale and that of Europe.
On Monday 18th July in the other place, in the first Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, where this order was agreed and passed, the official Opposition asked whether there was to be a debate followed by a free vote on whether the United Kingdom should come into line with central European time. The right honourable Minister of State for the Home Office replied,
"There are no present plans".
Perhaps I may ask the same question of the noble Baroness. In answering, perhaps she will be more precise than she was in her introduction of the order. Will there be an opportunity to have a full debate on the consultative document Cmnd. 722 of June 1989? Perhaps I may repeat the year—1989. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give a clear and precise answer, unlike her counterpart in another place who indicated, regrettably, that Her Majesty's Government had apparently neither the time nor the inclination to debate this important subject.
At a time when senior ex-Cabinet Ministers advocate publicly that Britain would somehow be better off outside the European Union, could the noble Baroness reassure businessmen, at least, who have to deal with the daily realities of European trade, by indicating whether or not the question of single/double summer time is being given the priority by Her Majesty's Government that it deserves? Perhaps the noble Baroness will also state the reasoning underlying the delay in decision making; or is it just another form of what the media refer to as Euro-scepticism on behalf of the Government?
If that is the case, perhaps I should warn the noble Baroness and other noble Lords in the Government about the possible consequences to which that lack of decision making on matters regarding Europe can lead. In an article which appeared in the Daily Telegraph some years ago by (I think) a Professor Thompson—a professor of palaeontology—he suggested that dilatoriness regarding seasonal change may have contributed to the extinction of our human ancestors some 40,000 years ago. To précis the article, Professor

195
Thompson said that it would appear that Neanderthal man was a Euro-sceptic and suffered the inevitable consequences by becoming extinct. On the other hand, homo sapiens were not Euro-sceptics and survive to the present day. It seems that homo sapiens took account of the seasonal changes and had no adverse feelings about moving south into Europe at the onset of the Ice Age.
Today British businessmen face major economic change rather than climatic change. In order to survive they must adapt to European trading conditions or they, too, will perish as surely as their Neanderthal cousins did 40,000 years ago.
Is the noble Baroness aware that many British businessmen now need to know as a matter of some urgency when the United Kingdom will come into line with Central European time? Is the noble Baroness also aware that London will be linked to the Continent of Europe by a regular high speed train service from next month? Does she realise that that will lead to many unnecessary inconveniences and missed business opportunities due to mistaken timings? For instance, it is publicised that the journey will take three hours. In reality it will take four hours. Those of us who have to make the journey frequently, whether by air or other means of transport, have great difficulty in getting to a meeting on the Continent before midday or lunch hour.
There are problems with portable computers. Their system utilities will have to be reset every time they are taken across the Channel and back again. I refer to two rather costly irritations, but other examples have been raised recently by correspondents in the Mail on Sunday and the Evening Standard of which I know the noble Baroness is aware.
I am not content to let this statute on harmonisation of winter and summer time settings, of which I thoroughly approve, pass through your Lordships' House on the nod without some kind of clarification, first, by Her Majesty's Government that this statutory instrument is part and parcel of a planned programme which will culminate in a debate to decide the adoption of single/double summer time in this country.
Alternatively, can this be a subject for inclusion in the Queen's Speech so that Her Majesty's Government can give a firm date for a debate which will, we hope, lead to a measure to be agreed by a free vote? Will the official Opposition support the bringing forward of such a debate as a matter of urgency? Will other noble Lords join me in expressing their discontent at the serious lack of progress in the matter? This statutory instrument should not, in my personal view, be passed through your Lordships' House on its own, unless it can be clearly shown that it is a necessary last step towards a debate followed by a Bill to integrate our timescale with the continent of Europe.
If your Lordships' House votes to delay the statutory instrument, no harm will be done because the order before us will not come into effect until next year anyway, as the noble Baroness said. An enforced delay by your Lordships' House will, on the other hand, have no other effect but to send a clear message to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union that many people in this country are extremely
196
unhappy with the slow progress of Her Majesty's Government's decision-making on this important subject.
Surely the noble Baroness who is to reply must recognise that to remain undecided on the implementation of single/double summer time benefits no one. From the evidence so far submitted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, it will even endanger the lives of children and senior citizens unnecessarily during the forthcoming winter months.
Have we not reached a stage in European history when the leaders of our country should stop looking backwards in time and start looking forward to the future by recognising the need to harmonise the different timescales currently in operation between Britain and the continent of Europe?
7.51 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I ask the indulgence of your Lordships because I am afraid that I overlooked the fact that one is expected to put one's name down to speak on an order of this kind. After all the years I have been here, I find myself very remiss but I hope that I may make one or two observations.
I strongly support the order, and to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, it might be observed that the Europeans wish to harmonise at a date which we already have for the changeover of our clocks. That must be a step in the right direction, otherwise we would lose the month of October before the clocks change. However, we are debating an order and this is not the moment to debate the quantum of the subject of what kind of time we adopt.
I wish to ask my noble friend a question, referring back to the 1989 consultative document. Three years ago, when the present summer time order was in force, I asked my noble friend Lord Astor a question and received the reply that a public hearing on the matter would be held after the summer break. So far as I am aware, that was not done and I should like to know why. I asked a similar question to the one raised by the noble Lord, specifically when the Government would make provision for a Bill in our House on the subject of the Green Paper because it is important for the matter to be cleared up and a decision reached. My noble friend Lord Astor also said that the Government would keep in close touch with developments and report back. That has not been done. Primary legislation would be required. I should therefore like to know why, after two years, no Bill has been introduced. I urge my noble friend to ask her colleagues whether or not we may make progress on the matter and have the subject definitively debated in the House.
7.54 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for asking one question. Article 1(2) of the order states:
"This Order shall have effect in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Bailiwick of Guernsey".

197
I wondered why it did not include the Bailiwick of Jersey or, for that matter, the Isle of Man. Perhaps my noble friend Lady Blatch will be good enough to give me an answer when she winds up.
7.55 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to face the Minister at the Dispatch Box, I am glad that she follows me around, although she takes a long time to do it.
In itself, this is an entirely uncontroversial order, as she rightly says, and we shall not oppose it. I can confirm what she said about our position in another place, where we took the view—as we do here—that this is not a matter for Whipping and that there would be a free vote, if one were taken.
Therefore, I am free to say that my personal conviction is that although this is an improvement in the sense of the minor inconvenience of being in tune with the European Community in the month of October but not elsewhere, it does not go as far as it should. What we should do is not be an hour ahead of them all the time but be on the same time as they are. To that extent, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw.
I appreciate that that causes difficulty to some people, particularly those in the North of Scotland. They feel that the effect on them of being on European time would be that they would have darker mornings. However, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has shown conclusively over many years that to have darker mornings and lighter evenings is likely—I do not think that one could go further than that—to reduce accidents rather than to increase them.
Of course, the commercial advantage in terms of the coincidence of the working day and being on the same time as the rest of Europe would be great. I spend a good deal of my time in the United States where there are different time zones and I accept that with the extension of the European Union into eastern Europe in due course, there would be difficulties for those who are significantly further cast than we are. Indeed, Finland is likely to come in very quickly indeed; however, special provision could and should be made for those people. There would be enormous advantages for us in being on the same time as Europe, and I personally very much regret that the opportunity is not being taken to make that change. I appreciate that it is always a matter of great controversy and that people can honestly hold very different views on the matter. However, it is a pity that we are making only this minor improvement and not the major improvement which would be possible.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to those who made their points succinctly and clearly. First, perhaps I may respond to the brief question from my noble friend Lord Balfour. Both Jersey and the Isle of Man will be dealt with separately in separate legislation, so there is no question of them being left outside the arrangement.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret reminded us that the matter had been discussed on a previous occasion with my noble friend Lord Astor. When he responded
198
to the question put by my noble friend, the Minister was referring to the European Commission, which held a public hearing on future summer time arrangements in October 1992. At that time the debate was confined to the harmonisation of the start and end dates of summer time. Contrary to expectations, the public hearing did not raise any issues of particular concern to the United Kingdom.
The 7th European Community directive includes the welcome provision that in 1996–97 other member states will adopt the UK October end date for summer time. It is therefore the first development of any significance and I am pleased to note that that has been welcomed by all who spoke in the debate. As noble Lords know, the draft summer time order for which your Lordships' approval is sought today intended to give effect to that directive.
I have listened carefully to the debate and I have noted particularly the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and indeed the following supportive comments by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the wider policy choice between the status quo and moving to single double summer time. The one certain thing about this choice in policy is that it is not easily determined; nor is this a party political issue. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made a very good point there.
Those who advocate the move to single double summer time refer to projected reductions in the incidence of road traffic casualties, and in the fear of crime; to increased opportunities for sport and other recreation in the longer summer evenings; to the potential boost for our tourism industries; and to benefits to business, travel and communications from working on a common basis with the great majority of our present European partners, and with the four states which we hope will join the European Community and Union next year.
On the other hand, those who see the advantage lying with the status quo foresee that single double summer time would inflict national inconvenience in darker winter mornings; worsen morning working for some groups in particular, including farmers, construction workers, postmen and milkmen; and have a disproportionate adverse impact in the North, particularly in Scotland.
The Government first initiated debate about the possible options for our arrangements as long ago as the 1989 Green Paper. We were forcefully reminded of that by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. The responses to that consultation paper did not point to a clear way forward, and since then circumstances have altered, and the considerations have, if anything, become more complex. At that time our initial consultations did not, and could not, anticipate the adoption of a common October end date as part of the status quo. Some may see that as a further argument in favour of our present arrangements. Others may see it as evidence of the benefits of having common arrangements with Western Europe, the best of which would be to employ one time zone, as single double summer time would provide.

199
A further consideration which carries substantial weight is that people throughout the United Kingdom are fully accustomed to the status quo. It can be argued therefore that advocates of single double summer time would need to show not only that its advantages would outweigh its disadvantages but that they would do so to such an extent that the change would indeed be worth making.
The present stage of the Government's policy is, therefore, to weigh carefully the pros and cons of the status quo and single double summer time respectively. I realise that that will be disappointing, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, who asked me to be forthright, unequivocal and straightforward about this, and to other noble Lords
200
who have spoken who had hoped that the green light might be given for early legislation for a move to single double summer time.
However, as my noble friend Lord Mountgarret said, tonight is not the night for this debate. This issue will be kept under review, but I must now bring noble Lords back to the subject on the Order Paper. I have noted what has been said in the course of the debate, and I welcome, of course, the move of our continental partners to an October date for the end of summer time. I ask the House to approve the Summer Time Order 1994.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that the Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned at three minutes past eight o'clock.

  RUSSIAN DEFENCE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
  RUSSIAN DEFENCE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
  CDC: EL SALVADOR
  CDC: EL SALVADOR
  ILO CONVENTION NO. 111: RATIFICATION
  ILO CONVENTION NO. 111: RATIFICATION
  HEATHROW AIRPORT: ROAD SYSTEM
  HEATHROW AIRPORT: ROAD SYSTEM
  RAILTRACK: SAFETY
  RAILTRACK: SAFETY
  GULF WAR VETERANS: HEALTH
  GULF WAR VETERANS: HEALTH
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
  MARKET FRANCHISE RIGHTS
  MARKET FRANCHISE RIGHTS