Sitting of 14 July 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
9.34 am
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There has been much publicity this morning about a Government announcement on sport. I speak as someone who was heavily engaged in sport for 14 years before coming to this place, as a coach and as a participant in spare and school time.
I understand that an announcement will be made outside the House at 11.30 this morning. Have you received a request for a Minister to make a statement at 11 o'clock? Up to what time can the Government make such a request if they change their mind and decide to make a statement? Are you aware that the money that will be the subject of the announcement is not public money, although some people might think that it is?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I see that the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage is in the Chamber. It is conceivable that he might be able to say something about the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) while he is dealing with the first Lords amendment to the Olympic Symbol Etc. (Protection) Bill. That would be inappropriate, however, because hon. Members would not be able to challenge the Minister as they would be able to do if he made a statement in the normal manner. We need an assurance from the Minister that he will make a statement at the appropriate time to tell us that lottery money will not be involved. If it were, the Government would be stealing money from the lottery, something that we suggested could happen a long time ago.
Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot allow a debate on a point of order. I take note of the remarks of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. fain Sproat)rose—
Madam Speaker: I understand that the Minister wishes to respond.
Mr. Sproat: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Rather than taking up time during a private Members' day by making a statement, I thought that it would be for the convenience of the House to set out our new sports policy in a written statement, which I have done. The policy paper is in the Vote Office. Also for the convenience of the House, I understand that next week we shall have a full debate on the subject. That means that we shall have more time to debate the subject than would be available to the House if I were to make a statement today. I thought that it would be best for the House to debate the matter as fully as possible. I hope that, with that explanation, hon. Members will be satisfied.

Orders of the Day
  Olympic Symbol Etc. (Protection) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
Clause 2

  RIGHTS CONFERRED
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 21, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections").
  9.37 am
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2, 12, 14 and 15.
  Mr. Winterton: The House will be aware that the Bill makes provision for the use for commercial purposes of the controlled representations:
  "(i) the symbol of the International Olympic Committee, consisting of five interlocking rings,
  (ii) the motto of the International Olympic Committee, 'Citius, altius, fortius', and
  (iii) the words 'Olympiad', 'Olympiads', 'Olympian', 'Olympians', 'Olympic', 'Olympics'"
  and translations.
  The Bill will give the person to be designated by the Secretary of State as the proprietor of the Olympics association right, the British Olympic Association, exclusive right to use the controlled representation during the course of trade. It creates a commercial property right that I would describe as a regime similar to that of the Trade Marks Act 1994 relating to registered trade marks, and will enable the BOA to raise revenue for British athletes for sponsorship with the benefit of statutory protection.
  The Bill also gives effect to commitments made by the Government to the IOC to introduce legislation to protect the Olympic symbol, motto and protected words in the United Kingdom. Such statutory protection is a precondition of any future bid for the Olympic games in the United Kingdom. It is unfortunate that that protection did not exist when Manchester, a city close to my heart, made a bid, sadly unsuccessful, to host the games a few years hence.
  On Second Reading my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) raised valid concerns about the scope of the Olympics association right and its application to small businesses such as pizza parlours, butchers, garages and restaurants which call themselves "Olympic". My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage, whom I congratulate on his promotion, undertook to consider whether the bid affords sufficient protection to businesses whose use of a controlled representation could not be said to exploit an Olympics association. The amendments were moved in the other place by the Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage, my noble Friend Lord Astor.
  The House can feel happy that the Bill gives adequate protection to users of a controlled representation. Clause 4(9), (11) and (12) protect the right to continue the

  1201
  existing use of the controlled representation for the purposes of an undertaking or as part of a business or company name. The proprietors of businesses referred to on Second Reading, such as "Olympic" restaurants, need have no concerns about the Bill.
  Clause 4(6) provides that the Olympics association right is not infringed where one of the protected words is used in a way that does not create an association with the Olympic games or the Olympic movement or draw on qualities of speed, excellence, strength or other qualities that are associated with the Olympic games or the Olympic movement. Members of the Greek community who open small restaurants or florists may be able, on the facts of the case, to rely on clause 4(6) to defend an action for infringement by the proprietor of the Olympic association right by claiming that the use creates an association with their homeland and not with the Olympic movement.
  The Secretary of State has power under clause 14 to give directions to the British Olympic Association with respect to the exercise of the Olympics association right. That is specifically intended to give a person who alleges that he was unfairly refused the right to use a controlled representation after the Bill comes into force, the right to approach the Secretary of State. However, there is scope for identifying those areas where it would be fair to allow someone to use a controlled representation so as to avoid the burden of persons having to apply to the BOA for its use or risk inadvertent infringement of the Olympic association right.
  The Lords amended the Bill to allow the Secretary of State, by order made by statutory instrument, to provide that certain categories of uses of a controlled representation would not constitute an infringement of the Olympics association right.
  If the Bill is enacted, the Secretary of State, with the assistance of the British Olympic Association, will seek to identify areas in which use of a controlled representation may properly be allowed without at all jeopardising the British Olympic Association's commercial interests. It is difficult to anticipate where the need may arise, but the provision is broad enough to allow the Secretary of State to permit uses of a controlled representation.
  For example, he could permit the use for the purposes of new subsidiary companies of established companies; in the incorporation of a company under its former business name; for the purpose of a certain class of business, for example florists or small restaurants; and for specified trade uses for the purpose of an undertaking. For example, that would cover use in a campaign against the Olympic games, an issue that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on Second Reading.
  The amendments will enable the Secretary of State to authorise fair and non-exploitative uses of controlled representations such as those cited by hon. Members on Second Reading. The amendments are entirely acceptable to me as the sponsor of the Bill. They improve the measure and I commend them to the House.
  9.45 am
  Sir Hector Monro: I declare an interest as I am a member of the British Olympic Association and I
  1202
  have been Minister for Sport three times in my career. This is an important day for sport and it is appropriate that such a Bill is being debated. The amendments will make an already good Bill an excellent one.
  The important point to bring home is that the Bill will give sport an important future opportunity. Later today, we shall be able to consider the announcement by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport about developments for England and Wales, while the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), will deal with developments in Scotland. Sport will be debated next week and that is important because we have few opportunities to debate it. The country will welcome that debate.
  The amendments tidy up an important section of the Bill, which we all support. I have the highest regard for Mr. Craig Reedie, the chairman of the British Olympic Association. It will welcome the amendments because they clarify the Bill and remove any worries about the original drafting curtailing personal interests. The Bill, whose sponsor is my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), is supported by a large number of hon. Members in all parts of the House. I wish it well.
  Mr. Peter Luff: It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). I understand that that was his first Back-Bench speech since his resignation from the Government. He gave distinguished service in government, and it is a privilege to follow him.
  It is important that the House always seeks to stand up for the rights of the weak against potential exploitation by the strong. I suppose that that is what is at the heart of my continuing nagging concerns about the Bill and the amendments, especially amendment No. 12, a new clause that seeks to address concerns that were expressed on Second Reading. The other amendments in the group are consequential on that amendment.
  I suspect that most hon. Members who take part in the debate will pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for introducing the Bill, and I join them in that. He has done a great service to the House and the Olympic movement and I hope that the Bill will make speedy progress to the statute book.
  I regret that I shall have to speak at greater length than I had hoped, because I was unable to contact the British Olympic Association during the week to discuss my concerns with them in person. That was for the entirely understandable reason that most of its senior members were at the European youth olympics in Bath. I am delighted to see from today's edition of The Daily Telegraph that Britain's under-18 hockey team came from behind to beat Ireland 3–2 in the final yesterday. We urge our athletes on to great success in Bath.
  I declare a kind of interest in the debate because I am an adviser to Visa International, which is a major sponsor of the Olympic games internationally. However, I make it clear that I have not discussed this matter with Visa and I do not know its views on the Bill or the amendments. My suspicion, however, is that, like any commercial sponsor of the Olympic games, sponsors would welcome both the Bill and any amendments that sought to clarify the way in which these powers can be used, because it is clearly important for sponsors to ensure that their

  1203
  sponsorship is protected. It is not just a question of protecting the rights of the Olympic movement or of the British Olympic Association. It is also very much a matter of ensuring that we protect sponsors' rights, otherwise that sponsorship will not be forthcoming. We have heard from my hon. Friend and in speeches in another place of the importance of those funds for Britain's athletes.
  I want to make it clear that, in raising my concerns today, I share the basic support for the Bill's general thrust. Any additional assistance that is forthcoming to Britain's athletes, wherever they take the international stage, but particularly when it comes to the Olympics, is welcome, but how we fund the British Olympic Association raises important questions, and we must ensure that our athletes' rights to have adequate funds for their performances overseas are balanced against the need to safeguard the interests of this country's commercial organisations. My concern is whether the new clause and the group of amendments go far enough to protect their interests.
  It is interesting to note in The Daily Telegraph today that the Sports Council has announced additional funding—another £1.25 million—for Britain's athletes competing at the 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta, but I note that a spokesman for the Sports Council says that that money
  "doesn't fully bridge the gap but I hope the lead that we've given might persuade some commercial organisations to do something."
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying my patience somewhat. What has that to do with the amendments under consideration?
  Mr. Luff: I am trying to explain the importance of ensuring that the rights of this country's organisations are absolutely protected. Let me explain more. We could be gathered up in a great feeling of good will towards the Olympics and our athletes without considering carefully enough and in sufficient detail the direct impact of the Bill on the organisations that we need to ensure are protected, particularly small businesses.
  I have heard many reassurances from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield during his opening remarks. I want to raise some additional concerns and I should like to hear those same reassurances from my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that those organisations are properly protected. I was simply seeking to set the picture about the Bill's importance and to reassure the House that I in no way wished to undermine the effectiveness of the Bill, whose importance I genuinely understand. I share the view that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield expressed about that.
  My concern about the amendments is born simply out of the concern to protect the Bill's impact on some specific commercial activities. In another place, we heard Lord Brabazon of Tara express his support for the Bill in almost evangelical terms. My concern is that, because we are so anxious not to undermine the Bill's effect, we do not give the amendments sufficient scrutiny and ensure that they have the right impact and that they are the right amendments. On reflection, I wish that I had tabled alternative amendments that would have met my concern.
  Commerce has rights too, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said during his excellent Second Reading speech, which prompted, as I understand it, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and his
  1204
  right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to bring forward amendments to this Bill in another place. I understand that this group of amendments attempts to deal with those concerns, but I have a number of worries about it.
  The powers that we are giving to the Secretary of State to act in respect of those concerns seem to be clumsy and discretionary. They rely on the use of statutory instruments. I worry that the Government will be prepared to bring forward a statutory instrument for consideration by this House only if commercial interests' concerns are extremely clear cut. Frankly, I am also concerned that there may be a certain reluctance in the Department of National Heritage to exercise those powers at all, so I am looking for a reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister of State that there will be a genuine determination by his Department to use the powers that this new clause will give him.
  We have to be careful when we give powers to bodies that are outside the control of this House and make certain that the House has adequate powers of redress if those powers are misused. Earlier this week, I spoke on the Charities (Amendment) Bill. We were doing a similar thing with the charity commissioners. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield has been consistently concerned about the powers that we hand to the European Union when the House is not able properly to control those powers. He is right and it is understandable to have those concerns. My concern, however, is that we are debating this new clause only because the Bill is a trifle over-ambitious. Will he consider—I think that procedurally it is now impossible—my preferred route forward, which is slightly to reduce the Bill's ambitious nature?
  I fully understand that the Olympic movement's symbols are effectively trademarked as the most powerful protection, but other organisations use them in a variety of formats. The Public Relations Consultants Association uses them in an extended format on the front page of its annual report. Can it look to the powers in the new clause to ensure that its historic use—I have the report here and I shall show it to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield—will not be caught by the Bill's powers?
  I understand the need to protect the motto of the Olympic Association but I suspect that this new clause will really come into effect when we debate the use of specific protected words in this Bill. This is where the real difficulty comes and where my concerns lie. I have no problem with the Bill protecting "Olympiad" and "Olympiads" because I understand that they are specific terms, used only in connection with the modern Olympic games. Similarly, I understand that the word "Olympics" relates entirely to the Olympics games. That is reasonable. For me, however, the problems come with other protected words, especially "Olympian", "Olympians" and "Olympic". We must be careful about constraining the use of words that have more general, historic and geographical connotations. I suspect that this is the way in which we will look to the Secretary of State to exercise his powers under the new clause if it is accepted by the House today.
  I come from Worcestershire. I worry what would happen if we gave Lea and Perrins the power to control the use of the words "Worcestershire" and "Worcester" in relation to sauce, or if we gave Royal Worcester Porcelain the power to control the use of "Worcester". Although I have enormous admiration for those two companies.

  1205
  I would speak against any attempt to do so. It is right that we should express our concern about the power that we are giving the British Olympic Association to control the use of those two words and that we assure and satisfy ourselves absolutely that, under this new clause, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have adequate powers to deal with an over-mighty use of these words by the BOA.
  I shall not weary the House with precise definitions of those two words, but it is worth remembering that all the dictionaries that I have considered give a wide variety of meanings, both for "Olympian" and "Olympic" which go well beyond the Olympic movement. The first definition of "Olympian" given in the dictionary is:
  "Of or belonging to Olympus; heavenly, celestial."
  Again, the first definition of "Olympic" is:
  "Of or belonging to Olympus"
  the place. Those are matters of history and geography, not just games.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Surely my hon. Friend's points do not apply to any use of the words if they will not be confused with the aims of the British Olympic Association: to provide teams and compete in the Olympic games. He gives examples about Worcester sauce and Royal Worcester Porcelain and comments that he would defend the use of the word "Worcester". Surely he would argue that, if someone came along and produced a Worcestershire sauce in competition with Lea and Perrins, it would be wrong and in breach of the law, but if someone were to produce a Worcester soup or something similar, which has nothing to do with the original product, it would not be a breach? Similarly, the point is that these amendments from another place make it clear that his concerns would not apply because restaurants and others have nothing to fear. The amendments protect only the British Olympic Association from other organisations that might take funds away from it in relation to the Olympic games.
  Mr. Luff: I hear what my hon. Friend has to say and I shall not be drawn into the debate about Worcester sauce, which has real problems about copyright around the world, but some remarks were made in another place during the debate about the effect of the new clause which give me a scintilla of doubt that his confidence is accurate.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham got into a certain difficulty at Second Reading by giving examples of the use of those words by current businesses in a London telephone directory, one of those rare occasions when reading the telephone directory for the record was probably in order. I do not intend to do so today but I have considered those and I see that a number of companies have chosen to use those words because they believe it is useful in their business activity. My concern is that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield discussed grandfather rights, where a company already uses the word, there may be a real desire by the BOA to prevent new companies that also think that there will be a benefit from using this word when establishing themselves. I seek that particular reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister.
  On Second Reading in the other place, Lord Astor—the then Minister—set out the Government's position clearly. Lord Brabazon, in reply, expressed severe reservations
  1206
  about accepting the amendment we are now debating. Indeed, he expressed disappointment that there should be any amendments at all to the Bill. I wonder what briefing led him to that view. Did the BOA express concern about the amendment and suggest that it might constrain its power to act to protect its sources of income?
  10 am
  I recognise that clause 4 provides a number of protections, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) rightly pointed out in his speech. However, what concerns me is that Lord Brabazon referred to the new protection offered by amendment No. 12—the new clause—as a power that he hoped would be used as an exception rather than a rule. The amendment seems to have been offered rather grudgingly by the Bill's sponsor, who hopes that it will not be used. I suggest that it is a power that needs to be used, possibly quite freely.
  I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries is a member of the BOA. My difficulty is that the BOA, rightly and properly, has as its primary objective the promotion of sport. Those who will exercise the powers in the Bill have a strong sporting bent; they are not commercial individuals whose job is to protect the commercial base of the country. One of them, I am pleased to note, is the former physical education teacher at my old school, Windsor grammar. However, in general, and having looked in detail at the curriculum vitaes of those who will exercise the Bill's powers, I have no confidence that their prime purpose will be to protect commerce; it will, of course, be to protect sport. That is why we need the additional powers given to the Secretary of State in the new clause. I accept that the individuals concerned at the BOA are trustworthy people, but they are not very commercial. Their first priority is bound to be sport.
  I am doubtful whether we even need the Bill at all, given that the BOA says in its documentation that its primary tool for raising funds for athletes is not the words and symbols that will be protected by the Bill, but its own marketing symbol that unites the Olympic symbols with the union jack in a roundel. It describes its need to protect that symbol as its principal way of raising commercial revenues. The BOA does not directly exploit Olympic symbols, words and phrases, just its own adaptation of them. That is why it is so necessary that the new clause should give the Secretary of State adequate powers to protect commercial interests from the BOA's unreasonable use of its power.
  There is another point about who should exercise the powers in the new clause. As I understand it, it will be the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I understand that because the Bill is about sports men and women. However, as the new clause is designed not to protect sports men and women, but to protect commercial interests, it might be better to give the power to a different Secretary of State than one whose prime motive, honourably exercised, is to protect sports men and women. It might be more appropriate to give the power to the President of the Board of Trade or even the Deputy Prime Minister, given that he now has responsibility for competitiveness and deregulation. Their motives in exercising the power would be rather different from that of the Secretary of State for National Heritage. They will be concerned to protect the individuals whom I understand the new clause exists to protect.

  1207
  I am looking for a number of specific reassurances. Given that the powers will be exercised by the Secretary of State for National Heritage, can my hon. Friend the Minister assure me that they will be exercised in a pro-enterprise way and that the Department will not uncritically accept the views of the BOA? Will the Secretary of State consult her colleagues in Government before exercising the powers to ensure that the BOA is right in resisting any particular application for the introduction of a statutory instrument under the new clause?
  I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield has already assured us that grandfather rights will be properly protected. Companies operating in or around my constituency already use words or phrases that are protected by the Bill. They may want to expand and set up new subsidiaries. I think that my hon. Friend gave me the assurance that they will be free to do so. However, I want my hon. Friend the Minister to give that same reassurance from the Dispatch Box, so that it has the necessary statutory force.
  I also want an assurance that there is no way in which the BOA could use the powers in the Bill to do anything other than protect the literal words. The word "Olympia" is not protected by the Bill. The word "Olympic" is often used to describe size. For example, a local authority may describe its swimming pool as "Olympic-sized". I do not think that the BOA should expect a royalty payment from a local authority every time it described its own swimming pool in that way. Is that an example of the sort of matter that could be covered by a statutory instrument laid under the new clause?
  I am left with the uncomfortable feeling that the Bill is cumbersome and complex when it should be quite simple. That sort of thing always sets off alarm bells in my mind. I wonder whether it could not have been more simple. I hope that the powers in the new clause are adequate to deal with the concerns that have been expressed both here and in the other place. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister's response.
  Mr. Fabricant: While my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) was speaking, I took the opportunity to pop out and look at a copy of Yellow Pages. However, I resisted the temptation to bring it into the Chamber, as happened on Second Reading—although at that time it was entirely appropriate to do so. I wanted to see whether there were any companies using the words "Olympiad", "Olympiads", "Olympian", "Olympians", "Olympic", "Olympics", and so on as listed in the Bill, that might conflict with the amendments. There were none. All businesses using such word were concerned with photocopying, restaurants, florists and other such activities.
  Indeed, that fact was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), whom I congratulate on taking the Bill through its various stages. It is clear that there need be no scintilla of doubt, as expressed in the other place, about the Bill's intentions. I do not envisage the possibility that companies such as those listed in Yellow Pages using the name "Olympic"—even if they are new companies using that name, as existing companies are already protected—would be affected by the Bill.
  The whole point of the Bill is to protect the British Olympic Association. This debate is especially interesting for me because I serve on the National Heritage Select
  1208
  Committee and one of the areas we are currently investigating is Olympic bids in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Hon. Members may be interested to know that the Select Committee recently went to Barcelona to examine how the Spanish attracted the Olympic games to their country in 1992. What soon became apparent was the importance of the Olympic symbols for use by their local Olympic committee to raise money for local athletes. After all, is not that what the Bill is all about? Surely it is intended to ensure that there will be adequate funding for the British Olympic Association to send teams to Atlanta. The Select Committee will be going to Atlanta this summer to investigate how it attracted the Olympic games.
  Indeed, we need to question whether it is even worth trying to attract the games to the United Kingdom. Given that Manchester spent a great deal of money on its Olympic bid but received only seven votes, we must question whether it is worth competing and whether it is worth the games coming to the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: As the chairman of our party's sports committee, and as today I have the honour to wear the Olympic bid tie for the Manchester bid, I have to tell my hon. Friend that although I agree with a number of his points about the amendments, the Manchester bid was enormously important in terms of increasing confidence in Britain as a whole and in the north-west in particular. The city of Manchester has benefited enormously from its Olympic bid.
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) makes an interesting point. I would not wish to prejudge the findings of the National Heritage Select Committee. Before you rightly tell me off, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am rather drifting away from the amendments—I invite my hon. Friend, who has played an active and important role on the Back Benches as chairman of the Conservative sports committee, to attend the National Heritage Select Committee meeting when we interview the gentlemen from Manchester. They will include, I believe, Sir Robin Scott—
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Sir Robert Scott.
  Mr. Fabricant: Yes, Sir Robert Scott, who led the Manchester bid. Robin Scott is a previous controller of BBC Radio 1.
  I have no reservations about the amendments. They strengthen the Bill. I accept to some small degree the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) that the use of statutory instruments may be a clumsy way of making amendments. In practice, I cannot see why statutory instruments would be needed because, as has been plainly pointed out already, there are so many industries that use the terms and symbols involved which cannot be confused with the aims of British Olympic Association and therefore would not be diverting money away from it.
  I want this country to succeed at the Olympic games. We invented so many sports which are not in the Olympic games such as cricket, football—I am not sure whether football is in the games, but I think not—and tennis. We invent sports but do not seem to succeed in them. That is why I was so delighted with this morning's news and

  1209
  delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister on television this morning talking about the Prime Minister's £100 million to promote sport in the United Kingdom. If East Germany could win so many gold medals with a population of only 18 million, how come a nation of 58 million active and fit people, as we are, is so unable to win Olympic medals in such profusion?
  I support anything that can be done to promote the BOA and sport. I believe that the Lords amendments will strengthen not weaken the Bill.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I join in giving a cautious welcome to the amendments although I share many of the reservations that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) outlined.
  When we last debated the issue, one or two Opposition Members who are not in their seats today accused me of filibustering to delay progress in debating a subsequent Bill. That allegation was set in stone by the BBC on television news that night and prompted some 600 letters to me, mostly abusive and some containing more than letters. However, that is part of the life of a politician.
  It may not have been a spectacular Bill or one that caught the headlines like the Bill discussion of which was to have followed, but it was nevertheless very important both for the British Olympic Association and for the many small businesses who use the name or similar names and who were—and still are to a degree—concerned that their businesses could be affected by the legislation. It was that concern, which was referred to by my noble Friend Viscount Astor in another place, that prompted the Government to introduce the amendments, which, I believe, go some of the way towards meeting those concerns.
  It is quite wrong that Bills are simply nodded through the House. It is wrong that we should rubber stamp Bills and leave it to their Lordships to sort them out later. That is wrong and an abuse of the House. When Bills come before the House, we have the right to debate them even if they are less interesting and headline-worthy that those that appear subsequently on the Order Paper. It is the luck of the draw on a Friday.
  I seek the assurances that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester asked for because I share some of his concern that we have a rather awkward system in which the Secretary of State, in negotiations with the British Olympic Association, will determine whether the use of the word is in breach of what is being proposed. With that guarded welcome, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on the Bill. I am sure that now that the wrinkles have been ironed out it will be very valuable asset to the Olympics and our Olympic teams.
  10.15 am
  Mr. Tom Pendry: I intervene briefly to say that I think this is a very important day for the British Olympic Association. I am not referring to this glossy document, "Sport: Raising the Game", which we will no doubt be able to debate on Wednesday, as the Minister said. We shall see whether it is important for the Olympic movement then.
  1210
  This Bill is the end of a very long road. Over the years, many of us have made representations to bring such legislation before the House. Indeed, in November last year, the Prime Minister wrote to me to say that he would introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time allowed. We all know what that means. It is therefore very good that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) took the initiative to bring the Bill before us and I think that it is going to be a very important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I publicly thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the support that they have given to the Bill? I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for his interest and the initiatives that he has sought to take in the past. This has been an all-party Bill. I am its sponsor but I pay tribute to the support that I have had from all political parties for the purpose and objectives of the Bill.
  Mr. Pendry: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
  The Lords amendments to the Bill clearly provide means by which any possible problems which might arise in the future can be dealt with. The new clause created by amendment No. 12 provides the means by which the Secretary of State could deal with problems by order without the need to return to the House and that should help with unforeseen problems, such as the case of the Olympians.
  I am glad that assurances have been forthcoming to the effect that the Olympians in particular will be able to continue using the Olympic symbol. It is a group with altogether altruistic aims representing our community of past Olympic athletes and embodying all that is good about the Olympic spirit and the Olympic family. Under the leadership of Liz Ferris, it continues to encourage fair play in sport and is a valuable source of information and advice and it assists the BOA.
  I wish to place that on record, because I am grateful that the Minister has given that guarantee within the context of the Bill. I hope that the amendments are carried, because they certainly make the Bill an even better Bill than it was when it first began its passage in the House. As I said at the start, this is a very good day for the BOA.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Bill and support my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I congratulate him not only on sponsoring the Bill, but on including Northern Ireland in it. It affects us, too, and I share his tribute to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), because I know the role that he played when he was at the Northern Ireland Office, and his subsequent role in the realm of sport.
  I long to see the day when our middle-distance runners will again top the field rather than lagging behind. I hope that next week's debate on sport will offer some light not only for Scotland and Wales but for Northern Ireland in the context of raising standards.
  The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) referred to Lord Brabazon speaking in an evangelical manner. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman meant evangelical or evangelistic. It was the hon. Member for Worcester who spoke with evangelistic fervour. While he spoke with a quiet voice, he reminded me of the evangelistic preacher who started shouting because his notes said, "Argument

  1211
  weak, shout like hell." The arguments against the Bill were rather weak, and I look forward to it going through with the full support of the House.
  Mr. Brandreth: I welcome the amendments but must do so in a subdued mood because of the sad and unexpected news of the death yesterday of my predecessor as the Member of Parliament for City of Chester. Sir Peter Morrison was Chester's champion for 20 years. There are three Cheshire Members of Parliament here today, and I know that they will join me in paying tribute to Sir Peter and in sending condolences to his family.
  This is an important day for sport in the United Kingdom. The Bill is a small but important measure. I take this opportunity to salute my hon. Friend the Minister of State, because of all that he is doing to reawaken sport not only at the heart of school life but throughout our culture. We are going to breed Olympic champions in the United Kingdom, and I honestly believe that future generations will look back on the summer of 1995 and think of my hon. Friend the Minister and of the Prime Minister, who together are leading us into a new era of British sport.
  The Bill is full of good sense. I think that the fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) are unfounded. He will find that, when the Bill becomes an Act, common sense will prevail and that the new clause—or amendment No. 12—will be a useful moderating mechanism.
  I am delighted to welcome the amendments and the Bill and excited to think that the Bill will be in place when the Olympic games come to Manchester, as they must, and when all the gold medals are won by true Britons, thanks to the leadership shown by our outstanding Prime Minister and the Minister of State.
  The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. kin Sproat): I shall first make one or two general remarks about this group of amendments and then deal with some specific points on which hon. Members asked for reassurance and with those made so lucidly and forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
  My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield spoke clearly about the protection that the Bill gives to legitimate businesses users of a controlled representation. No one should be in any doubt—the Bill is not an anti-business measure. I shall deal in a moment with the related points that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) quite properly raised, but I give that general assurance at the outset.
  The Bill protects genuine property interests in the controlled representation and gives the British Olympic Association statutory protection for what are, in effect, its trademarks, alongside any common law remedies that it may have. Those who need fear the Bill are those who seek to trade on the reputation of the Olympic games by making money for themselves and depriving the BOA of its life-giving revenue.
  It may be helpful if I draw the House's attention briefly to further protection for users of a protective word. Protected words are "Olympiad", " Olympiads", "Olympian", "Olympians", "Olympic" and "Olympics" and their translations. Unlike the exceptions in clause 4(10) to 4(14), they do not depend on existing use at the time the Bill comes into force.
  1212
  Although I do not agree, hon. Members seem to think that what is said at the Dispatch Box has more force that what is said elsewhere. I am therefore happy to say that clause 4(7) provides that, in the case of the representation of a protected word, the Olympics association right is not infringed by use which creates an association between the Olympic games or the Olympic movement and any person or thing where the association fairly represents a connection between the two, provided that the use is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. Examples of use that might be justified under this clause are an Olympic champion who endorses sports equipment as an "Olympic champion" and a hotelier who advertises accommodation within five minutes' walk of an Olympic games venue. It will also cover incidental reporting of anything to do with the Olympics in day-to-day trade. After all, the Olympics are public events and it is not possible to prevent businesses from making references to them.
  Such use, however, would need to be a fair representation of an existing connection. The clause does not, for example, permit a manufacturer to claim that his products have been endorsed by the BOA or the Olympic movement at large if they have not. Likewise, a supplier of widgets could not claim on the basis of a simple supply agreement with the BOA that he is "the" supplier of widgets to the BOA.
  Furthermore, the clause 4(7) defence should be available only when the use is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. Among other things, that restricts what is known in the marketing business as "ambush marketing". An example of that would be if the BOA officially endorsed a sportswear manufacturer's products and a rival manufacturer ran an advertising campaign using former Olympic champions in order deliberately to counter the benefits of official endorsement. That is not an honest commercial practice, and anyone who undertakes such an advertising strategy will receive no help from this clause.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Worcester and for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) are entirely right to say that, even where there is a genuine consensus in the House—as there certainly is in this case—it is not only right but essential that a certain healthy scepticism should be brought to bear on any legislation. I am sure that every hon. Member can think of a number of Bills that were not subject to healthy scepticism or explored sufficiently in the House, and regret that such legislation was too hastily passed. Although I hope that I can provide proper and adequate reassurances for my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, it is extremely important that such matters should be explored.
  My hon. Friend spoke of the importance of the funds for sportsmen that will arise from the Bill; that is at the heart of the Bill. I was glad to hear the reference to the Sports Council's further grant of £1.25 million to the Sports Aid Foundation precisely to help our Olympic athletes in their preparation. That is exactly the sort of provision that is either supplementary to, or supplemented by, the provisions in the Bill.
  A number of hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), mentioned the sports policy paper which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) waved before us. Incidentally, I thank the hon. Gentleman for that free publicity. One of the main purposes of the policy paper is

  1213
  to do on a larger scale what the Bill seeks to do on a lesser scale, which is to inject more funds into British sports. It is therefore particularly appropriate that we are considering the Bill on the very day that the Government have announced their wider provisions to inject more money into sport at school level and at the championship and elite level.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester sought an assurance that legitimate businesses would not be damaged by the Bill. I can give him that assurance. We shall certainly use the powers that we have under the new clause 12. Appeals can be made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if a business feels that it is being damaged because it believes that the BOA is unfairly and improperly using the powers that the Bill gives it. In that case, the business can appeal to my right hon. Friend who will make a decision.
  My hon. Friend was also worried that there might be instances in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage could be thought to be more in favour of the sporting than the enterprise aspect of a case and that, if so, that matter should perhaps be put to another Secretary of State, perhaps the President of the Board of Trade or my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State. Of course, that can be done because, as the House knows, the term "Secretary of State" in a Bill can refer to any Secretary of State. Although, in this context, it would normally be the Secretary of State for National Heritage, it would be easy for the matter to be taken to another Secretary of State, and the Government will decide what is appropriate. That should ally my hon. Friend's fears.
  My hon. Friend also asked whether pro-enterprise considerations would be taken fully into account. The answer is yes. The reference to the Secretary of State means any Secretary of State, so it could be the President of the Board of Trade. He asked whether grandfather rights were covered, and the answer is yes. I give my hon. Friend those specific yes, yes, yes assurances.
  10.30 am
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) told us—I did not know—that the much-travelled Select Committee on National Heritage proposes to go to Atlanta. I say, not as a joke, that that will be extremely valuable to the Olympic movement, to the British Olympic Association, to the House and to the new United Kingdom Sports Council when it is established on 1 January next year. One of its specific remits is to attract to Britain top international sporting events, of which the Olympic games is possibly the biggest in the world. Therefore, to see exactly how Atlanta did it and what are the costs to that city will be extremely useful. As the youth games at Sheffield produced a pretty big debt burden on the backs of the city fathers for many years to come, it is important that we examine closely all Olympic-related matters. I shall value not only my hon. Friend's personal view when he returns from Atlanta, but the considered views of the Select Committee in summary.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire said that he was in favour of anything that could be done to support sport. He will know that today we are producing a sports policy paper which announces massive injections
  1214
  of money into sport from a number of different sources and the House will have a chance to consider it at greater length next week.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham made a valuable contribution to the Second Reading debate. He was treated extremely unfairly and I very much hope that the BBC will remedy the way in which it treats hon. Members. No doubt unwittingly, it grossly misrepresented the point that my hon. Friend made, as is proven by the fact that we are debating it today. By raising the matter, he caused my Department to decide that something must be done to clarify it, and that is why, for one valuable hour this morning, we discussed that important principle. I pay tribute to the healthy scepticism of my hon. Friend.
  The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde has had much to do with these matters in the past. I certainly echo the thanks expressed to the hon. Gentleman by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. Although I am absolutely certain that, when our marvellous sports policy paper will be discussed at great length next week, the Labour party will find one or two tiny points with which it does not wholly agree, nonetheless I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his genuine support. He is right to exhibit that healthy scepticism that I call upon the House to exhibit towards others—even towards me. I look forward to next week's debate and I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for his supportive attitude.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) welcomed the fact that the Bill will apply to Northern Ireland. I agree with him. He will know from my actions that I believe strongly in that principle. When I constructed the United Kingdom Sports Council, partly out of the old Sports Council, for the first time I specifically included a representative from Northern Ireland, as it is extremely important that Northern Ireland is seen to be part of the United Kingdom is every possible way. That includes sport, and that is why it is in the new United Kingdom Sports Council.
  My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) gave the House some very sad news that I certainly did not know. Judging by the response of other hon. Members, most did not know about the sad death of Sir Peter Morrison, who had been a friend to many of us for many years. I should very much like to join all hon. Members in the condolences that my hon. Friend will pass on to Sir Peter's family.
  I welcome Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2, 12, 14 and 15 as general deregulatory measures which will lift from identified classes of business that do not qualify for exception under clause 4 the burden of applying to the BOA for consent to user control representation. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield on the way that he has made his case this morning and on his persistent dedication and good humour in the face of some dilatory frustrations. I welcome the amendments and commend them to the House.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Clause 4

  LIMITS ON EFFECT
  Lords amendment: No.3, in page 2, line 40, leave out ("is") and insert ("consists of use").
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 11 and 13.
  Mr. Winterton: The House is aware from the comments already made that the Olympics association right is a wide right which confers exclusive rights in relation to the use of the Olympic symbol, motto and protected words, similar to the right of the proprietor of a registered trade mark. The Bill is assiduous in its protection of existing and deserving rights. I have already set out some of those circumstances.
  Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 11 and 13 relate to the exceptions to the Olympics association right in clause 4, subsections (1) to (4) that concern the inclusion of control representation in literary, dramatic and musical works, artistic works, sound recording, film broadcasts and cable programmes.
  The Olympic games are public events, as my hon. Friend the Minister and others have stated this morning, and it would be quite unfair and totally impractical for the Bill to prevent broadcasters, journalists, photographers, artists and film makers from making reference to the Olympic games without the consent of the proprietor. That would be unacceptable censorship. Clause 4, subsections (1) and (2), as amended in the Lords, provide that the use of a controlled representation in literary works and so on will not infringe the Olympics association right, provided that the work is not used in relation to goods or services and is in accordance with honest commercial practice.
  However, the Bill seeks to prevent the exploitation of a permitted artistic work to get around the Olympics association right. It is not intended, for example, that a person could use a television commercial—itself a permitted broadcast—to advertise a product by reference to the Olympic games. It is not intended that a person could use an artistic work as a design for goods such as T-shirts, sports bags and equipment simply to sell that equipment.
  Concerns were raised in another place as to whether the restrictions on the use of a work as previously drafted—that is, that an artistic work cannot be used for advertising or promotional activities—covered the full range of practices by which a person who was determined to use a controlled representation might exploit an otherwise bona fide artistic work.
  The amendments introduced in another place make it clear that use of a controlled representation in, or comprising, a work will not be permitted if its purpose or use relates to other goods and services—for example, in a television advertisement for sports shoes—or if a perfectly lawful work is subsequently used to advertise other goods and services. Any of the actions illustrated in clause 3(2) as examples of what may be used in the course of trade may also constitute use in relation to goods and services. Thus, if a trader fixes a design to a T-shirt which is exploited commercially, he will be in breach of the Olympics association right.
  Amendment No. 11 makes that quite clear. It is the same as the test for determining whether the use of a registered trade mark is an infringement under the Trade Marks Act 1994. There is nothing contentious or novel
  1216
  about the amendment; it merely clarifies what was intended, and closes loopholes that would be available to an unscrupulous dealer.
  Mr. Luff: I am keen for the point raised by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) about use of the slogan in political campaigning to be properly dealt with. On 3 February, my hon. Friend the Minister suggested that that might fall foul of the Bill. Do the amendments deal with the problem?
  Mr. Winterton: They do indeed. I shall come to that in a moment.
  Of course, a controlled representation should be capable of being used in relation to literary or artistic works that are themselves genuinely about the Olympic games or the Olympic movement, rather than being merely a commercial exploitation. Provision for that is made in clause 4(4), which would allow, for example, trailers for television coverage of the Olympic games or merchandise promoting films about them.
  Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 11 and 13 make much clearer what is and is not allowed with regard to use of a controlled representation in a literary or artistic work, but they make the example raised on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—the use of a satirical cartoon featuring the games in a T-shirt design as a campaign against the games—an infringement. The cartoon itself would not constitute such an infringement, but its use on the T-shirt would.
  The Secretary of State, by directions or regulations or in some other manner, would make it clear that the BOA would have no remedy in such circumstances. Lords amendment No. 10, however, puts the matter beyond doubt by providing that use of a controlled representation in a work that is, to an extent, about the Olympic games or the Olympic movement should be allowed when the use of that work is not for the purpose of gain for any person, or loss for another. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff).
  I am sure that the House will agree that clause 4(1) and (2) make the position relating to films, broadcasting and so forth entirely clear, and that they have closed a loophole that might have been available to unscrupulous dealers.
  Until now, the United Kingdom has been glaringly alone among the great sporting powers of the world in not having legislation to protect commercial property rights relating to the Olympic symbol. The House can be content that the Olympics association right will be secure in the able hands of the BOA. I am grateful to the BOA for the help that it has given me with the Bill—and to my hon. Friend the Minister and his Department, and other Departments that have helped me to draft the legislation.
  The Bill will assist the BOA's attempts to build on the nation's success in the Olympic games. It will also safeguard the revenue that, in the modern age, is so important to ensuring success. I warmly welcome this morning's press announcement, and what has been said in the House, about the Government's initiative: my hon. Friend the Minister and the Prime Minister have announced the production of a fairly dramatic document about the future of sport, and the need for coaching and training so that the country can go from strength to strength.

  1217
  As I have said, revenue is important to the ensuring of success—success not only for such people as Linford Christie, Colin Jackson, Sally Gunnell and Jonathan Edwards, but for the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other competitors who sacrifice their normal life and, perhaps, their careers for the pride of competing in international sport on behalf of our nation. It is to them that we owe the dignity of statutory protection that my Bill affords to the Olympic symbols.
  I am pleased to be able to say that sponsorship raised with the benefit of the Bill will be available for British athletes to compete in the Atlanta Olympic games in 1996, at which I am sure that British sport will take its customary place at the high table of sporting achievement.
  I commend the amendments and the Bill to the House.
  10.45 am
  Mr. Fabricant: I seek clarification on two matters. First, however, let me express the hope that Mr. Spencer Duval will be taking part in the Atlanta games in 1996. He is a constituent of mine, living in Lichfield; he is also the son of Mr. Derrick Duval, the immediate past chairman of my Conservative association.
  I am concerned about two aspects of the visual representation of the Olympic games. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will know that the Select Committee on National Heritage recently examined the film industry. I, certainly, was delighted with the response of the Department of National Heritage, which is to take innovative action in regard to the film industry. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do the same in his Budget.
  1218
  One of our best film producers is David Puttnam, who, as hon. Members will know, produced "Chariots of Fire", a very successful film. Would the production of a film of that kind, depicting the Olympic games in the past, present or future—fictional or historical—be inhibited by any of the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield?
  My visit to Barcelona made me very aware that television rights are tremendously important to the funding of the Olympic games. Their sale is the largest single source of income for the provision of the games in a city. Will my hon. Friend assure me that other broadcasters would be prevented from breaking those rights, thus reducing the amount of income available to a city promoting or holding the games?
  Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) has posed some sensitive and difficult questions. I hope that what I have already said makes it clear that we considered them when drafting the details of the Bill. I understand that the legislation covers both his points. I do not believe that there would be any impediment to the production of the kind of film with which David Puttnam—a very distinguished producer—was involved; however, safeguards are built into the legislation.
  I believe that the Bill takes care of my hon. Friend's second point as well—but my hon. Friend the Minister may well wish to say a final word.
  Mr. Sproat: I rise, somewhat unexpectedly, to respond to the two interesting questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). The answers are simple. "Chariots of Fire" could certainly have been made under the provisions of the Bill; as for television rights, they would not be a matter for the BOA, but would be negotiated by the central Olympic body.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 15 agreed to.

  Insurance Companies (Reserves) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  After Clause 2
    CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    Lords amendment: No. 1, insert the following new clause—

    CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    (".—(1) Schedule 9A to the Companies Act 1985 and Schedule 9A to the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (form and content of accounts of insurance companies and groups) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In Note (24) on the balance sheet format set out in Section B—
    (a) after "(Liabilities item C.5)" there shall be inserted—
    "This item shall comprise the amount of any reserve maintained by the company under section 34A of the Insurance Companies Act 1982."; and
    after "This item shall" there shall be inserted "also".
    (3) For paragraph 50 there shall be substituted—
    "Equalisation reserves
    50. The amount of any reserve maintained—

    (a) under section 34A of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 ("the 1982 Act"), or

    (b) under regulation 76 of, and Schedule 14 to, the Insurance Companies Regulations 1994 ("the 1994 Regulations"),

    shall be determined in accordance with regulations under section 34A of the 1982 Act or, as the case may be, in accordance with regulation 76 of, and Schedule 14 to, the 1994 Regulations.".")
    10.49 am
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendment No. 2.
    Mr. Hawkins: The amendment is necessary to ensure that the Companies Act 1985 and the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 comply with our obligations under European law. The amendment also ensures that those preparing insurance companies' accounts will know exactly how to report equalisation reserves that have been set up as a result of regulations made under the Bill, and also ensures that users of the accounts will have clear guidance on what to expect.
    I should like to take the opportunity to thank the Earl of Northesk, who tabled the amendments in another place, for his prescience and his skilful handling of the Bill during its passage through another place. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), the promoter of the Bill. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend in his place in the Chamber, as it gives me an opportunity to congratulate him on his extremely well deserved promotion to the Government. My hon. Friend has worked extremely hard on the Bill, and it is a privilege for me—as vice-chairman of the all-party insurance and financial services group and somebody who worked for many years as a corporate lawyer in the
    1220
    insurance and financial services industry before coming to the House—to come in very much at the end of the Bill's passage.
    I would also like to pay tribute to the work done on the Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), the chairman of the all-party group on insurance and financial services. Sadly, my hon. Friend cannot be with us today, but he spoke in earlier debates on the Bill and his work as chairman of that group is recognised on both sides of the House. I would also like to thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), who speaks on these matters for the Opposition, for his assistance in the earlier stages of the Bill.
    The Bill deals with a matter with which I was concerned for many years before coming to the House. It may be of interest to say that the amendments are welcomed both by the Association of British Insurers and by the London Insurance and Reinsurance Market Association. The chief executive of the latter is Miss Marie-Louise Rossi, the daughter of the former and distinguished Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. Marie-Louise Rossi and I collaborated with others some years ago on a paper that called for precisely the kind of measures dealt with by the amendments.
    Before I go on to explain the details of the two amendments, I should like to give the House the benefit of setting the matter in a slightly fuller context by way of an explanation of some of the developments in company law that led to the insurance accounts directive and the Companies Act (Insurance Companies Accounts) Regulations 1993.
    Over the years, there have been a number of European directives to harmonise the accounts of companies. The first was the fourth company law directive 1978, implemented here by the Companies Act 1981, which harmonised the form and content of the individual accounts of companies. The seventh directive of 1983 harmonised the form and content of the consolidated accounts of groups and companies, and was implemented in this country by the Companies Act 1989. The fourth directive permitted member states to derogate from its provisions in the case of banks and insurance companies, pending the adoption of further directives.
    The United Kingdom, like other member states, took advantage of the derogation and did not apply the provisions of the fourth directive to banks or to insurance companies. The existing legislation was largely left in place, leaving insurance companies with certain disclosure exemptions—for example, those enabling them to maintain hidden reserves. The bank accounts directive, which introduced a special accounting regime for banks, was passed in 1986, and implemented in regulations in 1991. The regulations introduced a new schedule 9 into the Companies Act, setting out requirements for the form and content of the accounts of banks and banking groups.
    The European Community's insurance accounts directive follows the partner bank accounts directive in applying a number of provisions in the fourth and seventh directives to the accounts of insurance undertakings, while containing a number of provisions specific to insurance companies. The Companies Act (Insurance Companies Accounts) Regulations 1993, in implementing the insurance accounts directive into the United Kingdom, will bring the level of disclosure of insurance companies accounts into line with others in Europe, and with those of ordinary companies.

    1221
    It is important to recognise that there are considerable differences in detail which arise because of the particular nature insurance business. The Companies Act (Insurance Companies Accounts) Regulations 1993 amended the Companies Act 1985 by inserting a new schedule 9(a) to implement the EC directive on the accounts of insurance undertakings which was adopted in December 1991. The equivalent schedule for Northern Ireland was inserted by the Companies (1986 Order) (Insurance Companies Accounts) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1994.
    The regulations are primarily concerned with the presentation and content of the annual reports and accounts of insurance companies to their shareholders or members. They also deal with the consolidation of the accounts of insurance groups and the distinct regulatory returns which such a company makes to the Department of Trade and Industry in compliance with its obligations under the Insurance Companies Act 1982. The 1993 regulations require considerable disclosure of information, and the standard formats for the balance sheet and profit and loss account are prescribed.
    Detailed rules concerning accounting treatments, the valuation of certain types of asset and liability and the specification of the matters are to be disclosed in the notes to the accounts. The provisions of the 1993 regulations are mandatory for the accounts of insurance companies and groups for the financial years commencing on or after 23 December 1994. Insurance companies, in their accounts for this year until 31 December 1995, will thus be required to follow the regulations and to restate their 1994 results as comparatives.
    The insurance accounts directive contains a number of member state options. In drafting the 1993 regulations, the Government's approach was to seek to permit as much reasonable flexibility as possible within a general framework provided by the directive. That was very much welcomed by the insurance industry, as, in trying to anticipate the future, the 1993 regulations might not give the required guidance in respect of all types of equalisation reserve.
    During consideration of the Insurance Companies (Reserves) Bill, it became apparent that the regulations would have to be amended to accommodate reserves that might be created under the new section 34(a) of the Insurance Companies Act 1982, as the 1993 regulations only covered the treatment of the reporting of credit equalisation reserves. Since that was the only form of statutory equalisation reserve contemplated at that time, it was thought to be sufficient. However, the consequential amendments to be made by the Lords amendments needed to ensure that schedule 9(a) continues to implement the directive's requirement concerning the treatment of equalisation reserves in the accounts.
    Under article 31 of the directive, an equalisation reserve, which a company is required to maintain whether by law or by administrative requirement, must be shown in the balance sheet as a technical provision under the liabilities of item C.S. At present, there is only one type of equalisation reserve which UK insurance companies are required to maintain—the credit insurance equalisation reserve—and the provisions governing this reserve are now contained in regulations 76 to 78 of and schedule 14 to the Insurance Companies Regulations
    1222
    1994, which is SI 1516. Consequently, only such reserves are required to be shown under the liabilities in item C.5 in schedule 9(a) of a balance sheet.
    Subsection (2) of Lords amendment No. 1 amends the notes to the balance sheet format to require that reserves required to be maintained by a company under section 34(a) of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 also need to be shown under this balance sheet caption. Although it is a technical matter, it is important.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for interrupting his technical analysis of the legislation. Am I right in thinking that some, perhaps in the accountancy profession, have argued that as what is involved here is a reserve and not a liability, item C.5 might not be the appropriate place for equalisation reserves to be disclosed in the balance sheet?
    11 am
    Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend raises an important concern. I propose to deal with some of the concerns that the accountancy profession has expressed a little later in my remarks. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that it is now understood that the Accounting Standards Board, following discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry, has agreed a position. Perhaps we shall hear a little more about that from my hon. Friend the Minister. I shall deal with the matter later if my hon. Friend will allow me.
    Subsection (3) of the new clause which amendment 1 seeks to insert amends paragraph 50 of schedule 9A in accordance with the requirements of article 62 of the directive to provide that the amount of equalisation reserves maintained under section 34A of the 1982 Act be determined in accordance with regulations made under that section. The word "determined" has been substituted for the word "value" on the basis that it more accurately reflects the requirement to maintain reserves. That is believed to be equally consistent with the terms of article 62 of the insurance accounts directive, which provides that member states which require equalisation reserves shall prescribe the valuation rules to be applied to those reserves.
    No amendment is required in respect of the profit and loss account format, because the existing wording refers to
    "change in the equalisation provision",
    which will cover all such provisions that are required to be maintained.
    On the matter of matching the returns to the Department of Trade and Industry and shareholder accounts, the amendments will also have the benefit of keeping treatment of equalisation reserves in the returns to the regulator, the DTI and the accounts to shareholders on a similar basis. Although the two reports are prepared on a different basis in some respects, it is helpful to keep the formats broadly similar. The amendment achieves that.
    Companies will in future in periods covered by the insurance accounts directive, namely, financial years commencing on or after 23 December 1994, in their annual returns to the DTI be expected to differentiate between statutory and non-statutory equalisation reserves in line with the provisions of article 30 of the insurance accounts directive.

    1223
    The issue of whether accounts show a true and fair picture is extremely important to the accountancy profession. I am very much aware that a view has been expressed in the profession that this accounting treatment of equalisation reserves might not be desirable because it shows an item which, in the view of some members of the accountancy profession, is a reserve, as a liability since it relates to future claims. I respond to that in two ways. This point perhaps deals with the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth).
    First, as I have explained, this treatment is embodied in European law. It is the way in which many European states have accounted for equalisation reserves. There was a clear majority for including that treatment in the insurance accounts directive. Therefore, the UK has no option but to follow that treatment. It accepted the principle when it adopted the treatment for credit equalisation reserves.
    Secondly, however, I see a distinction between equalisation reserves and other reserves. Their levels are set such that, having regard to previous volatility in the areas of business covered, it is foreseeable that those continuing in these lines are encounter liabilities in the form of exceptional levels of claims for which they will need their equalisation reserves.
    The House will recall from the very able presentation at an earlier stage in the Bill's proceedings by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North that the whole purpose of equalisation reserves is to deal with the particular extraordinary liabilities of massive environmental and other disasters. That is the crucial matter not only in the Bill but in the amendments.
    I know that discussions are continuing within the insurance industry and the accounting profession. I am confident that there will be final agreement on the way in which equalisation reserves should be disclosed in the accounts of UK insurance companies, to comply with the law and with the accountancy profession's desire that what is disclosed is, as far as possible, in accordance with the generally accepted accounting practice of the UK accounting profession as regards a true and fair view. That is clearly extremely important.
    As for the single market, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North explained most ably on Second Reading, the industry is convinced that equalisation reserves have an important, indeed crucial, part to play in ensuring the success of insurance companies in competing with others based in a single insurance market within Europe and in the world markets, where UK companies compete head on with their European rivals. If one examines the amount of premium income from some of the European companies such as Allianz in Germany and UAP in France, one sees that it is crucial that UK insurance companies, which have a massive opportunity in the world insurance market, should be able to compete in an even way with their European rivals.
    The insurance accounts directive is a key part of the EC single market programme which the Government have so strongly and rightly supported. It plays an important role in opening up the EC insurance market by improving the comparability and transparency of insurance companies' accounts throughout the EU. It is complementary to the third life and non-life insurance directives, which provide the legislative framework for the single market in insurance products. A significant part
    1224
    of the directive's purpose is to improve the comparability of the accounts of insurance companies and groups throughout the EU by providing a measure of harmonisation of their form and content. That is an important part of the development of—to use the notorious but important phrase—a level playing field in insurance.
    The amendment plays a key part in the Bill's objective of assisting the competitiveness of the UK insurance industry with its European counterparts in both the European and world markets. Many policy holders and their advisers choose an insurance company at least in part on the strength of its position as shown in its accounts. The amendment ensures that those preparing and using insurance company accounts will know clearly how equalisation reserves set up as a result of regulations made under the Bill are reported.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words on this excellent Bill. I should like to preface my remarks by complimenting my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), now Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, on having.the inspiration to introduce the Bill and on taking it so ably through the House as far as he was competent to do so. I also congratulate him on his elevation to ministerial rank. The House will appreciate the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) has undertaken since taking up this worthwhile cause.
    We were talking earlier about the Olympics and the world of sport. The world of insurance seems a far cry from the glamorous world of the Olympics. I mean no disrespect to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South when I say that, but these are technical matters which are likely to remain opaque to most members of the public. They are none the less important matters. Many of us have our ups and downs with the insurance industry. I certainly have. It is not one of my favourite things to have to deal with. One puts in a great deal of money and gets it back only when something unpleasant happens. The industry has a difficult public relations exercise to conduct.
    None the less, insurance is one of our most important industries. In London alone, it employs about 60,000, people and the non-life side of the business, which is the side that is likely to benefit from this legislation, involves premium income of about £12 billion a year. It is a major and successful part of British industry, one of the keys to the success of the City of London, which is so important to the economy of the nation as a whole, and a substantial employer.
    The industry has come under a lot of pressure, however, in recent years. Obviously that was partly due to recessionary factors, increased competition and the string of almost unprecedented natural disasters—earthquakes, storms, hurricanes, typhoons, the Piper Alpha disaster and so forth. It is in establishing a better way to provide for that sort of eventuality that the claims equalisation reserves will be so helpful.
    United Kingdom insurance companies have been subject to a competitive disadvantage because they have not had tax relief on setting up equalisation reserves to smooth the peaks and the troughs of the insurance business when such disasters strike. On Second Reading, it was clearly established that, while there is no call on the Exchequer in establishing the reliefs envisaged in the

    1225
    Bill, there will be a significant economic and commercial benefit to the insurance world, and I sincerely hope also to the customer. Every year, the premiums that we are asked to pay seem to rise inexorably. The establishment of equalisation reserves could smooth things out and reduce the need for these apparently inevitable hikes in the premiums, which will be a very good thing.
    The Bill is simply an enabling measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North published a consultation document, which I hope will receive wide attention. I also hope that, following today's debate, he will be able to move swiftly forward with detailed regulations to implement what is envisaged in the Bill.
    The amendments that the other place has wisely put before this House are very welcome, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South said. The enormous technicality of whether liabilities item C.5 is the appropriate place for the reserves to be, I leave to accountancy professionals, to whom these things mean something. I am told, however, that the amendments will require companies to show all the equalisation reserves that they are required to maintain under the item, which will create the clarity and consistency that are so important to those who use the accounts of insurance companies and study such matters.
    There is also the European dimension. There is not much point in setting out procedures to establish a more level playing field with our European competitors, if the accountancy treatment of the claims equalisation reserves is not consistent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South said, the amendments help to place our insurance industry on a more equal footing with its European competitors, which have successfully increased their market share in London in recent years.
    Although the Bill may appear dry, academic and technical, it has a great deal to do with promoting and securing the success of one of our most important industries and is, therefore, welcome, as are the amendments. I sincerely hope that the Bill will be successful and that my hon. Friend the Minister will be swift in implementing legislation to bring this important competitive advantage to one of our most distinguished and successful industries.
    Mr. Alistair Darling: We support the Bill and the amendments and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) for having set out the background and drawn our attention to many interesting points to which the Minister will no doubt reply and on which I see no need to comment.
    It would also be right to draw the attention of the House to the efforts of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald). As those of us who have engaged in the lottery of the private Member's Bill procedure to introduce legislation that has all-party support know, it takes a lot of time. It is remarkable how Bills that have all-party support tend to be held up much more than those that are contentious. The hon. Gentleman deserves credit and his efforts have clearly been noted by the Whips and his leader as he has been promoted to greater things.
    11.15 am
    We should also be grateful to the other place, which, as we have come to expect, has amended and improved
    1226
    the Bill. It is worth reflecting on the fact that many private Member's Bills are substantially improved and tightened up in the other place, which deserves credit for that.
    I raised the need for such a provision during the passage of the 1993 Finance Bill. Although I am sorry that the Government were not able to find Government time for the legislation, we now have a measure which will hopefully receive Royal Assent shortly and which, as the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) said, will greatly benefit the insurance industry, particularly as it finds itself in increasing competition with insurance companies based in other parts of the European Union. Most other member states have such provisions, which gives them a competitive advantage.
    There is no doubt, either in the industry or in the House, that this measure is a great advantage to the industry. All of us want the United Kingdom insurance industry to compete well within the EU and other parts of the world, which it is doing. Other measures will, of course, be necessary to help, but the Bill is very welcome.
    I have two questions of which I gave the Minister some prior notice at least an hour or so ago and I will put them on record so that I can get a Government response. I appreciate that the Minister represents the Department of Trade and Industry rather than the Treasury, but I think that I may properly ask him when the Government will say whether tax relief is to be given or what measure of it is to be given to the reserve funds. One of his colleagues in the other place said that the Government would at some stage indicate its tax policy and reference was made to a statement by the former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who said that the Government were considering tax relief for an acceptable scheme. It might be helpful if the Minister told us what stage those considerations have reached. I appreciate the fact that that may properly be a matter for the Chancellor's budget statement, but it would help the industry and the House if the Minister said how far the Inland Revenue has got.
    To some extent, the question of tax relief begs the question as to what the regulations will be. Without that detail it is difficult to see on what basis there would be tax relief. One point that is worth drawing out is that, when the matter was first raised and a former Financial Secretary to the Treasury—now Secretary of State for Health—made a statement of the Government's intent, it was said that the matter was to be tax-neutral. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that that is the case, if he is in a position to do so.
    Another obvious question is, where have we got with the regulations to be made under the Bill? The DTI has produced a consultation paper, to which the industry and others have no doubt been responding.
    For the Bill to work there must be regulations and it is in the interests of all concerned that those regulations are brought before the House at the earliest opportunity. I saw in the DTI consultation paper that it was thought that those regulations would come into effect in December 1995. Given that the House is about to rise for the long summer recess and will not return until the middle of October, time is getting tight. So I assume that the regulations are at an advanced stage or that those in the DTI and possibly the Treasury will work throughout the summer to lay the regulations before the House when we return. Although that is conceivable, will the Minister let us know the position?

    1227
    It would be helpful if the Minister gave a specific response on those two matters. He may also wish to respond to the other matters that have been raised but I do not intend to refer to them because that would be unnecessarily repetitive, among other things. I conclude by reaffirming our support for this measure. I hope that it will receive Royal Assent at the earliest opportunity, which will be of great benefit not just to the insurance industry and all those who work in it but to the country as a whole.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): First, I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) for his remarks. He is absolutely right to say that in 1993 he first identified the demand on the part of the British insurance industry for equalisation reserves to be granted tax relief, not least to help our insurance companies in the non-life sector to compete with companies on the continent, which are currently given tax relief.
    I was grateful for the remarks made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who led for the Opposition when the Bill was considered on Second Reading. I should also express a measure of sympathy with the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central and for Middlesbrough, in that, although they both understood the Bill's importance for the British insurance industry and the fact that it had wide all-party support in the House, they and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), now Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, went through the difficulty of trying to persuade some hon. Members in the new Labour party of the importance of this measure.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I was present during the Second Reading debate armed with what I regarded as a finely honed speech, which was never delivered because sadly some Opposition Members were determined to be so voluble as to impede the Bill's progress. I remind my hon. Friend that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said that the Bill
    "is all about arranging things in favour of the bosses of the insurance companies so that they can get increased directors' pay and all the rest of it."—[Official Report, 27 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 651.]
    My hon. Friend might like to comment on that assertion.
    Mr. Evans: I do not intend to detain the House with too much comment in that direction because in a way it would be unfair to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, who has always supported this measure. Although the Bill has had widespread all-party support, I recognise that there have been difficulties and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the efforts that he, at least, has made to persuade those in his party of the merits of the argument. He knew that the Bill was of great importance to the insurance industry.
    Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the Minister for his kind comments and for letting me intervene. As people outside the House follow our proceedings, I should draw attention to the fact that part of the difficulty in relation to this Bill and others was that it was caught up in the controversy about the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which I note has been set down for today's business. That fact, and everything that the public and the House know about how the Government dealt with that Bill, led to unfortunate delays on this measure and others. With due
    1228
    respect to the Minister, it might be an idea to get on with discussing this Bill rather than engaging in a political dogfight, which I am happy to have but which would not be particularly productive on a day such as this.
    Mr. Evans: I had intended to move on with the Bill in hand. The only thing that prevented me from doing so was my generosity in giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
    I am grateful to those hon. Members who expressed their thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North for introducing this measure in the first place. At this stage, he cannot take the proceedings further because of his well deserved appointment to ministerial office, but we all recognise the efforts that he made in carrying the measure through. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) for taking on the Bill at this relatively late stage in the proceedings. I also thank the noble Earl Northesk, who demonstrated great competence and clarity when he presented the Bill in another place.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South has mastered the details of the Bill quickly and presented the Lords amendments before the House skilfully and persuasively. They are technical matters but they are also very important. This debate has been valuable and thoughtful. I join those hon. Members who have welcomed my hon. Friend's efforts and endeavours for the manner in which they spoke to the amendments today and the efficient organisation that has enabled the Bill to reach its final stages in the House.
    May I express my delight that other hon. Members have referred to the role played by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) in his position as chairman of the all-party group on insurance, who has promoted this idea with vigour equal to that of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) who was present throughout Second Reading and is a sponsor of the Bill.
    In dealing briefly with the Lords amendments, I take the opportunity to clarify the Government's position on the points that have been raised by the Accounting Standards Board. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East referred specifically to the concerns outlined by the board and others on the accounting treatment of equalisation reserves. This matter has been discussed with the Accounting Standards Board and the Association of British Insurers. Under the insurance accounts directive, equalisation reserves are required to be shown as liabilities in published accounts. The amendments introduced by the noble Earl Northesk in another place give effect to that part of the directive for any equalisation reserves that might be created using new section 34A of the Insurance Companies Act 1982, which is inserted by the Bill.
    The Government recognise that that treatment would not normally apply under generally accepted accounting principles in the United Kingdom. Equalisation reserves represent amounts set aside to meet potential future obligations. Such amounts would normally be treated as reserves rather than liabilities in a company's accounts. We have received representations from the Accounting Standards Board and others that there should be adequate disclosure in the accounts to enable someone reading the accounts to understand the nature of the equalisation reserve, and that the treatment of equalisation reserves required by the insurance accounts directive should not be permitted to weaken the "true and fair" concept that applies to company accounts generally.

    1229
    On the first point, I understand that the Accounting Standards Board and the Association of British Insurers are discussing how adequate disclosure can be achieved, and that there are good prospects for agreeing guidance to companies on that issue. We fully support that. On the second point, the Government have strongly supported the extension of "true and fair" reporting to the insurance sector via the insurance accounts directive.
    Save in exceptional circumstances, such as those that apply to equalisation reserves, insurance companies are legally obliged to follow the true and fair requirement as it applies generally. Like other companies, they are expected to comply with applicable accounting standards. We do not believe that the treatment of equalisation reserves has any wider implications for the interpretation or meaning of the "true and fair" view which all company accounts are required to give, either in relation to other aspects of the insurance business or for companies more generally.
    Having dealt with those matters which are directly related to the amendments before the House, I will now respond briefly to the points raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. He will be aware that this measure is necessary because it is a preliminary step that must be in place to ensure that tax relief can subsequently be made available for equalisation reserves.
    11.30 am
    That is a twofold process. The first part of the process is for us to have legislation in place. The second part much involves Treasury Ministers. It is for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he comes to make his Budget statement, to make any statement that may be necessary about the tax treatment of the reserves that we are discussing. The Government have made it clear throughout the passage of the Bill that they are not in a position at this stage to give any commitment on what the position may be at the time of the Budget statement. The Bill is important because it is vital to ensure that a statutory vehicle is available as and when tax relief may be agreed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central talked about the period of consultation on draft regulations. The hon. Gentleman will know—he has seen the consultation paper—that there has been widespread consultation. I understand that over the past few days the Department has received responses from the London Insurance and Reinsurance Market Association and the Association of British Insurers. We would hope to be in a position to publish draft regulations by about mid-September. Thereafter the regulations will be laid as and when any concession may be made on the tax treatment of the reserves. It would be inappropriate to lay any such regulations unless subsequently there is a statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to the effect that such tax treatment will be made available.
    1230
    Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South for all his work on the Bill and congratulate him on his skill in explaining the amendments. I also offer my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North for his efforts in introducing the Bill when he was on the Back Benches. I am well aware that in the non-life sector the Bill is warmly welcomed by the insurance industry. The Government welcome it as well.
    Mr. Hawkins: I shall respond briefly to one or two of the points made in this short but important debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for what he has said about the agreement between the Accounting Standards Board and the Association of British Insurers. I thank also my hon. Friend's officials, who have clearly been working extremely hard to ensure that the agreement between the board and the ABI can be referred to this morning.
    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) both for his perceptive interventions and remarks this morning and for being present throughout the earlier stages of the Bill's consideration. He was a sponsor of this important measure. It is a great shame that he did not have the opportunity to give the House the benefit of his fuller remarks on Second Reading. We have had an indication this morning of the interest that he takes in these matters. Perhaps there will be other occasions when insurance matters come before the House, when we will be able to hear my hon. Friend at greater length.
    I look forward to the future discussions between the Accounting Standards Board and the ABI. I am as confident as my hon. Friend the Minister that an agreed view will be reached. I look forward also to seeing the results of the consultation process. Important issues are dealt with in an extremely detailed consultation paper that has been produced by the Department. I do not intend to detain the House by referring to those issues. I welcome the fact that some of the most important bodies such as the London Insurance and Reinsurance Market Association and the ABI have already made submissions in response to the consultation paper. I hope that many other bodies and companies will do so. It is crucial that United Kingdom insurance companies should benefit from this legislation to enable them to compete adequately in the rest of the world with European insurance companies.
    I welcome the contributions that have been made in this short debate.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: We now come to Lords amendment No. 2, which will be moved formally.
    Mr. Hawkins: Rather than moving it formally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to say a few words.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not possible. As Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 were grouped together, any remarks about amendment No. 2 should have been made when amendment No. 1 was being discussed. It is now too late.
    Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

  National Health Service (Amendment) Bill
  Lords amendment considered.
  Clause 14

    SHORT TITLE, ETC.
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 11, line 12, after ("2") insert (",3").
    11.34 am
    Mr. John Austin-Walker rose—
    Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I raise this matter while my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs is still in the Chamber. Is he to make a statement about the marvellous news in the west midlands—I have the privilege to be a west midlands Member—that £80 million of intervention funding is to be made available by the Department of Trade and Industry? We are seeing a £400 million investment of private money from the Jaguar motor company, some—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Member to raise a point of order simply to make observations. The matter is concluded.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Hon. Members will remember that the Bill received all-party support during each stage of its passage through the House, for very good reasons. It was understood that the Bill was concerned with the protection of national health service patients. The same was true in the other place. There has been all-party agreement on the Bill's principles and scope. I wish to reassure hon. Members immediately that the amendment does not alter those principles or scope.
    The amendment was introduced in the other place by the Government. It received cross-party support. It deals with a technicality. It clears up a difficulty in the drafting of the Bill, and relates to the timing of the commencement of the Bill, when enacted, in relation to the coming into force of the Health Authorities Act 1995.
    The Bill rightly refers to "health authorities". It refers to the new authorities that will come into existence on 1 April 1996 when the Health Authorities Act comes into force. Family health services authorities are not health authorities within the meaning of the National Health Service Act 1977. To allow the provisions of the Bill to apply to family health services authorities before April 1996, provision had to be made for reference to health authorities to be read as references to family health services authorities. Clause 14(5) provides that where clauses 2 and 6, which set out the arrangements for the suspension of practitioners and for the constitution of the tribunal, refer to a health authority, that means a family health services authority until 1 April 1996.
    Regrettably, clause 14 omitted an additional reference to a health authority. The additional reference is contained in clause 3. One of the effects of clause 3 is to bring tribunals into line by removing practitioners' right of appeal to the Secretary of State against directions of the NHS tribunal. Such appeals will be made to the High Court on a point of law. Perhaps most importantly, the
    1232
    clause provides health authorities with the power to implement tribunal directions that practitioners should be disqualified. That is the central point of the Bill.
    If clause 3 had remained unamended, tribunal directions to disqualify practitioners between the date of commencement of this measure and 1 April 1996 would be meaningless. They could not be put into effect by family health services authorities. By bringing clause 3 into the ambit of clause 14(5), the problem will be overcome.
    I believe that it would have been possible technically to delay the implementation of clause 3 until after the Health Authorities Act came into force. I discussed that possibility with the Department and with officials of the NHS executive. However, the Government concluded that it was preferable to table the amendment to preserve the Bill's intentions. I agree with that view and I am happy to accept the amendment.
    As I said on Second Reading, I presented the Bill in the light of the experience of some of my constituents because I believed that their safety was placed at risk by the existing arrangements. I raised those matters with the Minister of State. He and I normally exchange angry views across the Chamber but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), will convey my thanks to the Minister of State for his positive response to me. I also thank Baroness Gardner of Parkes for taking the Bill through the Lords, the officials in the Department of Health and especially those in the national health service executive for their assistance. The amendment is small but important. I commend it to the House and hope that hon. Members will give the Bill final approval.
    Mr. Paul Boateng: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell), who speaks for the Opposition on these matters and is unavoidably detained by a long-standing constituency commitment, I welcome the amendment, whose intentions have been explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker). The House and the millions of national health service patients who will benefit from the Bill owe him a debt of gratitude. He has done the House, his constituents and the nation a great service by introducing this much needed and extremely helpful measure. We are happy to do all that we can to speed it on its way.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who is standing in for his hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell), for his endorsement of the Bill and the amendment. I am sure that he will forgive me if I express even more gratitude to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) who has steered the Bill through the House and spoken to the amendment. I am grateful to him for the gracious way in which he spoke about my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I shall certainly pass on his message of a ceasefire, or perhaps a temporary ceasefire. That will be treasured by my hon. Friend who, I am sure, will read Hansard in bed tonight with a little glow of pleasure.
    Mr. Boateng: If that is all he gets pleasure from I feel sorry for him.
    Mr. Bowis: I do not think we should follow the hon. Member for Brent, South down his pleasure routes.

    1233
    I am also happy to accept thanks to Baroness Gardner of Parkes and to the officials in my Department and in the NHS executive. I am sure that they will be appreciated.
    As the hon. Member for Woolwich said, the amendment seeks to correct an anomaly that would arise if clause 3 were not brought under the scope of clause 14(5). The Bill has the Government's full support and I am pleased, or fairly pleased, to be here to take it through what I hope will be its final stage before Royal Assent. I had the pleasure of dealing with the Bill in its earlier stages and it went to the other place with the Government's blessing.
    At first sight the Bill's subject matter seems somewhat arcane. The National Health Service Tribunal is perhaps not much in the public eye. The hon. Member for Woolwich spoke about his personal experiences and about the tribunal's important function. It is a quasi-judicial body which considers representations from family health service authorities that individual practitioners should be removed from authorities' medical, dental, pharmaceutical and optology lists. Doctors, dentists, pharmacists and ophthalmists may provide family health services as unrestricted principal practitioners only if they are included in such a list. The NHS tribunal is the only body with the power to remove them from a list and thus from general practice.
    As the House would expect, the tribunal's powers are rarely invoked and only in extremely serious cases where a practitioner's conduct or practice is such that the family health services authority feels that the provision of services is in jeopardy. The tribunal is asked to consider only about five or six cases a year, but they involve circumstances, about which the hon. Member for Woolwich spoke at an earlier stage in the Bill's progress, where patient care may have been compromised either directly, because the practitioner poses a physical threat to his patient, or indirectly, because the standard of care that he provides falls far short of that which the NHS, patients and the House have a right to expect.
    11.45 am
    In cases where the tribunal considers an authority's concerns to be justified, it may order the removal of a practitioner's name from the appropriate list and may even prevent its inclusion in similar lists that are held by other authorities. I pay tribute, as I am sure does the hon. Member for Woolwich, to the tribunal's chairman, Adrian Whitfield QC, for the assiduous way in which he and his colleagues perform their functions.
    The tribunal has far-reaching powers but the Bill is valuable because the workings of the tribunal could be streamlined in several ways. It is valuable most of all because there is a serious gap in the tribunal's available powers. The Bill allows for the appointment of a permanent deputy chairman, lay members and a wide pool of professional members. That would better equip the tribunal to carry out its functions with the required speed.
    The Bill will enable the NHS tribunal to declare that disqualified practitioners should not be allowed to work in the family health service as locums, assistants or deputies to principal practitioners. At present no such restrictions are available to the tribunal, even when it feels
    1234
    that it would be wholly inappropriate for a disqualified practitioner to provide services as a locum, assistant or deputy. The Bill will plug that loophole.
    The measure removes a practitioner's right of appeal to the Secretary of State for Health but will leave in place the right of appeal that is provided by the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 to the High Court on a point of law. The Franks committee recommended that appeals from decisions of all tribunals should he made to a court. The provision brings the NHS tribunal into line with good tribunal practice. Most importantly, the Bill will provide the tribunal with a power to suspend practitioners from providing family health services in wholly exceptional circumstances so as to protect patients.
    The family health services authorities, which make representations to the tribunal, said that the continued inclusion of a practitioner's name in one of their lists would be detrimental to the provision of services in their areas. They will be able to ask the tribunal to suspend that practitioner from duty with immediate effect where it is felt that that is vital to protect patients. If granted, that order would remain in force until a tribunal was able to hear in full the representations made against the practitioner in question.
    Some hon. Members may have thought that the power that I have outlined already exists. Of course it does for practitioners who are employed in hospital and community services. That is why, in the topical case of Dr. Kiberu, such steps were possible. But the key word is "employed". Family health services practitioners are not NHS employees. They hold a contract of service with the NHS and are regulated by family health services authorities. Their contracts of service do not contain a clause allowing for suspension or disqualification from practice, nor can the powers that are available to the professional regulatory bodies, which in any case are to protect professional standards, assist in the immediate removal of practitioners from family health services authorities' lists.
    At present there is no means by which a practitioner can be removed from practice immediately, even when that appears to be essential to protect patients. It is plain that the NHS needs power to do that, although from what I have said about the rarity of tribunal hearings the House may appreciate that we do not expect the power of suspension to be used often. However, such cases arise when the conduct or practice of a practitioner may be such that fears are raised for the safety of his patients. In such cases, the NHS needs to be able to act quickly to secure above all else patient safety.
    That is why the NHS is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing the Bill forward. The amendment does not alter the substance of what the Bill seeks to achieve. It is the substance of the Bill and the purpose of the NHS tribunal that the amendment protects. As the hon. Gentleman said, we foresaw real difficulties if the scope of subsection 14(5) was not extended by an amendment to cover clause 3. As the hon. Gentleman has described, clause 3 removes the arrangements under which practitioners may appeal to the Secretary of State for Health against decisions to disqualify them. It goes on to provide health authorities with the power to implement tribunal directions that practitioners should he disqualified.

    1235
    New health authorities will not be established until 1 April 1996. Therefore, without the amendment, family health services authorities would not be able to carry out directions of the national health service tribunal to disqualify practitioners. It follows that such directions made before 1 April 1996 would have been meaningless. Only the most serious cases are referred to the NHS tribunal. The hon. Gentleman brought this Bill before the House with patient safety at the forefront of his mind. I recall the eloquence with which he cited a case in his constituency where patients had, at the very least, been put at serious risk.
    Clearly it would be nonsense if NHS tribunal directions to disqualify practitioners could not be implemented for however short a period as a result of a technicality. Bringing clause 3 under the scope of subsection 14(5) will put that right. It is simple and will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's intention in introducing the Bill and the House's earlier understanding of its provisions are preserved, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for piloting this amendment and the Bill through the House. I hope that the House will view it as favourably as it has the Bill and that hon. Members will allow the Bill to complete its final stage, coupled with thanks to the hon. Gentleman.
    Lords amendment agreed to.

    Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Bill
    Lords amendments considered.
  Clause 1

    TENANCIES TO WHICH THE ACT APPLIES
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 6, after ("Sections") and insert
    ("(Transmission of benefit and burden of covenants), (Transmission of rights of re-entry),")
    11.52 am
    Mr. Peter Thurnham: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 10, 11, 16, 23, 28 to 30, 39, 61, 62, 74 and 88.
    Mr. Thurnham: Today is a day that has been looked forward to by many tens of thousands of small business men and shopkeepers up and down the country, who long to be free of the worry of landlords pursuing them many years after they have vacated their premises.
    I give thanks to my noble Friends the Earls of Courtown and of Northesk, who assumed stewardship of the Bill in another place. My noble Friend the Earl of Courtown introduced the Bill so successfully that he was quickly promoted to the Whips Office, leaving the Bill to be ably carried through by my noble Friend the Earl of Northesk, who also helped with another Bill that we have already debated today.
    I am immensely indebted to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor who has been so instrumental in introducing the 89 amendments to my Bill, all of them useful and many crucial to the Bill's success. I hope that the amendments will commend themselves to the House.
    I thank the Law Commission and parliamentary counsel for their enormous assistance, without which the Bill would certainly be a much less effective reform and would probably not have been able to progress this far. I am immensely grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for the excellent and inestimable work that he and his Department have done in securing agreement and in helping Bill on its way.
    Finally, I thank the British Retail Consortium, which sponsored the Bill, and with its legal advisers, and the British Property Federation for all that it did in working out the package of additional changes that enabled the Bill to proceed on the basis of agreement and support on all sides, without which, as the private Member's Bill not drawn in the ballot, it could never have got off the ground.
    When the Bill was last before the House, on 21 April, I expressed delight that it had got as far as Third Reading and I am overjoyed that we are now in the final stages of a difficult, but immensely valuable undertaking. The reforms that it will enact will benefit all sorts of tenants by removing the spectre of privity of contract liability from new tenancies, and will also introduce changes to help tenants under existing tenancies, changes for which tenants have been crying out for a long time. They will also provide for new tenancies a sensible and balanced

    1237
    modification that will provide the property industry with the necessary control over investment to maintain market confidence, without the need for harsh restrictions.
    The House would be assisted by an overview. Although the number and complexity of the amendments may appear daunting, none of them affects the policy aims of Bill which the House agreed earlier this year. The amendments will ensure that those aims are effectively met. Hon. Members will recall that the Bill proceeded in the House on the clear basis that changes would be incorporated in another place and the purpose of many of the amendments is specifically to make the necessary provision for those changes.
    I shall stick closely to my notes because I appreciate that what is reported in Hansard can be referred to later by the courts. As was explained in the other place, the amendments fall into two categories. The first category comprises amendments that are necessary to give affect to the various elements of the agreed package put forward by the British Retail Consortium and the British Property Federation and accepted by the Government after consultation. Those amendments were tabled by my noble Friend the Earl of Courtown. The second category comprises amendments that are necessary to ensure that the Bill is complete and that it gives full effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission, which, it should be remembered, are at the heart of the reforms. Those amendments, many of which are technical, were tabled by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. Amendment No. 1 and the others with which it is particularly linked fall into that second category.
    Clause 1 makes it clear that certain provisions are to apply only to new tenancies and that others are to apply to both new and existing tenancies. Subsection (1), which amendment No. 1 alters, lists the provisions that are to apply only to new tenancies. The change is necessary because a number of extra provisions are needed to carry through effectively the Law Commission's recommendations and it is accordingly necessary to add them to the list, which amendment No. 1 does.
    Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 30, 61, 62 and 88 in particular, together with amendments Nos. 23 and 28 and 29, which make provision for certain special cases, are aimed at ensuring that the Law Commission scheme, which the Government accepted for new leases, will work effectively in practice and are accordingly very detailed. I shall explain the framework and I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister will be better placed than me to clothe that framework with greater detail if necessary.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: Perhaps my hon. Friend or my hon. Friend the Minister will comment specifically on amendment No. 10 and in particular on the idea both in subsection (2) and in subsection (3) that the concept of covenants is void unless "immediately before the assignment" was specified. I have had a case in my constituency where negotiations have been protracted and in many ways took place in two specific parts. Will my hon. Friend or the Minister clarify exactly what is meant by "immediate"? Would it have to be just before the assignment and just before the tenancy, or earlier in the negotiations, and if so, what is the limit?
    Mr. Thurnham: I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's point. Nearly every right hon. and hon. Member
    1238
    in the House has had constituents' cases that have given them concern. I am coming on to further detail on amendment No. 10. If those points do not cover my hon. Friend's question, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will he able to cover his point.
    This important group of amendments is necessary to avoid potential problems arising from the interface of the new regime with existing law governing the transmission of benefit and burden of covenants and their enforcement under privity of estate, which is contained in a unsatisfactory mixture of statutory provisions and common law rules. The amendments will provide a proper framework for new tenancies in the Bill rather than attempting the extremely difficult task of amending existing law consequentially.
    Amendment No. 10 introduces a new clause that sets out the basic principle for the transmission of the benefit and burden of covenants for new tenancies. It includes provision originally contained in clause 7, which is accordingly deleted, and certain parts of sections 78 and 79 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which are to be preserved for tenancies—those sections not being affected otherwise than in relation to tenancies. Together with the new clause introduced by amendment No. 11, it also replaces sections 141 and 142 of the 1925 Act, which will accordingly not apply to new tenancies. Amendment No. 88 does the job of disapplying these statutory provisions in the case of new tenancies.
    12 noon
    The basic principles of the Law Commission's scheme, contained in subsection (1) of the new clause introduced by amendment No. 10, is that the benefit and burden of all landlord and tenant covenants of a new tenancy are annexed to the whole and to each and every part of the lease and reversion as appropriate and shall pass on an assignment of the whole or any part. There is, as the Law Commission recommended, no distinction between covenants which touch and concern the land and those that do not. The annexation to each and every part ensures that, in the case of an assignment in parts, all covenants are enforceable by and against each of the assignees.
    The assignee of a lease or reversion respectively will be bound by the burdens and entitled to the benefits of the covenants, except where they did not bind the assignor—for example, because the covenant was limited in duration or the assignor had been released from it. Where only part of the interest is assigned, the assignee will be bound by the burdens and entitled to the benefits of the covenants only to the extent that they relate to the part assigned to him. There is a saving for cases where the assignor was not bound when he assigned only because of a waiver that was expressly personal and was not intended to benefit anyone else. In such cases, it will be appropriate for the assignee to be bound by the covenant in question. There is also a saving to enable the parties to a lease to provide expressly for covenants to be purely personal and for the benefit or burden not to pass on assignment, notwithstanding the basic principle above.
    The new clause introduced by amendment No. 11 reproduces for new leases the existing rules governing the transmission of the landlord's rights of re-entry under a tenancy, which would not otherwise fit into the framework for new leases, as they arc not landlord covenants or tenant covenants.

    1239
    Amendment No. 30 inserts a new clause which makes clear who may enforce the covenants benefiting either a landlord or a tenant under a new tenancy. Mortgagees of the reversion who are in possession and lessees of the reversion will, where they are entitled to rent and profits under the tenancy, be able to enforce and, as a corollary, have enforced against them the various rights and obligations of the landlord. Concomitantly, a mortgagee of the lease who is in possession will be able to enforce, and have enforced against him, the tenant's rights and obligations.
    Amendment No. 61 introduces a further new clause to provide for another element of the framework to give full effect to the Law Commission's recommendations. This new clause makes it clear that an assignee shall have no rights or liabilities under a covenant of the tenancy in relation to anything occurring before the assignment. The new clause makes a saving for cases where the assignor expressly assigns his accrued rights to the assignee, which may be convenient in some cases as part of the bargain for the assignment. It also preserves the present position in respect of the landlord's rights of re-entry.
    Amendment No. 62 ensures the completeness of clause 15, which makes provision for new leases concerning the effective release from any covenant occurring on assignment by virtue of the Act. Release on assignment will not affect any liability of the assignor for breach occurring before the assignment or any accrued rights of the assignor relating to a breach of the other party occurring before assignment. Where any person has taken on a liability parallel to that of the tenant, release on assignment to the tenant will release that person to the same extent.
    Amendment No. 62 covers the case where a landlord or tenant assigns the whole of his interest but is not released, making it clear that any such assignment does not affect any liability of the assignor arising before the assignment.
    Amendments Nos. 23, 28 and 29 provide—as I mentioned earlier—for the operation of the Law Commission's scheme in certain special cases. Amendments Nos. 23 and 29 cover the possibility that there may be another party to the tenancy other than the landlord and tenant—that is to say, a management company. Amendment No. 23 ensures that the procedure of clause 8 concerning apportionment of liability on assignment of part is available where it is a third party who is entitled to enforce the covenant in question. Amendment No. 29 introduces a new clause to make provision for the position of management companies in relation to the Law Commission's scheme, ensuring that the benefit and burden of covenants with management companies will pass and the provisions for releasing assignors and binding assignees will operate on assignments of the lease or reversion.
    Amendment No. 28 introduces a new clause to make effective provisions for cases where an assignment is not lawful or voluntary, but takes place in breach of a covenant against assignment or by operation of law, such as passing to personal representatives on death of the landlord or tenant.
    The Law Commission recommended that such assignments should not have effect to release the person parting with the interest from his rights and obligations under the lease, the possibility for misuse or unfairness to the other party being obvious. Such assignments should, however, as is the case at present, be fully effective to
    1240
    pass the estate and accordingly to bind the assignee. The assignor will be released only on the next assignment that is not an assignment in breach or by operation of law.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I want to start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on his Bill's progress into the final straight, which is in no small part due to his tireless efforts in holding to the essential principles of the reform, while facilitating and maintaining the reconciliation of conflicting interests whose clash prevented his earlier Bill from making progress. I also congratulate him on the determination and considerable persuasive skills that he has deployed in keeping this reform high on my agenda.
    Before I move on to add some detail to the framework of my hon. Friend's explanation and, I hope, to add to our understanding of the amendments, I must put on record my appreciation of the Law Commission's enormous contribution in getting the Bill to this stage. Commissioners, officials and parliamentary counsel at the Law Commission have all given unstintingly of their time and expertise in assisting with the amendments that we are now considering. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not take it amiss if I say that the result of that work is a vastly improved measure, which comes to the House with the support of all sides in another place and which is thoroughly deserving of similar support in this House.
    In order fully to understand the amendments and the way in which they fit into and enhance the Bill, it is necessary to have an overview of the scheme that the Law Commission has recommended and that is the underlying basis of this reform in relation to new tenancies. That scheme is full and detailed and, as a result, the amendments have also had to be full and detailed. Therefore, to proceed without a full explanation of the principal amendments would be to do the Bill and the House a disservice.
    The guiding principle of the Law Commission's scheme is that all covenants and obligations between lessor and lessee should be enforceable between the landlord and tenant for the time being, with no distinction being drawn between covenants which touch and concern the land and other covenants. Thus, when the landlord's or tenant's interest is assigned, the assignee should become bound from the assignment by the whole package of rights and obligations as it bound his predecessor, including any variations. The assignee should not, however, take on any rights or liabilities in respect of any breach of covenant occurring prior to the assignment.
    The corollary of this is that the assignor should cease to have any rights and obligations as from the assignment, but should not lose any accrued rights in respect of a breach by the other party prior to the assignment, and should likewise remain liable for any breach on his own part occurring prior to the assignment. The Law Commission did, however, recommend a difference in the position of landlords, which the Government accepted and which both Houses have agreed.
    A landlord under a new tenancy who assigns the reversion will be released by a simple notice procedure which gives the tenant the right to argue that it would be unreasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to be released, with the final decision lying with a court in the case of a dispute. That is because tenants have no way of vetting the landlord's assignee and preventing assignment

    1241
    to a weak or nominee assignee. The assignee's ability to perform the landlord's obligations might, in some cases, be very important.
    Where only part of the landlord's or tenant's interest is assigned, the assignee is to become bound by the package of rights and obligations only to the extent that it relates to the part assigned, and is not to take on any rights or liabilities in respect of any breach of covenant which occurred prior to the assignment. Once more, the corollary is that the assignor should cease to have prospective rights and obligations in respect of the part assigned, but should retain any accrued rights relating to that part, and should also remain liable for any breach of his own in relation to that part before assignment. The assignor is, of course, to remain bound by the package of rights and obligations to the extent that they relate to the part retained by him.
    Covenants do not always operate separately in respect of separate parts of the interest. In particular, covenants to pay money, such as rent or service charge, are commonly charged out of the whole of the property, and cannot, except in special circumstances, be identified as operating in respect of any one part or another. In the case of such an unattributable covenant, to use the Law Commission's term, the assignor will not be released from the covenant to any extent and will remain jointly liable with the assignor in respect of the whole of the property, albeit with the right of contribution between them.
    The answer in such a case is for the assignor and assignee to agree an apportionment of liability between them and the Bill makes special provision for making such apportionment binding on the other party to the lease. The Bill also makes detailed provision for defining and identifying unattributable covenants. The original draft was difficult to understand in that respect, and there are several amendments to make it clearer.
    That is the basic scheme which the original Bill set out to implement. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons including the fact that all sides were agreed that the changes could not have retrospective effect, the original draft fell a long way short of implementing the scheme effectively. There were a number of matters which were not addressed, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East said, many potential problems in the relationship of the new regime to the existing law concerning the transmission of the benefit and burden of covenants and their enforcement under privity of estate.
    12.15 pm
    The existing law is to be found not in one place but in a mixture of statutory provisions and common law rules, some of which date back to the 14th century. The law contains both gaps and duplication and has been criticised as being inconsistent, unclear or uncertain in several areas. Some amendment was vital for the Bill to be effective, and the choice was between leaving the existing law in place for new tenancies but undertaking consequential amendments or disapplying the existing law for new tenancies and amending the Bill to provide a complete and self-contained framework for new tenancies, giving full effect to the principles of the Law Commission's recommendations to replace the existing law. With the inestimable assistance of the Law Commission, the latter course has been chosen, so that, for new tenancies, the law will be found in one place.
    1242
    I hope that the measure as amended will enjoy the whole-hearted support of the House.
    Mr. Pickles: I apologise to my hon. Friend for interrupting his flow but I should like to return to the point I raised earlier. Given that the transmission of covenants is a serious matter and that negotiations can be protracted and, by their nature, can be abandoned and started up again, can he say exactly what is meant by "immediate"?
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend need not have feared that I would not address his point. I do not blame him for returning to it, because all too often Ministers at the Dispatch Box sit down without adequately discharging the inquiries of their hon. Friends. I would wish to discharge properly that of my hon. Friend.
    The use of the expression "immediately before" is meant to address the circumstances that actually prevailed at the time of the assignment. If I, in the next moment, effected an assignment of a lease from party to A to party B, the expression "immediately before" would define the circumstances as they prevailed at that instant. I am prepared to give way if I have not dealt with my hon. Friend's inquiry. If he remains sedentary, I shall assume that he is content.
    Mr. Pickles: I am content but I thank my hon. Friend for his courtesy.
    Mr. Taylor: I am grateful.
    Rather like my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East, I have rather stuck to my text today. In such a technical area, I am rather nervous of the case of Pepper. ?.Hart, recently decided by the Judicial Committee in the House of Lords, which suggests that in highly technical disputes such as those between landlord and tenant, lawyers may be scurrying for Hansard to read what hon. Members and Ministers said when a measure was being taken to the statute book. I have therefore been swayed by caution this morning and stuck to my text.
    I extemporise only to say that I should like to thank among others, and in no particular order, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) who is here and has been a faithful supporter of the measure through all its stages. I would like to place on record my appreciation and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East.
    I also note the contributions of various parties who have worked with great good faith and assiduity to bring the matter to the stage that we have reached—very close to the statute book. The British Property Federation and the British Retail Consortium have worked heroically to close gaps, if I may put it that way. The smaller business community has also been extremely helpful in sounding out the many small shopkeepers and similar small traders with leasehold premises as to their views. The self-employed and small business organisations have been very helpful. I know that the big battalions will not mind the particular care that I wanted to take in making sure that the small battalions were also consulted.
    I hope that the measure as amended will enjoy the whole-hearted support of the House. It remedies a position that, although of long standing, has increasingly become regarded as unfair and does so in a way that will maintain investment confidence while extending extra assistance to those who would not otherwise have benefited.
    Mr. Paul Boateng: The Minister, kind and courteous as ever, expresses his thanks for the small

    1243
    part that I have played in the smooth progress of the Bill. Let me in turn thank him for that and thank my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg for his role in the passage of the Bill through the other place. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), who sadly is absent today but to whose heart I know the matter has long been especially close. He has been particularly co-operative in recent weeks to ensure its smooth passage.
    Above all, the thanks of the House and of many generations to come who will be spared the injustices that have characterised this aspect of the law must deservedly go to the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who has worked assiduously on this subject for many years. There is not a soul present who has not at some time been approached by the hon. Member in order to have his ear, although never his arm, bent. We owe him a great debt of gratitude. I wish the Bill well in its remaining stages and look forward to its early introduction into law.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 1, line 7, after ("13") insert
    ("and section (Restriction of liability of former tenant where tenancy subsequently varied)")
    Mr. Thurnham: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 57.
    Mr. Thurnham: As I have already said, the Bill passed through the House earlier this year on the basis of a clear understanding that amendments would be tabled in another place to give effect to the four elements of the package agreed between the British Retail Consortium and the British Property Federation. This group of amendments gives effect to one of those elements, and I think that it would be helpful if I were to explain the package in outline before dealing with the amendments themselves as it is the spirit of realistic compromise and desire to make early progress represented by the package that has enabled the Bill to reach this advanced stage.
    The package may be described as having two parts. The first enables landlords under new leases to have that degree of extra control over assignment of the lease which will enable investment confidence to be maintained without resort being made to the draconian instrument of absolute covenants against assignment. The second comprises three changes aimed principally at assisting former tenants under existing leases who will not be released from privity of contract. As I said, the package of changes has attracted support from all parts of the property industry and Parliament. I hope that its translation into provisions of the Bill will commend itself to the House.
    The first element comprises the amendment of section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 to enable landlords and tenants to agree in advance the terms under which future assignments can be made. It is aimed at ensuring that landlords will be able to preserve covenant strength which underpins investment value and will apply only to new commercial tenancies. The other three elements of the agreement are aimed at assisting tenants
    1244
    under existing leases rather than addressing a particular need for new commercial leases. They will accordingly apply to new and existing tenancies of all types.
    The second element improves protection under clause 13 which requires a landlord to give notice to his former tenant or the former tenant's guarantor within a fixed period of certain sums falling due if he is subsequently to have the right to enforce payment of such a sum against the former tenant or guarantor. That period was fixed in the Bill as originally drafted at nine months but is to be reduced to six months.
    The third element limits the liability of the former tenant in respect of payments due to certain types of changes in the lease taking place after the former tenant parted with it. The final element will enable the former tenant who is made to pay for another's default to call for an overriding lease so that he may have some measure of control over his position.
    The group of amendments will give effect to the third element of the package that I have just outlined. While amendment No. 1 added provision to the list in clause 1 of those applying to new tenancies only, amendment No. 2 adds to the list a provision applying to new and existing tenancies. The provision in question is the third element of the package dealing with liability in respect of subsequent variations in the lease. Amendment No. 4 simply changes the word "applies" in subsection (2) to "apply" to reflect the fact that there will, as a result of the amendments to give effect to the package, be more than one provision applying to new and existing tenancies. The substantial amendment for which they pave the way is amendment No. 57.
    Amendment No. 57 introduces a new clause immediately after clause 13 of the Bill as it left this place. The new clause builds on clause 13, which opens by setting out the circumstances in which a former tenant may be liable in respect of a tenancy that he has assigned. The new clause provides that where a former tenant is under a liability in those same circumstances and the terms of the lease have been varied after he assigned the lease and after commencement of the Act, the former tenant shall not be liable to pay any sum to the extent that it is referable to that variation, provided that the variation was one which the landlord had the absolute right to refuse to make when it was made.
    There may be cases where the landlord originally had an absolute right to refuse certain types of variation but where an intervening variation of the lease has taken away that absolute right. In such cases, it would not be fair for the tenant to be liable to pay any additional sum referable to the subsequent variation which was one that the landlord did have the absolute right to refuse when the tenant parted with the tenancy.
    The provision turns on whether the landlord had the absolute right to refuse to make the variation, because it is not reasonable for a tenant to be expected to have in contemplation that after he assigns the lease, the landlord will change its terms so as to allow something that the tenant was absolutely prohibited from doing. On the other hand, where the variation is one which the landlord had only a qualified right to refuse to make, it is reasonable to expect the outgoing tenant to realise that the lease may be so varied after he has parted with it and to hear that in mind when making contingent provision.

    1245
    In deciding whether the landlord's right to refuse the variation was absolute, it will be necessary to have regard not only to the terms of the lease but, for example, to the law generally, including in particular any statutory provision. For example, while the terms of the lease may absolutely prohibit certain tenant's improvement which the tenant is nevertheless allowed to make by virtue of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, any such changes, even though the rent may be affected, cannot be said to be variations coming within this clause as the landlord could not refuse to allow them.
    The clause will accordingly cover such matters as variations to the nature of the premises, user, extra space for an increased rent and so on, but it will not prevent the landlord from being entitled to recover from a former tenant an increase of rent on a rent review for which the lease made provision when the former tenant held the lease, except to the extent that the increase refers to a variation of the sort covered by the clause.
    I have further comments to make but, in view of the time, I shall conclude my remarks on this group at this point.
    Mr. John Fraser: I back the Bill and want it to reach the statute book as soon as possible. Indeed, I once presented an earlier version of the Bill. I do not intend to speak again, but the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) described the compromise that has been reached and I wish to place on record one aspect of that compromise with which I am not happy. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is not here to listen to what I have to say.
    Mr. Boateng: I am behind my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Fraser: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. Obviously, he will hear what I have to say.
    The foundation of my concern is that there is not equality of power between landlord and tenant. Where a property company or a pension fund has a whole portfolio of properties and one lease goes bad and somebody does not pay, the risk can be spread across the pension fund or the freeholder's investment. When original lessee liability arises, it is not usually in relation to only one person and it cannot be laid off in the same way as the vast interests of most property developers. Therefore, the balance of power is not equal.
    If I were in charge of the matter or if Labour were in government, I would not have contemplated the modification of section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927. That section has served the commercial world very well indeed and leases are freely assignable without much restriction. In my view that should continue. It is good for the function of the market and for the rights of tenants.
    12.30 pm
    There is, however, a compromise, and I do not wish to stand in its way. If it does not work, I expect the next Labour Government further to amend section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 so that there is no unreasonable restriction on the way in which tenants can assign. I can envisage landlords abusing that right if the market allows them to do so. If it is a seller's market, there will be abuses and conditions will be built into
    1246
    assignment that will be unduly onerous and may be impossible to achieve. I hope that does not happen, but if it turns out that way, I hope that the next Labour Government will correct that malfunction.
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) speaks from enormous personal and professional experience as a diligent constituency Member of Parliament and a practising solicitor. His concerns about the disparity of power between the parties to a lease were well expressed and well taken by the Labour party.
    My noble and learned Friend Lord Irvine of Lairg has expressed elsewhere a real understanding of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood, who can be assured that we shall be monitoring carefully that aspect of the Bill in terms of ensuring that the inequality in the relationship between landlord and tenant does not lead to injustice. However, we take the view that it would be wrong to prejudice the speedy passage into law of the legislation at this stage by seeking to do anything that would imperil it, although I well understand the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend in that regard.
    Mr. Fraser: I wish only to place on record that I had not realised that my hon. Friend was behind me when I raised the matter, and I am grateful to him.
    Mr. Boateng: There is no way that I would ever be absent from the Chamber while my hon. Friend was raising a matter of concern to me and to the Labour party, and I am grateful to him.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: I sympathise with the remarks of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) about the mismatch between the big property landlords and the small tenants of lock-up shops who are often granted leases on the basis of take it or leave it, sign here and pay the landlord's costs as well. I accept that, but the hon. Gentleman, in the generosity of his spirit and the breadth of his experience will agree that the mismatch was the burden of privity that is removed in the context of the compromise to which he referred.
    It is my opinion and I put it to the House that the compromise itself was not unreasonable. One is often restrained to what is possible and what we have here is possible. It represents a great deal of reconciliation of interests and good faith.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East for his full and helpful explanation of Lords amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 57. I cannot better explain their detailed operation, so I shall be brief. I very much welcome the group of amendments which effect a change that tenants and their advisers have been seeking for a long time. It has been generally accepted that abrogation of the privity-of-contract doctrine could be undertaken only for new tenancies, but for many that acceptance was tinged with regret that former tenants, under existing tenancies, would thereby be left exposed.
    That, and the other elements of the property industry package aimed at existing tenancies, represents a significant advance for existing tenants without any adverse effect on investment confidence. I do not think that hon. Members will be surprised to learn that, when the Lord Chancellor's Department consulted on the package, there was unanimous support for that element.

    1247
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has outlined the package as a whole, I should also say that the package as a whole was supported by the great majority of consultees, who considered it to be balanced and reasonable. That view has been fortified by the Bill's progress.
    Mr. Ken Livingstone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to use your power to suspend the sitting to allow a senior Minister to be brought here to answer grave allegations? I have been given a series of confidential letters from the leader of Brent council, Councillor Blackman, to Ministers at the Department of the Environment and officials at No. 10 Downing street, which thank the Government for rigging the council's grant assessment for 1994 to aid it in the election, and asking them to do the same in 1995 so that the party can hold Brent in the event of a by-election.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, but I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's comments have been noted.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 1, line 7, after ("13") insert
    ("and sections (Right of former tenant or guarantor to overriding lease) and (Overriding leases: supplementary provisions)")
    Mr. Thurnham: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 6, 58 and 59.
    Mr. Thurnham: This is another group of amendments giving effect to an element of the agreed package of changes that has gained across-the-board support for the Bill. They introduce the final element of the package that I outlined earlier, giving former tenants and their guarantors, under both new and existing leases of all types, the possibility of gaining a degree of control over the liability when they are called on to make good the default of a subsequent tenant, by calling for an overriding lease. Lords amendment No. 3 does the same as Lords amendment No. 2, but in respect of that different element of the property industry agreement, making it clear that the element is to apply to both new and other tenancies.
    Lords amendment No. 6 is necessary to maintain the agreed policy that privity-of-contract liability is to be abolished prospectively and not retrospectively. It makes it clear that the definition of a new tenancy—which is dealt with in Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 7—is to be subject to a special rule that is part of the overriding lease provisions. That rule states that an overriding lease will derive its status from the lease under which the person claiming it has been called on to make good the default of the subsequent tenant. The overriding lease will not be a new tenancy if the tenancy under which the former tenant finds himself having to pay is not the new tenancy. The amendment is necessary to prevent inconsistency between clause 1 and the overriding lease provisions, which would cause significant practical problems and would cut across the policy of limiting the abolition of privity of contract to new tenancies.
    The two substantial amendments for which the others pave the way are Lords amendments Nos. 58 and 59, which introduce two new clauses after clause 13 and immediately after the new clause introduced by Lords
    1248
    amendment No. 57. This element of the property industry agreement addresses a particularly difficult problem, and a way in which the doctrine of privity of contract can be seen to operate especially unfairly.
    At present, although a former tenant may have to pay, and continue to pay, sums in respect of a lease that he signed long ago, he may be unable to regain possession, and may thus have nothing to show for his payments—unless he was sophisticated enough to reserve some kind of right of re-entry when negotiating the lease, or the defaulting tenant becomes insolvent, the lease is disclaimed on bankruptcy or liquidation and the former tenant is able to have the lease revested in him.
    The provisions introduced by the amendments address the problem by enabling a former tenant or guarantor who has to pay in respect of a subsequent tenant's default to call for an overriding lease to be granted to him so that he can pursue remedies directly against the defaulting tenant if he is still in occupation, or take over possession and make use of the property so that he can set off the return against his liability. Former tenants will thus have some means of gaining a measure of control, rather than the helplessness which they so often feel in the face of such unexpected liabilities.
    Amendment No. 58 introduces the first new clause, which sets out a former tenant's right to call for an overriding lease, the circumstances in which it arises and the terms of the overriding lease and the mechanics for its grant. Amendment No. 59 introduces the second new clause, which makes supplementary provision including such matters as the special rule to which I have referred governing whether an overriding lease is a new or existing tenancy, the question what happens if there is an unjustifiable delay in granting it and more technical matters as the land registration position.
    I have further notes on this group of amendments, but in view of the time and as a courtesy to the House I shall conclude here.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his full and clear explanation of these important amendments. This element of the property industry package will deal with what are some of the hardest cases caused by the privity of contract doctrine. Hon. Members have on numerous occasions asked me what might be done for constituents who have found themselves paying rent for another's occupation where the landlord is unconcerned and the premises may be going to wrack and ruin with no prospect of the constituent even being able to go into possession to stop the disrepair getting worse. The amendments will provide the remedy which, it must be admitted, was lacking, and I am grateful to the property industry bodies for coming forward with them. I commend the amendments to the House.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendment No.4 agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 1, line 8, leave out from ("if") to end of line 12 and insert
    ("it is granted on or after the date on which this Act comes into force otherwise than in pursuance of—

    (a) an agreement entered into before that date, or

    (b) an order of a court made before that date.")

    Mr. Thurnham: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 7.
    Mr. Thurnham: The amendments in this group are much shorter and simpler than those which the House has so far considered, but they are very important. Clause 1 concerns which provisions of the Bill are to apply to new tenancies and which to both new and existing tenancies, so it must also define a new tenancy.
    The definition of a new tenancy which was in the Bill as it left this House came in for trenchant criticism, and amendments Nos. 5 and 7 accordingly carry out extensive revision. Amendment No. 5 makes clear that a new tenancy is one granted on or after the date on which the Act comes into force, unless it is granted in pursuance of an agreement entered into before that date or a court order made before that date.
    Amendment No. 7 replaces subsection (4) of the original draft of the Bill with three new subsections which put beyond doubt certain matters which the draft either does not cover, or does not cover satisfactorily. The first new subsection covers the variations of leases which change the nature of the demise and so take effect as a surrender and regrant and produce a fresh tenancy. The basic principle of subsection (3) is applied so that the fresh tenancy will be a new tenancy for the purposes of the Act if the agreement for the variation is entered into after the Act came into force, but an existing tenancy if the agreement predated commencement.
    The next new subsection applies the same principle to tenancies granted in pursuance of options, the treatment of which in the existing draft was particularly criticised. If the option was granted before the date on which the Act comes into force but is exercised after that date, the tenancy which is granted pursuant thereto will not be a new tenancy. The final new subsection covers a tenant's rights of first refusal to the grant of a new tenancy which might not necessarily otherwise be included in the "option", and ensures that the same basic principle will apply.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: As my hon. Friend said, this group of amendments is important. I would go so far as to say that they are pivotal. The part of clause 1 which they seek to amend essentially makes transitional provision which is necessary because of the decision that it would not be possible to implement the Law Commission's recommendations for existing leases. That decision was based partly on the need to avoid considerable damage to confidence in the property market and to investments held by such investors as pensions funds, unit trusts and the like, with which not only bigger concerns but many individuals' fortunes are bound up.
    12.45 pm
    The decision was also based on the principle that agreements freely entered into should be interfered with as little as possible. That principle underlies the detailed approach to defining a new tenancy. Had the definition simply stated that a new tenancy was one granted after commencement of the legislation, it would have ignored the fact that in a significant number of cases the essential agreement that should not be interfered with was entered into before commencement. In the case of new tenancies
    1250
    granted pursuant to court order, the court order is analogous to the concluded agreement. I support the amendments.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 6 and 7 agreed to.

  Clause 2

    COVENANTS TO WHICH THE ACT APPLIES
    Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 2, line 2, after ("disposals);") insert—
    ("( ) paragraph I of Schedule 6A to that Act (covenants requiring redemption of landlord's share);")
    Mr. Thurnham: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 9.
    Mr. Thurnham: The amendments are very technical and can be explained briefly. The part of clause 2 which is amended—as recommended by the Law Commission—excepts from the operation of the Act certain covenants entered into by tenants of local authorities who exercise their right to buy, to prevent them from making unjustified profits from an early sale so that they will continue to be bound by those covenants notwithstanding the new regime.
    Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9 make the necessary provision for excepting from the Act a further such covenant which was not picked up in the first draft of the Bill.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: As my hon. Friend said, amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are entirely technical. I hope that the House will accept them as such.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 11 agreed to.

  Clause 6

    PROCEDURE FOR SEEKING RELEASE FROM A COVENANT UNDER SECTION 4 OR 5
    Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 3, line 29, leave out ("before") and insert
    ("either before or within the period of four weeks beginning with the date of")
    Mr. Thurnham: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 15, 17 to 22, 24 to 27 and 68.
    Mr. Thurnham: These amendments refine certain procedures under the Act involving notices so that they will operate better in practice. The first amendment introduces changes to clause 6 of the Bill as it left this House. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, mentioned earlier, it was a major plank of the Law Commission's recommendations that landlords under new tenancies should not be released automatically from the burdens and benefits of the landlord covenants of the tenancy, but would be so released under a procedure involving service of a notice on the tenant, giving the tenant the opportunity to argue

    1251
    that it would not be reasonable for the landlord to be released. Provision to that effect is set out in clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill as it left the House, which have now become clauses 6 and 7 in the amended version. Those clauses have not been amended, and the principle underlying them has been accepted.
    Clause 6 of the Bill as it left this House, which is clause 8 as amended, makes provision for that notice procedure. The original draft provided for the landlord to serve the notice on the tenant before the assignment from which he sought to be released and for the tenant to have four weeks from service of the notice to object to the landlord's being released. The landlord is to be released, as from the date of assignment, if there is no objection within four weeks or if there is an objection but the court declares it to be reasonable for the landlord to be released.
    Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 make practical changes to the procedure as set out in the Bill. Those changes go hand in hand with amendments to clauses 8 and 9, which, as my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned, provide for apportionment of liability under certain covenants between assignor and assignee to become binding on the other party to the lease if a similar notice procedure is gone through. Since the changes are of just as much benefit for the apportionment notice procedure, amendments Nos. 24 to 27 to clause 9 simply carry through the approach of the amendments to clause 6. Amendments Nos. 17 to 22 make changes to the wording of clause 8, which are necessary to pave the way for the amendments to clause 9.
    The first of the practical changes is brought about by amendment No. 12, which removes the requirement that the notice be served before the assignment and allows it to be served before or up to four weeks after it. Amendment No. 13 adds wording to reflect the fact that the notice may be served after assignment.
    The second practical change is to provide for the tenant to be able to say that he has no objection and thereby to short-circuit the process, rather than requiring the landlord to wait for four weeks before he knows that he is released in a case in which the tenant is unconcerned. The tenant is also allowed to withdraw a notice of objection at any time. Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 effect that change.
    Clause 9 provides for an essentially identical notice procedure for the ability to make an apportionment agreement binding in this way, as opposed to the procedure, and a number of small changes to the wording of clause 8 are necessary to reflect the fact that notices will be able to be served after assignment as well as before.
    Clause 8 makes provision cover cases of assignment of part only of a landlord's or tenant's interest, where there is an "unattributable" covenant, as my hon. Friend the Minister described. In such a case, it will be necessary for the assignor and the assignee to apportion liability between themselves. The clause provides that such an agreement can be made binding on the other party to the lease through the notice procedure provided for in clause 9. It is essentially the same as the procedure provided for under clause 6 and amendments Nos. 24 to 27 make the same provision for the procedure in clause 9 as amendments Nos. 12 to 15 for clause 6.
    Amendments Nos. 17 to 22 are technical and carry out some minor changes to the wording of clause 8 to reflect the changes in clause 9.
    1252
    Finally, amendment No. 68 is consequential on the fact that the recipient of a notice under these procedures will have new options other than objecting or saying nothing and it requires the notice to tell the recipient what the options are.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Once more, these amendments are a good example of how reviewing the Bill with a fresh eye has brought dividends in provisions that will improve its practical operation. The amendments are entirely consistent with the Law Commission's underlying policy and it is in agreement with them.
    Originally, it was intended only to make the change enabling the recipient of a notice to indicate agreement so as to shorten matters. As part of the review process, however, it was questioned whether it was necessary for the notice to be served before the assignment in question when, particularly in the case of notices by landlords under clause 6, there might be practical benefits to the person serving the notice in allowing it to be done for a limited period after the assignment.
    There are cases in which confidentiality is very important to the landlord when he assigns, so he cannot afford to make his negotiations public by serving notices before assignment. The tenant has no control over the assignment and will be interested only in whether the new landlord is a secure prospect, such that it is not unreasonable for the assigning landlord to be released. In those circumstances, it was decided that it would not be to the tenant's disadvantage if the notice were not served until after the assignment. As part of that process, it became apparent that no purpose would be served by having the matter go to court if the recipient of the notice were to register his objection and then change his mind. So provision was added enabling an objection to be withdrawn at any time.
    Taken together, the amendments will enable the parties to save trouble and expense and will minimise interference with commercial confidentiality. It may assist the House if I add a brief word about notices for the purposes of the Bill generally. Notices under clauses 6, 9 and 13 are to be in a form prescribed by statutory instrument, which will tell the recipient in clear and simple language what the notice is about and what may be done in response. That reflects the Law Commissions' recommendation that the notices should be in a standard and informative form because of their importance to the recipient.
    The sanction for failing to serve a notice in the prescribed form will be that the notice is ineffective for its purpose. It is not, however, intended that the server of the notice should be thus penalised for minor departures from the prescribed form. It is intended that the prescribed forms are as simple and therefore as easy to use as possible.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 30 agreed to.

  Clause 12

    TENANT GUARANTEEING PERFORMANCE OF COVENANT BY ASSIGNEE
    Lords amendment: No. 31, in page 6, line 25, after first ("a") insert ("tenant")
    Mr. Thurnham: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 32 to 36.
    This important group of amendments revises and refines the operation of clause 12 as it left this House. That clause deals with the Law Commission's recommendation that when a tenant under a new tenancy is released on assignment in accordance with clause 3, it should nevertheless be possible for the landlord, as a condition of the licence to assign, to ask the tenant to guarantee performance of the tenant covenants of the tenancy by his immediate assignee, but no more.
    Two important propositions must be implemented effectively by the clause: the proposition that the outgoing tenant should guarantee performance by his successor; and the proposition that the guarantee should cover no more than that. Clause 12 in the original draft set out to give workable effect to those propositions but came in for criticism that it failed to do so effectively. The amendments seek to ensure that the clause is fully effective.
    In considering this clause, it should be borne in mind that a landlord will be able to seek a guarantee from an outgoing tenant only if the lease gives the landlord control over an assignment because, in the absence of such control, the lease will be freely assignable by the tenant under general principles without the need to refer to the landlord. Control will arise either by way of an absolute covenant against assignment, which bans it all together, in which case the landlord will be free to demand such a guarantee as the price for waiving the ban, or by providing assignment only with the landlord's consent.
    Subsections (1) to (3) of the clause cover those propositions with only minor technical amendments. The remainder of the clause covers the limits on such an authorised guarantee agreement, as the Bill terms it, and the provisions which the landlord can seek to include in it to ensure its effectiveness for his purposes.
    The amendments strike the balance between ensuring that the guarantee is effective when the landlord most needs it and ensuring that it cannot be used as a device for subverting the main reform by retaining the effective privity of contract liability once the assignee has assigned.
    Amendment No. 31 is entirely technical and inserts the word "tenant" in subsection (1) of clause 12 to make it absolutely clear that it is only tenant covenants, the performance of which may be guaranteed. Amendment No. 32 removes words from subsection (2) consequential on the later amendments, which make the limits of an authorised guarantee agreement absolutely clear. Amendment No. 33 makes it clear that the guarantee will not be effective unless it complies with the new clearer provision introduced by the later amendments.
    Amendment No. 34 will simply introduce words to subsection (3) to make it clear that there is no question of an authorised guarantee agreement arising unless the lease contains some form of covenant against assignment.
    Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 carry out wholesale revision of the latter part of the clause and are extremely important because without them it could not safely be said that the clause properly gives effect to the two necessary propositions that I outlined earlier.
    1254
    1 pm
    Amendment No. 35 deletes the greater part of subsection (4) and replaces that deleted with clearer and more all-embracing provisions setting the limit for an authorised guarantee agreement, and subject to that what such an agreement may include to ensure that it is effective in the circumstances when it will be most needed.
    Any provision that is aimed at tying in the outgoing tenant to any kind of liability that is in any way referable to the lease he has assigned will, regardless of its terms, be of no effect once the assignee himself is released by reason of his having assigned. That deals with the proposition that the guarantee should cover no more than the performance of the tenant covenants by the assignee.
    Any such provisions will not be void ab initio, however. That is of importance for the new subsection (4A), which will be inserted by the amendment. It deals with the proposition that the guarantee should effectively cover performance by the assignee.
    The problem for landlords is that the strict technical rules relating to guarantees generally will result in the guarantor of a tenant being discharged if the tenant becomes insolvent and the lease is then disclaimed by the receiver or trustee in bankruptcy. That is just when the landlord needs the guarantee the most.
    The law in general permits several ways around this difficulty, such as provisions whereby the guarantor agrees to take on the liability of a sole or principal debtor that is not discharged in the circumstances, or agrees to take on a new lease replacing the residues of the disclaimed lease. The new subsection expressly permits these devices to enable landlords to ensure that the guarantee remains effective when most needed. That is subject, however, to the general limitation inserted in subsection (4). The effect is that the devices will be available if the assignee becomes insolvent and the lease is disclaimed before he assigns, but will cease to have any effect once the assignee signs and is released in accordance with clause 3.
    Amendment No. 36 completes the revision of clause 12 by introducing two new subsections to cover the position of excluded assignments and the position where a tenant who entered into an authorised guaranteed agreement becomes tenant again under the operation of that agreement. In relation to excluded assignments, where a tenant who made an excluded assignment and therefore remains bound is released on the next assignment, he may, in effect, be asked by the landlord to give the guarantee that he would have been asked to give if his assignment had not been an excluded one and had been effective to release him.
    The position depends on whether the tenant making the next assignment enters into an authorised guarantee agreement. If he does, the landlord will be able to require the tenant who made the excluded assignment also to enter into an authorised guarantee agreement on terms corresponding to those of the assigning tenant's agreement so that they guarantee the next tenant jointly.
    The tenant who entered into an authorised guarantee agreement may become tenant again either by taking back the assigned lease on a disclaimer following his assignee's insolvency or by entering into a new lease under the authorised guarantee arrangement. In those circumstances, when a tenant next assigns, it will be possible to enter

    1255
    into another authorised guarantee agreement. While this might at first blush seem onerous for a tenant whose assignee is weak, it is entirely appropriate because the failed assignee will have been the tenant's choice. It may have been only the prospect of the authorised guarantee agreement that persuaded the landlord to consent to the assignee.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Once again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) for his full and clear explanation of these important amendments. The authorised guarantee agreement is a crucial pillar of the Law Commission's recommendations. These amendments are accordingly very important and I commend them to the House.
    I should like to explain a matter that arises from amendment No. 36, on which a little concern was expressed in another place. It is the possibility of a landlord being able to require a tenant who made an excluded assignment to enter into an authorised guarantee agreement when the person to whom the excluded assignment was made himself assigns the lease. That is entirely appropriate, because the person to whom the excluded assignment was made may be someone to whom the landlord could reasonably have objected. To allow release without the possibility of an authorised guarantee agreement might enable tenants to escape liabilities that it would be entirely reasonable for them to retain.
    The point on which concern was expressed related to the position of charity trustees. Consequential on amendment No. 36, the first schedule to the Bill will make a consequential amendment to the Trustee Act 1925 which will prevent the possibility of an authorised guarantee agreement in such circumstances bedeviling the administration of estates or trusts and will deal with the concerns that were expressed about charity trustees.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 32 to 36 agreed to.

  Clause 13

    RESTRICTION ON LIABILITY OF FORMER TENANT FOR RENT OR SERVICE CHARGE
    Lords amendment: No. 37, in page 7, line 14, after first ("a") insert ("tenant")
    Mr. Thurnham: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 38, 40 to 56, 69 to 72, 75 and 79.
    Mr. Thurnham: Clause 13 applies to both new and existing leases and makes provision to ensure that former tenants who are still under liability in relation to a lease which they have assigned should be given notice within a fixed period of any arrears that become due and which they may find themselves having to pay. The liability may arise because of privity of contract liability or an excluded assignment or an authorised guarantee agreement. This "problem notice" will alert a former tenant to his potential liability and will enable him to make provision against the liability rather than as at present leaving him living in blissful ignorance until he is suddenly presented with a bill which might cover a long period of arrears.
    1256
    When the Bill left the House it fixed the period at nine months but, as I have said, one of the elements in the agreed package of additional changes involves the reduction of that period to six months. There is an amendment to accord with the commitment to the House to table amendments to give effect to that package. There is a dauntingly large number of amendments to the clause. To some extent, that reflects the clause's importance as a measure to assist former tenants and as the springboard for the variations and overriding lease clauses. It is also the result of a large number of minor technical amendments which are necessary to follow through a single change, which I shall now explain.
    The essence of the six-months rule, as it has now become, is that the landlord should serve notice of sums which arise under the lease as fixed or liquidated sums. That is because it is too difficult and onerous for the landlord to attempt to do that for matters such as dilapidations, which by their nature are difficult to quantify as they arise. The wording of the clause as it left the House limited it to rent and service charges, but it has been amended to recognise that there are other such liquidated sums whose amount will be fixed as they fall due—for example, specified payments for each fixed period that the tenant is in breach of a particular covenant. There is no reason why the former tenant should not have notice of such sums as well as notice of rent and service charges.
    No fewer than 11 amendments in the group relate to that change. Amendments Nos. 38, 40 to 42, 49, 51, 53, 54 and 56 provide that instead of referring to "rent or service charge" the clause refers to a "fixed charge", which is defined as covering rent, service charges corresponding to the well-settled definition in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and sums payable as liquidated amounts in the event of breach of a covenant. Amendment No. 37 does for this clause what amendment No. 31 does for clause 12, making it clear that tenant-only covenants are covered.
    When the Bill left this House, clause 13 did not deal at all with the question of interest on the sum which is due. Amendment No. 45 rectifies that omission so that the former tenant will be given some warning of the fact that interest is accruing on a sum due, so that he can take that into account in making provision to meet his potential liability.
    Although that is of course of benefit to the tenant, it is necessary to avoid placing too onerous a burden on the landlord, who is accordingly not expected to calculate the interest accrued and keep updating it for the former tenant's benefit. Rather the amendment requires the landlord simply to warn the former tenant in the notice of the fact that interest is accruing and the terms on which it is accruing. That simple warning will ensure that he is able to recover the interest should he sue the former tenant in due course, while giving the former tenant sufficient information to assess his likely liability and make provision accordingly.
    The remaining amendments also insert provision consistent with the policy underlying the six-month rule, but simply not dealt with in the original draft. It was accepted as part of the property industry package that the protection of the six-months rule should be extended not only to former tenants, but to their guarantors, who are just as exposed and likely to suffer from a sudden and unexpected demand payment covering a long period of arrears as former tenants.

    1257
    Furthermore, if no provision were made for guarantors, it would be open to a landlord to sue a former tenant's guarantor for payments that the landlord could not recover from the tenant, not because the tenant could not meet the payment, but because the landlord simply did not bother to serve notice on the tenant, and found it easier to sue the guarantor because no notice was required. I am sure that the House will agree that such a possibility would be most unfair and would tend to defeat the whole object of the six-month rule.
    Amendment No. 46 accordingly plugs that gap with a new subsection (2A), making the same provision for guarantors as subsection (2) makes for former tenants. Amendments Nos. 48 and 50 consequentially ensure that references in subsection (3) to subsection (2) are amended so that they refer also to the new subsection (2A).
    Amendment No. 47 follows through by expressly applying to guarantors as well to former tenants. That amendment inserts a new subsection to make good another omission, this time to assist landlords in the task of serving notice. It is possible that the landlord may in good faith have served on a former tenant a "problem notice" specifying a particular sum, but that, for reasons outside the landlord's control and not due to any carelessness on his part, the sum due is determined to be greater, but is not so determined until after the six months is up.
    For example, there might be a rent review outstanding at the time that the landlord serves the notice, which subsequently determines the rent to be higher on a backdated basis, but that does not occur until more than six months after the rent payment due. It would not be fair for a landlord in such a position who had not made a mistake through carelessness in specifying the sum, to be unable to recover the difference between the sum in the notice and the higher sum that the determination entitled him to.
    The amendment makes provision enabling the landlord to preserve his right to recover the difference in such cases by serving a supplementary notice within three months of the final determination. To ensure that the tenant is not taken by surprise, the landlord is required to give warning in the original notice that the liability is subject to the possibility of upward determination in that way, and only if he does so will he be able to recover the difference in the circumstances outlined.
    I have mentioned the fact that clause 13 acts as a springboard for the variations and overriding lease clauses, and those clauses make reference to authorised guarantee agreements and new tenancies, which in the original draft were defined only for the purposes of clause 13. Amendment No. 52 accordingly removes the definition of "authorised guarantee agreement" in subsection (4) of clause 13, and amendment No. 75 reproduces it as a general definition for the whole Bill in clause 19, which becomes clause 28 as amended. Amendment No. 55 and amendment No. 79 do the same thing for the definition of "new tenancy".
    Finally, there are a number of amendments to clause 18 of the Bill as it left the House—clause 27 as now amended—which are consequential on the changes to clause 13. Clause 18 makes provision for notices that are required to be served under the Act, and in particular specifies certain matters that the notice must contain and
    1258
    provides that notices not substantially in the prescribed form will not be effective. Amendment No. 69 extends to "problem notices" under clause 13 the requirement already applicable to notices under clauses 6 and 9 for the notice to include an explanation of its significance to the former tenant or guarantor. It is clearly important for the former tenant or guarantor to have it spelled out to him that the notice preserves the landlord's right to sue for the sum stated and interest if appropriate, and that is arguably more important than for the recipient of a notice under clauses 6 or 9.
    Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 extend to problem notices under clause 13 the sanction of ineffectiveness that is applicable to notices under clauses 6 and 9 which are not substantially in the prescribed form. Amendment No. 72, which is entirely technical, removes a limitation in a reference to clause 13 which has become inappropriate in the light of the amendments to that clause.
    1.15 pm
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Once again, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East has fully and clearly explained a complex network of detailed and technical amendments and I am most grateful to him. I commend the amendments to the House and wish only to add a little extra detail concerning the service of notices.
    As I mentioned earlier, the form of notices will be prescribed by statutory instrument and the intention will be to make the notices as clear and as simple as possible, both so that the recipient can understand at a glance what the notice is about, what it means for him and what he can do, and so that complying with the requirement to serve a notice substantially in the prescribed form is as simple for the serving party as it can reasonably be, without sacrificing the objective of getting the information to the recipient.
    It has been asked in some quarters whether the six-months rule will require the landlord to serve a notice within six months of each time the particular payment falls due, or whether a single notice the first time rent is not paid on time would preserve the landlord's right to sue for that and all subsequent unpaid instalments.
    I wish to take this opportunity to state that, in my view, the wording of the clause clearly has the former effect, and that that is the intended effect. The most a landlord will actually be required to do is to serve a notice within six months of each instalment of a fixed charge becoming due. For example, to preserve the right to sue for a full year's rent, two notices a year will be required. That can hardly be said to be excessively onerous. There may, of course, be other fixed charges that fall due on different dates, so that a landlord who took a scattergun approach might end up serving numerous notices. However, even in those circumstances the burden is unlikely to be significant.
    The advantages for the tenant are clear. He will have, in effect, a continuing report on the state of play and if he receives a series of notices indicating that a series of instalments of rent are unpaid, he will be in a position to realise that action may be called for on his part.
    Another question that has been raised concerns service and the question of former tenants whose present address is unknown to the landlord. It has been suggested that in such a case the landlord may be unable to find out where to serve the notice until it is too late and may thus lose

    1259
    the right to enforce against the former tenant. In fact, clause 18 borrows the well-settled provisions of section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, which were borrowed by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 in the same way and have been applied for the purposes of that Act for more than 40 years. It permits service by registered post to the last known abode of the intended recipient of the notice. It will be a matter for a prudent tenant or guarantor who moves to ensure that the landlord has an up-to-date address for the service of notices, otherwise the tenant will risk the possibility of the landlord fulfilling his duty and preserving his right to sue by serving on the last known address, but the tenant not actually seeing the notice.
    As a final practical point, it should be borne in mind that, if a tenant has disappeared so completely that there is no known address for service, it will be in any event extremely difficult, if not impossible, to locate him for the purposes of enforcing a liability. I beg to support the amendments.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 38 to 59 agreed to.

  New clause
  Lords amendment: No. 60, after clause 14, to insert the following new clause—Imposition of conditions regulating giving of landlord's consent to assignments—
  After subsection (1) of section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 (provisions as to covenants not to assign etc. without licence or consent) there shall be inserted—
  "(1A) Where the landlord and the tenant under a qualifying lease have entered into an agreement specifying for the purposes of this subsection—

  (a) any circumstances in which the landlord may withhold his licence or consent to an assignment of the demised premises or any part of them, or

  (b) any conditions subject to which any such licence or consent may be granted,

  then the landlord—

  (i) shall not be regarded as unreasonably withholding his licence or consent to any such assignment if he withholds it on the ground (and it is the case) that any such circumstances exist, and

  (ii) if he gives any such licence or consent subject to any such conditions, shall not be regarded as giving it subject to unreasonable conditions;

  and section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 (qualified duty to consent to assignment etc.) shall have effect subject to the provisions of this subsection.
  (1B) Subsection (1A) of this section applies to such an agreement as is mentioned in that subsection—

  (a) whether it is contained in the lease or not, and

  (b) whether it is made at the time when the lease is granted or at any other time falling before the application for the landlord's licence or consent is made.

  (1C) Subsection (1A) shall not, however, apply to any such agreement to the extent that any circumstances or conditions specified in it are framed by reference to any matter falling to be determined by the landlord or by any other person for the purposes of the agreement, unless under the terms of the agreement—

  (a) that person's power to determine that matter is required to be exercised reasonably, or

  1260

  (b) the tenant is given an unrestricted right to have any such determination reviewed by a person independent of both landlord and tenant whose identity is ascertainable by reference to the agreement,

  and in the latter case the agreement provides for the determination made by any such independent person on the review to be conclusive as to the matter in question.
  (1D)In its application to a qualifying lease, subsection (1)(b) of this section shall not have effect in relation to any assignment of the lease.
  (1E)In subsections (1A) and (1D) of this section—

  (a) "qualifying lease" means any lease which is a new tenancy for the purposes of section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 other than a residential lease, namely a lease by which a building or part of a building is let wholly or mainly as a single private residence; and

  (b) references to assignment include parting with possession on assignment."")

  Mr. Thurnham: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  This amendment is the single most important amendment made in the other place. It has already been referred to by the hon. Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). It is not going too far to say that this amendment provided the momentum that has got the Bill so close to the statute book and which, I fervently hope, will take it all the way there.
  The amendment, as was said in the other place, represents the essence of the compromise, and the basis of the agreement between differing interests in the property industry which has enabled the Bill to get this far. It was on the basis of a specific commitment to making amendments in the other place to give effect to that agreement that the Bill was allowed to pass that House. I am pleased to say that with this amendment, that commitment is fulfilled.
  Throughout the passage of the Bill, it has been clearly stated that it could not reach the statute book without agreement. I firmly believe that the agreement represented by the amendment is realistic and balances the competing interests and objectives in a way that has already enabled it to be supported by both sides in both Houses and with the eloquently expressed blessing of the Opposition Front Bench in another place.
  Hon. Members will appreciate from my explanation of previous amendments, that while this amendment is the backbone of the property industry agreement, the agreement goes far beyond simply trading landlord support for the Bill for greater control of over assignment. As a result of the agreement, tenants have the prospect of several additional measures of real benefit to those liable under existing leases.
  Some explanation of the amendment's progress will help the House. The amendment appeared twice in another place. It was first moved in Committee when it was debated but withdrawn in response to a well-argued plea for time to consider it in more detail. After mature consideration, the amendment was moved again on Report, when it met with support from both sides. Full and compelling reasons for accepting it were given by Lord Irvine of Lairg.
  I should make it clear that the arguments in favour of the amendment, while they are compelling in the case of commercial leases, do not apply to residential or

  1261
  agricultural leases. The amendment does not apply to those leases, although such leases will benefit from all the other provisions of the Bill.
  It should also be made clear that, because the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that investment strength can be maintained notwithstanding the loss of privity of contract which buttresses it at present, it will apply only to new leases. It will affect only assignment, leaving the law relating to underletting and so on untouched.
  The background has been explained in detail both in this House and in another place, but I believe that restatement is justified. An earlier attempt to implement the Law Commission's recommendations, as accepted by the Government, failed because it did not contain provision to the effect of this amendment, which is crucial to the success of the present attempt.
  Landlords were not satisfied that current law governing their ability to control assignments could be relied upon to protect their interests under the new regime without privity of contract. Their fear, which I considered to be well founded, was that, whereas at present they have a sound head covenant, on the basis of which investment can be attracted, under the new regime they would be left with assignees of steadily declining covenant strength and no other recourse. Investment prospects and confidence would decline accordingly.
  The reason for that is that, where a lease contains a qualified covenant against assignment—one which permits the tenant to assign only with the landlord's consent—section 19(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 provides that the landlord be required not to withhold his consent unreasonably. Without the fallback of privity of contract, the landlord's safeguard in vetting prospective assignees of the lease becomes crucial to the maintenance of the investment value of the landlord's interest.
  The historic approach of the courts, however, has led landlords to believe that any extra controls which it might in commercial terms be reasonable for them to impose in new leases to preserve investment strength would nevertheless be struck down by the courts as unreasonable in the context of section 19. Given the need for certainty in property investment, tenants have been able to see that such fears and uncertainties might drive landlords to wholesale adoption of absolute covenants against assignment, or banning assignment altogether in new leases so that tenants would have to underlet or submit to the landlord's absolute discretion as the only way out.
  The amendment provides a middle way, making it less likely that landlords will ban assignments completely if they are allowed to define what they require of an assignee. Providing a middle way also makes it more likely that conditions will be properly tailored to the lease in question because, while it will be possible for landlords to insist on stringent conditions, they will need to think carefully before doing so in leases that are long enough to contain a rent review.
  A landlord who insists on driving a hard bargain may well find that others with comparable property have been more relaxed and have to accept a lower rent on review. Without the middle way, it would be more likely that all landlords would see little alternative but to ban assignments, so there would be no differentiation on review.
  1262
  Considerable effort has been expended to meet the challenge of doing as much as necessary to give landlords the security required to underpin investment and development while not straying any further from the spirit of section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 than is needed to secure that objective. The amendment introduces a new clause which amends section 19 of that Act to increase the possibility of landlords' control over assignment compared to qualified covenants against assignment under the existing law, but short of allowing sole discretion to the landlord a landlord. A landlord who still requires complete control and is prepared to take the consequences in terms of lower rental values on rent review will of course still be able to seek an absolute covenant against assignment.
  The solution finally agreed and accepted, and supported in this place and—after mature consideration—in another place, is that it should be possible for the parties to a lease containing a qualified or fully qualified covenant against assignment to agree between them the criteria that should govern the question whether the landlord would consent to any assignment and that those criteria should not be susceptible to being overturned by a court on the grounds that they, or the landlord's refusal based on the tenant's failure to fulfil them, are unreasonable.
  As I said, immense effort has been expended to ensure that the change does only what is necessary to enable the parties to preset the criteria for assignment without fear of their being void for unreasonableness while otherwise retaining, as far as possible, the effect of section 19 and the effect of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 which builds on it. The parties will not simply be able to sidestep section 19 altogether so as to place the decision whether to consent to assignment in the landlord's undefined discretion as that is no more than an absolute covenant against assignment in disguise.
  The amendment inserts five new subsections after subsection (1) of section 19 of the 1927 Act. The main provision is the new subsection (1A) which specifically enables the landlord and tenant to enter into an agreement to govern assignment. The landlord and tenant are to be able in such an agreement to specify the terms or conditions on which the landlord will grant or withhold consent.
  Where conditions are pre-agreed in that way, the landlord is not to be taken to be refusing consent unreasonably if he does so on the ground that the conditions have not been met. If it is in dispute whether the conditions have been met, it will be for the landlord to show that they have not, just as at present he has to show that he is not withholding consent unreasonably. Furthermore, for the purposes of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988, if he gives consent subject to a condition that was pre-agreed in that way, he is not to be taken as giving consent subject to an unreasonable condition.
  1.30 pm
  Section 19 of the 1927 Act and the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 which build on it, will not thereby be rendered completely ineffective, and they will continue to have effect—as they do at present—to the extent that pre-agreed conditions are not exhaustive. Therefore, if the tenant fulfils all the specified conditions, but the landlord is still dissatisfied with the assignee and wishes to withhold consent, the landlord will have to show that, in so withholding consent, he is not being unreasonable.

  1263
  The landlord will still have to fulfil duties under the 1988 Act to consent, or to give reasons for withholding consent, within a reasonable time. Landlords will thus have the security of knowing that they can set out specific requirements as to matters such as the assignee's business and financial status to ensure that the assignee is a sufficiently secure prospect for the landlord's investment to be safeguarded without having to go so far as an absolute covenant against assignment.
  New subsection (1B) allows the agreement to be in the lease or in any other instrument, for example a side letter representing parallel negotiations to those for the lease, and allows it to be at the time of the lease or at any other time. It will, of course, most often be the case that the agreement forms part of the lease or, as I have said, a parallel matter which is part of the same package. There will also, however, be cases where the parties will wish to enter into an agreement at another time to reflect changing conditions. I should add that the agreement must have been entered into before the tenant actually applies to the landlord for consent to assign.
  New subsection (1C) makes provision for a different condition from those that I have been discussing so far. I have dealt with conditions that require definite objectively verifiable facts to exist when numerous conditions must cumulatively be satisfied, but, when taken together, indicate clearly what type of assignee will be acceptable. Such a condition might be that a prospective assignee should have net profits before tax in the most recent accounts of three times the rent, or perhaps that the rest of the building in question has been and remains let.
  Subsection (1C), on the other hand, is aimed at those cases in which the landlord wishes to reserve some final discretion or judgment as to the suitability of the assignee, notwithstanding that a series of specific conditions is fulfilled. It would not do simply to allow the landlord to agree with the tenant a condition reserving the final determination to the landlord, or indeed to another person who might be the landlord's associate, as that would reproduce the effect of an absolute covenant against assignment in a disguised form.
  Conditions which inherently or expressly depend on the landlord's or any other person's determination, and therefore his discretion, judgment or opinion rather than being objectively proved, will survive only if one of two conditions is met. Those conditions are that the terms of the agreement provide either that the determination, if disputed, may be referred to an independent person or that the element of judgment rests with the landlord and that the landlord has committed himself to exercise it reasonably. For example, that would allow for matters which of their nature require an opinion or judgment to be formed capable of conclusive resolution by an independent expert, thus balancing the need in some cases for an element of judgment or discretion against the need for certainty.
  New subsection (1D) deals with new building leases. Under section 19(1)(b) of the 1927 Act, unless the landlord imposes an absolute covenant against assignment in such a lease, he cannot stop the tenant assigning without consent more than seven years before the end of the term, no matter what the terms of the lease may otherwise say. With the removal of the privity of contract liability for new leases, that complete lack of control over assignment cannot be justified for building leases, so the
  1264
  new subsection ensures that new building leases are to be no different from new commercial leases generally in respect of assignment.
  New subsection (1E) makes it clear that, as I have said, the changes do not apply to residential leases. They will not apply to agricultural leases in any event, as section 19 does not apply to such leases, which have always been subject to a different regime for assignment. The new subsection also covers the fact that a covenant against parting with possession may be broken in a number of ways, of which assignment is one. It ensures that, in the case of such a covenant, assignment is covered by the new provisions but the other ways of parting with possession are not.
  I realise that I have spoken for some time on a single amendment, but I hope that the House will accept that its vital importance justified that.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East for his comprehensive explanation of this crucial amendment. I appreciate that this element of the agreed package of changes will result in a certain shift in the balance of power, but I am firmly convinced that it represents a necessary and sensible compromise which, when taken in the round, can be seen to do the greatest amount of good for the greatest number and to enable it to be done in the shortest possible time.
  Some reservations have been expressed about the effect of this element of the property industry agreement. The Law Commission had reservations, and expressed them eloquently, but accepted that the reform could make its way to the statute book only by agreement, and that this element opened the way to that necessary agreement. The commission's commitment to implementing that reform, notwithstanding its reservations, cannot be doubted, and I believe that its attitude is right.
  As I said in a previous debate on the Bill, there were initial reservations in the Government on the basis that the smaller commercial tenants, in particular, could not clearly be said to have had their say. It was for that reason that it was thought appropriate to consult on the package. The response indicated that all sides of the property industry supported the compromise, and a notable feature was the number of respondents who praised the compromise as a realistic way forward and urged prompt action to put it into effect.
  I have before me a letter, dated 7 July, from the chief executive of the Forum of Private Business, Mr. Mendham. With commendable worldliness and wisdom, he writes:
  "This Bill represents a compromise, but one which represents a significant advance on the present position. Not only does the Bill abolish privity for future leases, but also significantly improves the equity of existing leases. The Bill has the strong support of business tenants. When questioned by FPB over 72 per cent. of tenants supported the Bill with less than 15 per cent. opposed."
  That is very encouraging. My hon. Friend and I, and, indeed, the Government, are grateful to the Forum of Private Business for its research and information.
  The amendment received support from all quarters in another place—not simply because it was presented as a property industry agreement, but on the basis of mature consideration of its operation in practice, and the prospects for tenants and landlords if the reform reached the statute book in its present form. I believe that the

  1265
  assessment of the amendment in the other place hit the nail on the head, and I commend it to the House.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 61 to 63 agreed to.

Clause 16

  AGREEMENT VOID IF IT RESTRICTS OPERATION OF THE ACT
  Lords amendment: No. 63, in page 8, line 41, leave out ("or modify") and insert (", modify or otherwise frustrate")
  Mr. Thurnham: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 64 to 67.
  Mr. Thurnham: The amendments are technical, and they revise and refine the provisions of clause 16 as it left this House. The amendments are important, as they contain anti-avoidance provision to stop the reforms simply being circumvented. The amendments do not change the approach of the original provision or the approach recommended by the Law Commission, but refine the provisions so that they are properly effective. They will also prevent arguments to the effect that they outlaw certain other matters which the Act elsewhere envisages being permitted.
  The Law Commission, aware of the boundless ingenuity of those in the property industry, recommended provision in general terms to catch any device aimed at subverting the Act. Subsection (1) contains the principal provision which is, in accordance with that recommendation, in general and all-embracing terms.
  Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 amend the wording of subsection (1) to ensure that it is sufficiently all-embracing to catch various devices which might be attempted as ways of circumventing the Act. Amendment No. 65 deletes subsection (2) of clause 16 as it left the House. The subsection makes cross-reference to provisions which authorise and guarantee the agreements, and it is necessary to delete it to make way for a revised and refined provision to similar effect which is made by amendment No. 67.
  Amendment No. 67 inserts a new subsection after subsection (3) which makes it clear that an agreement is not outlawed to the extent that it is an authorised guarantee agreement, but that anything in an authorised guarantee agreement which falls foul of subsection (4) of clause 12 as amended is void to the extent that it does so.
  Amendment No. 66 deletes subsection (3) of clause 16 as it left this House, and replaces it with a revised and refined version. The subsection was originally inserted to reflect concerns that it might be argued that absolute or qualified covenants against assignment amounted to provisions which would modify the operation of the Act as far as release on assignment is concerned, which would therefore be held to be void. The new subsection makes it clear that such a covenant against assignment is not void by reason of this clause, but goes on to make clearer than the original draft that any conditions which might be attached to consent or required to be fulfilled before
  1266
  consent is given would not survive scrutiny under this clause if they were such as to subvert the operation of the Act.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: As my hon. Friend has said, the amendments are technical and I do not propose to detain the House for any length. However, there are two points on which it would assist the House if I offered a brief explanation, since questions have been asked in some quarters. First, it has been suggested in some quarters that subsection (1)—both in its original form and as amended—might render void any agreement between parties to a lease that certain covenants should be expressed to be of limited duration, such as—to take an obvious example—a time-limited undertaking.
  This is argued on the basis that such limitation would modify the operation of the provisions providing for an assigner to be released on assignment. I wish to reiterate what was said in another place on this matter—that that will not be the case, since time-limited covenants, once the period has expired, will not be covenants which bind the assignor immediately before assignment. It is thus not possible to say that the limited duration in any way falls foul of clause 16.
  The second point demonstrates the ingenuity to which my hon. Friend referred. It is suggested that an avoidance device for landlords might be to abuse the provisions concerning excluded assignments by insisting that tenants cannot assign but must instead sublet for a longer term than the tenant's own term. It is argued that this will take effect not as a sub-letting but as an assignment by operation of law so that the tenant will not be released and neither will any of his assignees.
  The degree of lateral thinking in that suggestion is remarkable, but this is precisely the sort of device at which clause 16 is aimed. The point was in the minds of those who produced the provisions in question. Such a device would be a clear sham aimed at subverting the effect of the Act. I am sure that the courts will be quick to spot such shams as the Act is tested and to strike them down.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 64 to 72 agreed to.

Clause 19

  INTERPRETATION
  Lords amendment: No. 73, in page 10, line 5, at end insert ("(unless the context otherwise requires)")
  1.45 pm
  Mr. Thurnham: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 76 to 78 and 80 to 84.
  Mr. Thurnham: Again, these amendments are technical and in the main consequential on changes made earlier in the Bill. They amend clause 19 of the Bill as it left this House, which sets out definitions and provisions for interpretation of the Bill as a whole. A number of them fall to be revised and some additional ones are added.

  1267
  Lords amendment No. 37 inserts a general provision which qualifies the entire list of definitions so that they do not apply if the context otherwise requires. That enables the definitions to be simpler and clearer.
  Lords amendment No. 76 clarifies the term "collateral agreement", which has an important place in the amendments which provide the framework for transmission of covenants to give effect to the Law Commission's recommendations. In particular, the amendment makes it clear that a collateral agreement may be entered into after the creation of the tenancy and need not be contemporaneous with it.
  Lords amendment No. 77 makes it clear that the term "covenant" is to encompass matters contained in collateral agreements, which is in accordance with the Law Commission scheme.
  Lords amendment No. 78 provides, for the avoidance of doubt, a definition of "landlord" and "tenant" for the purposes of the whole Bill. Lords amendment No. 80 restores wording which was originally recommended by the Law Commission that had been excluded from the Bill as it left this House. The reinserted wording excludes a mortgage term from the definition of tenancy for the purposes of the Bill. That is because it remains possible for there to be a mortgage by demise, and because it is inappropriate for there to be any question of the Bill's provisions applying to any such mortgage.
  Lords amendments Nos. 81 and 82 deal with covenants to pay money such as a service charge in cases in which only part of a person's interest is assigned. A money covenant will not generally be attributable to one part or another of the property, so that it will be necessary for the assignor and assignee to agree an apportionment of liability. However, there are exceptional circumstances in which such a covenant is specifically attributable so that apportionment is not necessary. These are defined in subsection 3 of clause 19, which becomes clause 27 as now amended. The amendments provide new wording to make it clearer that subsection 3 deals with an exception and to make the application of the exception clearer.
  Lords amendment No. 83 extends the definition of landlord and tenant for the purposes of the Bill to put beyond doubt a point which emerged during revision of the Bill and consideration of clause 10. It covers the possibility of joint landlords or tenants and makes it clear that any reference to the landlord or tenant means all those who jointly constitute the landlord or tenant, as the case may be. Clause 10 was intended to cover persons who had failed to secure release, their assignees and the like. It was not intended to cover joint tenants or landlords. The amendment ensures that clause 10 will, as intended, have no application as between joint tenants or landlords.
  Lords amendment No. 84 covers certain cases such as sale via mortgagee, where the landlord's or tenant's interest changes hands, but does not do so by the landlord's or tenant's action or automatically by operation of law. Such a transfer is to be treated as an assignment by the landlord or tenant as appropriate, so that the assignor will be released and the assignee bound and so forth in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: As my hon. Friend said, this group of amendments is technical, but I am grateful to
  1268
  him for his explanation and do not think that I can add anything. Once again, I commend the amendments to the House.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 74 to 84 agreed to.

Clause 21

  REPEALS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Lords amendment: No. 85, in page 11, line 1, at beginning insert—
  ("(1ZA) The enactments specified in Schedule (Consequential amendments) are amended in accordance with that Schedule, the amendments being consequential on the provisions of this Act.")
  Mr. Thurnham: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 86, 87 and 89.
  Mr. Thurnham: This is the final group of amendments. Once more, they are technical amendments, some of which have already been touched on, so I shall be brief.
  Clause 21, which becomes clause 30 as amended, provides for appeals and consequential amendments. It will, I think, come as no surprise to hear that the detailed revision of the Bill has resulted in there being more consequential amendments than before and in some rearrangement of those already in clause 21.
  Amendment No. 85 paves the way for the rest. It provides for a new schedule of consequential amendments and amendment No. 86 deletes the consequential amendments in subsection (2) of clause 21, since those are moved to that schedule. Amendment No. 87 makes consequential changes to the references in subsection (3) of clause 21.
  Finally, amendment No. 89 introduces the new schedule of consequential amendments, which contains, in particular, consequential amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and the Trustee Act 1925, to which reference has already been made.
  I am grateful to the House for listening to me for such a long time. I hope that hon. Members will agree that it was worth it.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: My hon. Friend's explanation of this final group of technical amendments has been as helpful as all his earlier explanations, and I am grateful for his hard work today. I commend these amendments and the Bill to the House.
  As our work comes towards a conclusion I must say that I have been privileged to take part in bringing this legislation to the statute book and to ending the unfairness of the privity rule in landlord and tenant legislation. Many years ago—longer ago than I would care to confess—I studied the law of landlord and tenant as a young law student, although I never really mastered it, and encountered the operation of the doctrines of privity of contract and of estate. As a young man, I thought them profoundly unfair.
  I then practised for more than 20 years as a provincial high street solicitor and used to warn those of my clients who were about to sign commercial leases, frequently for lock-up shops, of the operation of this rule. I used to

  1269
  reflect with them on how unfair I thought it was but they must know about it and accept its operation with their eyes open and with every care and vigilance.
  Having seen the rule as a student and worked with it as a practitioner of the law, I find myself at the Dispatch Box as a legislator, or a junior member of the Government, preparing to give the rule of privity the coup de grace. I hope that the House will forgive me if I take a certain pleasure in being in this place at this time doing this thing.
  Some of those with an interest in the commencement date of these provisions may be within earshot. The commencement date is no trivial matter because a whole industry with its advising professions will have to come to terms with this change in the law. Many learned articles will have to be written, read and disputed, seminars held and lectures given before the profession and the industries involved—the property, pension and retail industries—come to terms with one of the most important changes in English property law since 1925. This country's commerce is very much about property law and always has been. In 1925 great changes took place under the auspices of that remarkable man, Lord Birkenhead.
  I am about to take the lid off the jar and say when I think that commencement might be. It is a matter for the Lord Chancellor who has an order-making power in this regard, but I believe that the commencement date will be 1 January 1996, which, fittingly, will be the 70th anniversary of the Birkenhead legislation.
  Mr. Thurnham: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and through you I thank Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to bring this Bill to the House and, I hope, to the statute book.
  Today is a red letter day and 1 January 1996 will obviously be the most important day on which many small businesses and shop keepers will be released from the fear that their landlords may pursue them for many years afterwards. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to bring a Bill, which was not lucky in the ballot, to a successful conclusion.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 86 to 89 agreed to.

  Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  1.56 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I refer you to the statement that Madam Speaker made on 24 January when the Government were introducing the Disability Discrimination Bill. She pointed out that there was a problem about whether the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and the Disability Discrimination Bill covered similar ground and said that, if so, there would be difficulties in allowing the second Bill to proceed. It was ruled that the Bills were sufficiently dissimilar to allow the second Bill, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, to proceed.
  May I refer you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to page 469 of "Erskine May" on new clauses? On the possibility of clauses being ruled out because they clash with clauses in a different Bill, it says:
  "Similarly a new clause offered at the consideration stage of one bill was ruled out of order when it substantially repeated the provisions of another bill of the same session, the consideration stage of which had been adjourned."
  New clause 1, which we are about to deal with, is sufficiently similar to clause 7 of the Disability Discrimination Bill to create that problem. Furthermore, other new clauses that we shall discuss in the first batch deal with the Secretary of State taking over the role of the disability rights commission. Those are in line with the Government's Bill, which is now before the other place. The problem crops up in later clauses, too. Should not a number of the clauses currently before us be removed on the ground that they form part of the Disability Discrimination Bill?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Madam Speaker has selected the new clauses and amendments for debate. I have no doubt that in doing so she took careful account of the sort of problems that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. We shall now proceed with the Bill.

New clause 1

  EXEMPTION FOR SMALL BUSINESSES
  '.—(1) Nothing in Part III applies in relation to an employer who has fewer than 20 employees.
  (2) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1) by substituting a different number (not greater than 20) for the number for the time being specified there.'.—[Mr. Burt.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Codes of practice prepared by the Secretary of State—
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State may issue Codes of Practice containing such practical guidance as he considers appropriate with a view to—

  (a) eliminating discrimination against disabled persons in the field of employment; or

  (b) encouraging good practice in relation to the employment of disabled persons.

  (2) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise the whole or any part of a Code and re-issue it.
  (3) Without prejudice to subsection (1), a Code may include practical guidance as to—

  (a) the circumstances in which it would be reasonable, having regard in particular to the costs involved, for an employer to be expected to make accommodation in favour of a disabled person; or

  (b) what steps it is reasonably practicable for employers to take for the purpose of preventing their employees from doing, in the course of their employment, anything which is made unlawful by this Act.

  (4) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a Code does not of itself make that person liable to any proceedings.
  (5) A Code is admissible in evidence in any proceedings under this Act before an industrial tribunal, a county court or a sheriff court.
  (6) If any provision of a Code appears to a tribunal or court to be relevant to any question arising in any proceedings under this Act, it shall be taken into account in determining that question.
  (7) In this section and section (Further provision about Codes issued under section (Codes of practice prepared by the Secretary of State)) "Code" means a Code issued by the Secretary of State under this section and includes a Code which has been revised and re-issued.'.
  New clause 3—Further provision about Codes issued under section (Codes of practice prepared by the Secretary of State)—
  '.—(1) In preparing a draft of any Code under section (Codes of practice prepared by the Secretary of State), the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations representing the interests of employers or of disabled persons in, or seeking, employment as he considers appropriate.
  (2) Where the Secretary of State proposes to issue a Code, he shall publish a draft of it, consider any representations that are made to him about the draft and, if he thinks it appropriate, modify his proposals in the light of any of those representations.
  (3) If the Secretary of State decides to proceed with a proposed Code, he shall lay a draft of it before each House of Parliament.
  (4) If, within the 40-day period, either House resolves not to approve the draft, the Secretary of State shall take no further steps in relation to the proposed Code.
  (5) If no such resolution is made within the 40-day period, the Secretary of State shall issue the Code in the form of his draft.
  (6) The Code shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may appoint by order.
  (7) Subsection (4) does not prevent a new draft of the proposed Code from being laid before Parliament.
  (8) The Secretary of State may by order revoke a Code.
  (9) In this section "40-day period", in relation to the draft of a proposed Code, means—

  (a) if the draft is laid before one House on a day later than the day on which it is laid before the other House, the period of 40 days beginning with the later of the two days, and

  (b) in any other case, the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft is laid before each House,
  no account being taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.'.

  New clause 6—Appointment by Secretary of State of advisers—
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State may appoint such persons as he thinks fit to advise or assist him in connection with matters relating to the employment of disabled persons.
  (2) Persons may be appointed by the Secretary of State to act generally or in relation to a particular area or locality.
  (3) The Secretary of State may pay to any person appointed under this section such allowances and compensation for loss of earnings as he considers appropriate.
  (4) The approval of the Treasury is required for any payment under this section.
  (5) In subsection (1) "employment" includes self employment.
  (6) The Secretary of State may by order repeal section 17 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 (national advisory council and local advisory committees).'.
  New clause 7—Amendment of Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944—
  '.—(1) Section 15 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 (which gives the Secretary of State power to make arrangements for the provision of supported employment) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (5).
  (2) In subsection (1)—

  (a) for "persons registered as handicapped by disablement" substitute "disabled persons";

  (b) for "their disablement" substitute "their disability"; and

  (c) for "are not subject to disablement" substitute "do not have a disability".

  (3) In subsection (2), for the words from "any of one or more companies" to "so required and prohibited" substitute "any company, association or body".
  (4) After subsection (2) insert—
  "(2A) The only kind of company which the Minister himself may form in exercising his powers under this section is a company which is—

  (a) required by its constitution to apply its profits, if any, or other income in promoting its objects; and

  (b) prohibited by its constitution from paying any dividend to its members."

  (5) After subsection (5) insert—
  "(5A) For the purposes of this section—

  (a) a person is a disabled person if he is a disabled person for the purposes of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Act 1995; and

  (b) "disability" has the same meaning as in that Act."

  (6) The provisions of section 16 (preference to be given under section 15 of that Act to ex-service men and women) shall become subsection (1) of that section and at the end insert—
  "and whose disability is due to that service.
  (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, a disabled person's disability shall be treated as due to service of a particular kind only in such circumstances as may be prescribed."
  (7) The following provisions of the Act of 1944 shall cease to have effect—

  (a) section 1 (definition of "disabled person");

  (b) sections 6 to 8 (the register of disabled persons);

  (c) sections 9 to 11 (obligations on employers with substantial staffs to employ a quota of registered persons);

  (d) section 12 (the designated employment scheme for persons registered as handicapped by disablement);

  (e) section 13 (interpretation of provisions repealed by this Act);

  (f) section 14 (records to be kept by employers);

  (g) section 19 (proceedings in relation to offences); and

  (h) section 21 (application of Act as respects place of employment, and nationality).

  (8) Any provision of subordinate legislation in which "disabled person" is defined by reference to the Act of 1944 shall be construed as if that expression had the same meaning as in this Act.
  (9) Subsection (8) does not prevent the further amendment of any such provision by subordinate legislation.'.
  New clause 8—Government appointments outside Part III—
  '.—(1) Subject to regulations under subsection (3), this section applies to any appointment made by a Minister of the Crown or government department to an office or post where Part III does not apply in relation to the appointment.

  1273
  (2) In making the appointment, and in making arrangements for determining to whom the office or post should be offered, the Minister of the Crown or government department shall not act in a way which would contravene Part III if he or the department were the employer for the purposes of this Act.
  (3) Regulations may provide for this section not to apply to such appointments as may be prescribed.'.
  Amendment No. 12, in clause 1, page 1, line 17, after 'below' insert
  'or issued under section (Codes of practice prepared by the Secretary of State) below'.
  Amendment No. 43, in clause 4, page 4, line 32, leave out
  'in relation to any employment'.
  Amendment No. 60, in page 5, line 26, at end insert—
  '(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to any term, condition or privilege of employment comprising the provision of a benefit by the employer if the employer is concerned with the provision (whether or not for payment) of benefits of that description to the public, or to a section of the public which includes the employee in question, unless—

  (a) that provision differs in a material respect from the provision of the benefits by the employer to his employees; or

  (b) the provision of the benefits to the employee in question is regulated by his contract of employment; or

  (c) the benefits relate to training.

  (2B) In subsection (2A) "benefits" includes facilities and services.'.
  Amendment No. 68, in page 6, line 2, at end insert—
  '(5C) Nothing in this section imposes any duty on an employer in relation to a disabled person if the employer does not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know that the disabled person concerned—

  (a) is, or may be, an applicant for the employment; or

  (b) has a disability.'.

  Amendment No. 69, in page 6, line 2, at end insert—
  '(5D) Subject to the provisions of this section, nothing in this Part is to be taken to require an employer to treat a disabled person more favourably than he treats or would treat others.'.
  Amendment No. 70, in page 6, line 2, at end insert—
  '(5E) This section does not apply to employment in any such occupation as may be prescribed by regulations.'.
  Amendment No. 108, in clause 28, page 14, line 39, at end insert—
  '( ) For the purposes of subsection (2)—

  (a) where an unlawful act of discrimination is attributable to a term in a contract, that act is to be treated as extending throughout the duration of the contract;

  (b) any act extending over a period shall be treated as having been committed at the end of that period; and

  (c) a deliberate omission shall be treated as having been committed when the person in question decided upon it.

  ( ) In the absence of evidence establishing the contrary, a person shall be taken for the purposes of this paragraph to decide upon an omission—

  (a) when he does an act inconsistent with doing the omitted act; or

  (b) if he has done no such inconsistent act, when the period expires within which he might reasonably have been expected to do the omitted act if it was to be done.'.

  Mr. Burt: Before I speak to the new clauses and amendments, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words as the proud new Minister with the responsibilities for disabled people. I wish to stress my personal commitment to the aim of eliminating discrimination. I recognise the dedication of so many Members on both sides of the House who have worked tirelessly to help
  1274
  disabled people to realise the freedom and independence that they rightly deserve. I pay tribute to them all. I am pleased, therefore, to have been given the opportunity to carry the baton. I shall do all that I can to help disabled people achieve their goal.
  I relish especially the prospect of shepherding home the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill when it returns from another place in the autumn and bringing forward detailed proposals for implementing its provisions from an early date.
  Voluntary organisations of and for disabled people have done an enormous amount to raise the profile of disability and to heighten society's awareness. I am looking forward over the coming months to meeting the representatives of some of these organisations. I look forward especially to meeting disabled people themselves.
  The first group of amendments concerns the employment provisions in the Bill. New clause 1 exempts employers with fewer than 20 employees from the requirements in part III. It also gives the Secretary of State power to reduce this figure by means of regulations. Hon. Members who have followed the debates on the Bill in Committee, and on the Government's measure, will know why we think that this exemption is so important. Small employers will not have the personnel or management resources to get to grips with the requirements of disability discrimination legislation. Where they can improve their practices, the Government will seek to persuade them to do so, but they should not be compelled.
  New clauses 2 and 3, together with amendment No. 12, give the Secretary of State power to issue codes of practice on the new employment right. This is necessary to ensure that a speedy start can be made to implementing a new employment right rather than waiting for the establishment of a new independent body.
  New clause 6 allows the Secretary of State to replace the National Advisory Council on the Employment of People with Disabilities—NACEPD—with a new advisory body. That is not to say that the Government have decided to abolish NACEPD. It rather indicates a desire to have a more flexible statutory framework than the current overly prescriptive framework set down in the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944.
  The worth of NACEPD is shown by the fact that the Government have tabled amendments to the Bill with the intention of excluding employment from the remit of Commission/Council No. 27. NACEPD has provided advice on employment and training issues for many years and possesses considerable experience and expertise. It has 18 members in all, including an independent chairman. Three members are appointed to represent workers and three to represent employers. In addition, there are 11 other members. All the members are appointed because of their knowledge and experience of employment and disability issues.
  NACEPD has developed considerable expertise over the years and has high standing. It has advised Ministers, for example, on issues such as the Employment Service's code of good practice, the establishment of the network of placing, assessment and counselling teams, the disability symbol, access to work and the medical test for incapacity benefit.
  Most immediately, we need NACEPD's help on issues to do with the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill, including the new employment code of practice,

  1275
  relevant regulations and other detailed matters such as the future arrangements for local advice and the review of the access to work programme.
  There is no need to mention training as other powers provide my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with the power to appoint people to advise her on training matters. It would be permissible to exercise the two powers together if we wanted to cover the same broad area as NACEPD currently does but to have greater flexibility in appointing members.
  Committees on the employment of people with disabilities, known as CEPD, do not have any remit when it comes to training. We shall certainly need to look at that when considering whether new local advisory arrangements are needed.
  New clause 7 makes a number of important changes to the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. Chief among them is the repeal of the discredited and failed registration and quota schemes. Giving disabled people rights to fair treatment in all aspects of employment is a better solution than a quota scheme that serves only to stigmatise them.
  New clause 8 should be welcomed by the Bill's supporters. It requires Ministers who are making appointments to posts that are not covered by part III to act as if they were subject to the new employment right. That would apply mainly to appointments to posts with no contract of service in which the work is not for the purposes of a Minister or a Department. Examples include certain appointments to non-governmental bodies.
  Amendments Nos. 43 and 70 amend clause 4 to allow some occupations to be exempted from the employment right. That would allow occupations with particularly demanding physical requirements to be exempted. An example is the armed forces, as Baroness Hollis accepted when the question of exempt occupations was discussed in another place during consideration of the Disability Discrimination Bill.
  Amendment No. 60 is technical and is designed to ensure that the employment rights in part III do not apply to a disabled employee who shops at his employer's store. In that instance he should enjoy the protection of part IV, which protects disabled people from discrimination by those providing goods and services.
  Amendment No. 68 again relates to an important point. In the Bill as drafted an employer could be held to have discriminated against a disabled job applicant even though that employer did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the person was or might be an applicant or that that person was disabled. In particular, I refer to a situation in which the employer, being unaware of the applicant's disability, fails to make available reasonable accommodation as required by clause 4.
  It is simply not reasonable for an employer to be expected to make accommodation for a difficulty arising from a disability unless that employer was or should have been aware of that disability and of the likelihood of its affecting the disabled person in that way. The Bill should not require the making available of reasonable accommodation simply on the hypothetical basis that at some time in future there might be a job application from a disabled person.
  The obligation to make such accommodation is confined to cases where it proves necessary to address the particular needs of a specific disabled person. To put it
  1276
  another way, the Government amendment is designed to ensure that an employer is not penalised simply because he or she is unaware of the relevant facts. For example, if a disabled person failed to attend for a job interview and was subsequently rejected, the employer would not be held to have acted unlawfully if there was no reason why that employer should have known at the time that the person was disabled in a way that was likely to affect his attendance. I do not wish to stray too far from the amendment, but I remind the House that under clause 5 as it stands the employer's freedom to seek information about the health or medical status of a job applicant would be severely limited. The amendment is entirely sensible.
  Amendment No. 69 is intended to ensure that positive discrimination in favour of disabled people is not required by the Bill. Amendment No. 108 is technical and is aimed at the time limits for making a complaint to an industrial tribunal. It makes plain the time limit that would apply in cases where discrimination does not arise from a single discriminatory action—for example, where it stems from a term in a contract or from a failure to act, such as not promoting someone.
  Our amendments are designed to make the Bill better. As hon. Members are aware, the Government believe that the House should prefer the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill. It is clear and contains a simple definition of disability that will be understood by employers, service providers and disabled people. It is flexible, has regulation-making powers and provides for consultation with all interested parties to make sure that the legislation works effectively in practice. Our Bill is fair and strikes the right balance between the legitimate concerns of business and the equally legitimate concerns and needs of disabled people.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, notwithstanding the fact that the Government introduced their own Bill after my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) introduced his, following others that had been introduced in previous Sessions, almost all the disabled organisations that I know have declared their opposition to the Government's Bill; they want my hon. Friend's Bill.
  The Minister's speech is an affront to democracy, as were all those others by Tory Members who have been on their feet. We had more than four hours debate. I have been watching the monitor, and it has been occupied by the names of Tory Members and Tory Ministers for the whole morning because they want to filibuster and stop my hon. Friend getting a decent civil rights for disabled people Bill through. It is no wonder that disabled people in wheelchairs have been blocking the traffic on Whitehall. They feel affronted by the Government's Bill.
  Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman is using the House to make his usual mischief. He knows full well that, from the very outset of this Bill, the Government made it clear that they were not prepared to accept it, and have not suggested at any time that they would allow it enough time to proceed. We are determined that the Disability Discrimination Bill that the Government have introduced, which has been built on many years of patient work by hon. Members on both sides of House, will provide an enormous advance in terms of civil discrimination legislation for disabled people.
  The Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East was never going to be able to achieve its objectives. We made it clear from the start that

  1277
  it would not proceed. I have therefore no problems in saying that the Government's Bill will achieve its aims and objectives for the reasons that I have given: it is clear, flexible and fair, whereas, by comparison, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should know, is unclear, inflexible and unfair.
  For those reasons, and for the best purposes of advancing legislation affecting disabled people, the Government's Bill is infinitely preferable. With the best will in the world, therefore, we shall proceed to pass that Bill in due course, with all the advantages that that will have for disabled people, but I am afraid that the Bill before us today is flawed. I have moved a series of amendments at this stage to improve this part of the Bill and, if pressed, I would have to move further amendments later. I should like to close with these amendments just now, and of course I would be willing to listen to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East.
  Mr. Barnes: As part of normal parliamentary pleasantry, I welcome the Minister to his new post, although I was disappointed when, in a rush at the end, he just managed to turn up. I thought that we were in for a procedural coup by which his host of amendments would not be moved. I would not have moved my amendments and we could now be into Third Reading, which is what the whole civil rights disabled movement requires.
  I have, however, some sympathy with the Minister because he seems to be given all the worst jobs by the Government. He has just come away from having responsibility for Child Support Agency provision and all the difficulties around that, and now his first appearance here in his new role is to stop the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
  The Minister said that his amendments were entitled to make the Bill a better Bill, but then, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), he clearly said that that was not what they were about. They are about blocking the progress of this Bill, which the Government fundamentally disagree with. They favour instead their own measure and therefore the amendments are part of the blocking procedure that has taken place, often in Committee corridors, in quiet and not in public.
  Mr. Burt: I repeat my earlier remarks. With the best will in the world, I can seek to make the hon. Gentleman's Bill better, but I cannot make it good enough because that is not possible, which is why the Government prefer their own Disability Discrimination Bill.
  Mr. Barnes: The Government are not trying to make my Bill a better Bill. They persistently try to turn it into the Disability Discrimination Bill. That is why I raised a point of order about whether a problem exists in relation to the Government importing their measures entirely into my Bill. That is what new clause 1 does. It says that my Bill should not apply to firms with under 20 employees. That is part of the principle included in the Government's Bill and it makes nonsense of my Bill.
  Such a proposal might work in terms of the Government's Bill because it is limited, restricted and tends to give what they see as privileges to disabled people, in some way bringing them up here and there.
  Mr. Skinner: That Bill patronises disabled people.
  2.15 pm
  Mr. Barnes: It patronises them considerably. My Bill, however, is saying that human rights should apply to disabled people. The notion that civil rights in employment do not apply to a firm with fewer than 20 employees is nonsensical. There may be other arguments, such as reasonableness and cost—and they are contained in my Bill—but to say that whatever the circumstances in a firm, which may be a wealthy firm, employing fewer than 20 people the civil right not to be discriminated against should not operate is offensive to the principles in my Bill.
  Time and again on this Bill, the Government have engaged in an ideological battle. They have an alternative position and they have tabled a set of amendments aimed at turning my Bill into their Bill, which has already made progress. Sometimes, they have tabled technical amendments—for example, the Minister referred to amendment No. 108 as being technical. We had reasonable discussions in Committee about technical amendments. Once we could get the former Minister away from the discussion of ideological matters and an attempt to turn my Bill into the Government's Bill, we made some progress.
  The matters in my Bill are complex and I accept that some correction is required. For example, the Bill applies to the United Kingdom, yet in two sections it originally referred to Britain. The Government noted that and tabled amendments that I accepted. The Committee Hansard shows that I accepted a host of technical amendments. What I did not accept were ideological amendments based on a different Bill that has already made progress. The majority of hon. Members who served on the Committee were opposed to such ideological amendments, as are the majority of hon. Members in the House. My Bill received a Second Reading by 175 votes to nil, which shows its cross-party support—if only the Whip was taken off and hon. Members given a fair chance to decide between the principles in the two Bills.
  Mr. John Austin-Walker: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that there are no exemptions for small firms in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976? They include the right not to be discriminated against. Will he comment on why disabled people should not have the same right?
  Mr. Barnes: That matter is at the heart of the difficulty with my Bill. It would set up a disability rights commission, similar to the commissions set up under the two Acts to which my hon. Friend referred. It would be obnoxious to include in my Bill any limit on a civil right that the proposed commission is intended to safeguard. Amendments in the batch that we are discussing relate to that point.
  For example, some amendments would extend the role of the Secretary of State to the production of codes of practice and they reflect exactly the Government's ideology to which I have referred. They are more to do with the Government's Bill and how it is supposed to operate. In that Bill the responsibility for the monitoring of provisions is given entirely to the Secretary of State. That would not be the case under my Bill, where the dynamic for ensuring that civil rights for disabled people become a reality—and that we do not just state general

  1279
  principles—would be given to the proposed disability rights commission. The Government's second new clause would affect the commission's role.
  We are debating the first of 21 sets of amendments and we need to get through all 21 sets and Third Reading within 12 minutes, in the face of implacable Government opposition. They have tabled major amendments, both in this set of amendments and in others, which ties in with their past practice. They have treated the House with utter contempt.
  My Bill received its Second Reading by 175 votes to nil. We were then prevented from taking the Bill into Committee by tactics adopted by the Government in preceding Committees. When we finally got the Bill into Committee, it turned out to be the longest serving private Bill Committee for 11 years. It was stopped only because the Minister had achieved his objective of blocking us until today—the last possible practical day on which the Bill could be discussed.
  The Minister should not look to that to help shield the Disability Discrimination Bill. It might get him a place in the Cabinet because one was granted to his predecessor precisely because of what he did in getting the Disability Discrimination Bill through and stopping the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. The Minister has not got blood on the floor of House as occurred last year in respect of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry). That led to apologies from a Minister and another hon. Member.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend referred to the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), of which this Bill is a replica. The Minister said in reply to me that my hon. Friend's Bill was flawed. My hon. Friend may have heard my sedentary intervention to the effect that the Bill cannot be flawed when it has been tested in the heat of the Commons, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading once already. Surely when it has been through the mill that many times we can assume that it is ready to be enacted.
  My hon. Friend should address his remarks to the Minister's darned cheek, having just got the job—he got it because he served in the Prime Minister's campaign team—in accusing my hon. Friend of sponsoring a flawed Bill when it has been tested in the heat of battle so many times.
  Mr. Barnes: This is not my Bill but that of the disability movement. I am carrying the baton for it this year. Previously, other hon. Members have dealt with it.
  This is the third time that a measure that is as well tuned as this one has been introduced. The major alteration that I have made to it—to which there have never been any amendments—concerns access to polling stations. I assume that that is therefore acceptable to the Minister. Why was it not supported when a similar amendment was tabled in another place to the Government's Bill?
  The amendments attempt to block the Bill and relate to matters such as employment and the role of the Secretary of State. They do not recognise that, in respect of employment, the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is an all-embracing measure. The right for people to be treated decently and have proper access to employment that is in the Bill is also applied to refer to goods, facilities, services, premises, new constructions and
  1280
  polling stations. The Minister has had to table other amendments to try to undermine those provisions, though not those relating to polling stations.
  If we had the time for a proper debate we would discover that the same forms of arguments would keep re-emerging. We would move on to access for shops, buildings and accommodation. The Minister would not attempt to improve the Bill, although he disagrees with it, by technical changes but try to turn it into the Disability Discrimination Bill. That should not be done now. I could understand it being done when only my Bill was before the House and the Government took a different position.
  However, the Government's Bill has passed from this House to the Lords and is progressing there. Some amendments, like those that we examined earlier, will be made there which will give us a final opportunity to have our say on that Bill. His Bill is cut and dried, apart from the Lords amendments. If the Government's Bill is cut and dried, we should consider this Bill in the context of the principles that inform it because although it has been fine tuned and developed, there will be little technical bugs here and there. However, we are not going to be able to discuss the technicalities or ways to improve the Bill here and there because we are hearing the same argument over and over again. It will now be produced by the new Minister—indeed, he used it in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—and was produced by the previous Minister.
  New clauses have been tabled, covering codes of practice and new roles for advisers, whereas this Bill provides that the advisory body and any alterations that need to be made to it must be made in relation to the disability rights commission. The Government, however, have chosen to spend a great deal of time arranging for masses of civil servants to produce amendments. For this particular debate, they have produced 173, of which 140 or so have been selected for debate by Madam Speaker. However, of those 140 amendments, 20 at the most contain concepts that need to be considered to ensure that the Bill is not flawed. We are being denied that opportunity. Instead, we shall have to choose between the big issues and principles on which we have already voted on Second Reading and in Committee. We took many of the relevant decisions when debating the Government Bill.
  The approach to be taken by the Minister, who has only just got his new job, is entirely inadequate. I feel sorry for him for being given a terrible task. The last time I saw him I was sympathising with him about the football results at Wembley because he supported Bury and I supported Chesterfield, but my sympathy then is as nothing compared with that which I feel today.
  I hope that the Minister will do the honourable thing and say that all the amendments—except those which he deems to be of a technical nature, such as No. 108—will be withdrawn so that the Bill can proceed with only its technical provisions being examined. It is still possible for it to make progress. The Leader of the House should be informed of the situation and make provision for the Bill and its technical amendments to be debated properly instead being condensed into 32 or 33 minutes. Given the volume of new clauses and amendments, it is impossible for the Bill to progress at the moment.
  At 2.30 pm, I shall be asked what I want to do. I shall say that I want the Bill to be considered on Monday. It will not be dealt with on Monday, but I want it to be

  1281
  included among the remaining orders of the day for that day and for every day thereafter. That should give the Government time to revise their position and consider whether the principles of the Bill can be discussed before any firm decision is taken with regard to the Government's Bill. That would enable us to do something honourable instead of our getting involved in the same old game time and time again—the Disability Discrimination Bill, which is being debated in another place, will come back, be squeezed into the skin of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and destroy my Bill in the process.
  If we do not debate the principles of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in this Parliament, someone will pick up the Bill in the next Parliament, or someone will promote an equivalent one. All the Opposition parties are committed to such a Bill. I hope that when we finally debate the Lords amendment, even Conservative Members will vote in support of the establishment of a commission.
  I now ask the Minister to withdraw the amendments that are of an ideological nature and which represent the divide between us. He has got his way and the Government Bill is making progress; I now ask him to let this Bill progress and give the House the opportunity to decide between the two.
  Mr. Burt: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) spoke with passion and conviction, as always, but he also spoke of honour. This year the Government recognised the concern expressed by many people over a long time to seek to end discrimination against disabled people. The Government took forward those concerns, picked up that baton and moved honourably and decently this year.
  On Second Reading on 10 February, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), now the Secretary of State for Wales, made the Government's position clear. The Government fully support the aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people, but they remain rightly opposed to a Bill that is unclear, inflexible and unfair.
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day?
  Mr. Barnes: Monday next, Sir, and every day thereafter.

Remaining Orders of the Day
  DOGS (FOULING OF LAND) BILL
  As amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.
  CHARITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Considered; read the Third time, and passed.
  WILD MAMMALS (PROTECTION) BILL
  As amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

  VALUING WOMEN'S UNWAGED WORK BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 October.

  PROTECTION OF CALVES (EXPORT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 October.

  WORKPLACE INJURY VICTIMS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 October.

  PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 October.

  TAMPONS (SAFETY) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 October.

  SCHOOL TRANSPORT SAFETY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 October.

  SPORTS (DISCRIMINATION)(No. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 October.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 October.

  NATURAL DISASTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 October.

  CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS)(SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 October.

  WAR WIDOWS AND PENSIONERS (EQUAL TREATMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 October.

  SALE OF GOODS (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Duncan.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 October.

  GENEVA CONVENTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mrs. Roche.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  PARDON FOR SOLDIERS OF THE GREAT WAR BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 October.

  Youth Service
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  2.40 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: It is rare to take part in item 47 of the day's business, and it is a good thing that some of the other items did not take too long. I am glad to be given the opportunity to raise—not for the first time in my 12-plus years in the House—the state of the youth service.
  I welcome the Under-Secretary to his place, although I gather that he is deputising for his newly appointed colleague who has joined the merged Department from the Department of Employment and has the youth service as one of his responsibilities. I, for one, welcome the merger of the two Departments, as a move in the right direction. I have reservations about the youth service's role in that Department, and I shall start by flagging up a traditional failure of the Government in that respect.
  Before I arrived on the planet—although I think that you were here, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the Education Act 1944 went through Parliament. [Interruption.] You were not here in Parliament, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you were on the planet, whereas I was far from even being planned. There was a discussion at that time of the role that the youth service should have within the education service. The reality is that the status of the youth service has remained the same since then, although attempts have been made to amend education legislation to strengthen it.
  The Government's wording is that the youth service exists to
  "promote the planned personal and social education of young people aged 11–25".
  The youth service is responsible for that part of the educational provision that is not obligatory or core school provision—it provides the non-school alternative, but it is also a supplement and a complement. Large numbers of young people take advantage of the service. Figures show that about 20 per cent. of young people aged between 13 and 19 are currently participating in the youth service, and about 60 per cent. of young people at some stage make use of the youth service. That adds up to a figure of about 2. 7 million. Up and down the country—whether in local authority youth clubs or in the voluntary sector—the youth service is busy supporting, developing and securing young people's progress from childhood into adulthood, and supplying them with many of the personal skills that they would not learn elsewhere.
  I have some knowledge of the subject. Two things drove me into politics, and moving to Southwark was the cause of both of them. One was the incompetence of the Greater London council in housing people around Burgess park as it developed, while the other was the lack of opportunity for young people in inner south London. I found myself—not for the first or last time—working as a youth leader in a youth club, and I saw how valuable the youth service was in playing a part in the triangle of home, formal education and the world.
  Young people can learn many things at home, but home is not the place where they want to be doing the learning. For many, it is not school either. Of course, they both have their role, but the place where young people can most effectively develop is somewhere where they can be
  1286
  with their peer group, where they feel that they are not there under compulsion, where they are not under parental authority and where they can develop their skills in a structured way that responds to their needs. That work has been so well carried out by so many for about 50 years.
  The first comment that I put to the Minister to pass on to his colleague concerns ministerial responsibilities. Even after the latest Government reshuffle, they have failed to do some important Government reordering. I hope that even the Conservative Government see this as a good idea that should be implemented before the next election, even though, by doing so, they would steal yet another bit of clothing from the Liberal Democrats in terms of policy.
  On the Government Front Bench for the previous debate, we saw the new Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. Over several Administrations, the Government have accepted that there is a case for a Minister based in one Department having general responsibility for issues of concern to disabled people. It would give great encouragement and reassurance, and it would be an effective step, if the Government created a Minister for youth.
  I do not argue for a separate Department—that is not credible—but I argue for a Minister with particular responsibility for young people, logically based in the Department for Education and Employment, with a unit of civil servants to back him up. The Minister would be heard as the voice for young people in Government. He could make sure that all Departments across the spectrum responded to the concerns of young people. He could provide a place to which young people could come to express their concerns. Ministers responsible for the youth service have sometimes been not merely not high profile but so low profile that one hardly knew that there was one. We really must beef up the way in which the Government are seen to support young people in general and the youth service in particular.
  The second comment that I put to the Minister is that there is a good case for changing the 1944 legislation and giving greater statutory security to the work that the youth service does. Of course one can argue that the youth service is different in character and style from the formal education that young people have to go through. The Government have just announced the extension of education to four-year-olds. We welcome that. It will eventually come to three-year-olds. It will be available to all. The youth service is available to all, but it would feel more secure if it were on a statutory basis.
  To put the youth service on a statutory basis is not enough. There is a third hugely important element. On Wednesday this week, there was a lobby of this place by young people in the youth service and youth workers, organised by the Community and Youth Workers Union. It had been organised for weeks. There was a rally at Central hall. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) introduced a ten-minute Bill, which I support, to put the youth service on a statutory basis.
  The issue at the forefront of the minds of people who took part in the lobby was not that they wanted a statutory service, although youth workers and many of us who know the arguments would argue for that. The issue was the huge cuts that they have seen in the budget of the youth service, particularly in urban areas. They wanted more financial security. One of the arguments in favour of a greater level of security for the youth service is that it would provide greater security of funding. That point

  1287
  bridges on to my third point. We really must do more to provide financial long-term security for not only the youth service provided by local education authorities but that provided by other agencies in the voluntary sector.
  The Government have been criticised, and there is much public concern, about the relative cuts in the education budget for next year. My colleagues and I have made no bones about the fact that, as a party, we are still committed to an extra £2 billion on education expenditure, even if it means increasing income tax by a penny in the pound. The youth service is one service that needs more money, especially in areas where that has been cut, because of its important work for and with that age group.
  A few weeks ago, I visited Dorset to investigate youth service provision. Excellent, out-of-school youth education is undertaken in Weymouth and other places in that rural county. I know of the hugely important role that organised, non-formal education plays in urban Britain, such as in Bradford, where there have been disturbances recently and Luton, which is slightly less urban. It plays a role in managing, challenging and developing the energies of young people and ensuring that, rather than feeling marginalised and alienated, they feel that they have a role to play.
  In a country with very high unemployment, a high incidence of absence of skills among young people and a huge sense of alienation, the youth service plays a vital role. Feelings of alienation from the political process are probably as great as ever among young white men, let alone among young white women and young non-white men and women. One criticism of the service is that it is seen as a palliative for dealing with youth crime. Most crime is committed by young people, but it is normally committed by young people on young people.
  Happily, the fear of crime is worse than the reality, and we must try to reassure older people on that point. It is also true, however, that although the youth service does not exist to keep young people off the streets and from turning into criminals, in reality, it is far more likely that young people will become involved in criminal activity if their time is not occupied profitably, particularly if they do not have a job or a skill.
  The Government do not accept the direct correlation between unemployment and crime. They do not accept the Coopers and Lybrand report results and conclusions. However, it is the general view of those who work in education and the youth service and of parents and the police that there are links. The higher the unemployment and deprivation and the poorer the training, the more likely it is that young people will become involved in criminal activity. In urban areas, therefore, a really effective youth service, which will channel and develop young people separately, is even more important.
  Towards the end of last month, the Government made an announcement about the future of the National Youth Agency—a quango that they set up a few years ago to take overall responsibility for channelling funds and backing up the youth service. It was feared that the agency might disappear, but it has not. The Government announced that they wanted to change its status and it will continue, but not as a quango. I hope that the Minister will consider this point.
  There are several months before the response to the report is concluded and the real danger of that proposal, which is in general welcome, is that it will allow the Government to wash their hands more cleanly of the
  1288
  youth service and to tell local authorities that it is up to them, if they want to fund that general organisation to service them, to do so. If the Government get rid of capping later this year, as I have a hunch that they will, local authority budgets will be strapped and the Government must take a lead. They must state the importance of the youth service and say that the non-formal education of young people, to give them skills, abilities and self-esteem, should continue.
  I urge the Government to continue to take an interest in the National Youth Agency, and to consider greater funding for the youth service, statutory and voluntary. It is much more cost-effective to do so. For example, the cost per young person in the youth service is much less than the cost of one crime committed by a young person. Indeed, it is not even comparable. I also urge the Government to look again at whether they could secure the youth service in order to guarantee the delivery of the product by legislative requirement.
  Finally—I hope that this will be the most seriously pursued—I urge the Government to provide a voice in Government for young people and their services before the next general election. They have done it for disabled people and it could be done with merit for young people. The youth service would then be the direct responsibility of the Minister concerned and the profile of both the youth service and young people would be raised.
  I hope that I have put the case in a non-confrontational and positive way. Hundreds of thousands of people feel that the youth service is hugely valuable. They look to the Government to make it much clearer that the Government share that view.
  2.55 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, I am standing in for the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), who is responsible for the youth service. I welcome the tone in which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey delivered his speech and I will ensure that all his comments are brought to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister as it is right and proper that he should consider them in depth.
  While it is not a normal thing for a Minister to do in responding to an Adjournment debate, this morning I made two trips to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I should hastily explain that I was travelling to and from the Prime Minister's launch of the sports initiative in Millwall. I shall not strain your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by speaking at length about that initiative this afternoon. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in recognising that its implications for young people in encouraging a wider take-up of sport are significant and read across some of the subjects that he raised.
  I also pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman—I hope that he is not too embarrassed by a second tribute—to the long interest that he has taken in youth matters, both before he came to the House and during his parliamentary career. I think that I am right in saying—the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that after a time one's memory fades—that in 1979–80 I sponsored the Youth Service Bill. So certain issues tend to recur from time to time.

  1289
  I noted the concerns of the youth workers who took part in the lobby of Parliament on 12 July, as did my hon. Friend the Minister responsible. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the merger between the Department for Education and the Department of Employment. It is an exciting merger. Clearly, these are very early days but, in time, the merger will impact across the entire age range in the country. If one had to give the age range that would, in time, logically benefit most from that merger, I suspect that it is the 14 to 19 age range. Significant attention will no doubt be paid to that age range in the next few years and I trust that that will have important benefits for young people.
  Just a month ago, the Minister formerly responsible for the youth service, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, reaffirmed the Government's support for the youth service in his speech at the Keele conference on partnership in the delivery and management of the youth service. We are happy to support the partnership between local authorities and the voluntary sector, which are the main providers. Increasingly, however, central Government and outside agencies are dealing with young people.
  The Department has an enabling role in relation to the youth service, discharged principally through the National Youth Agency. It directs funding to local education authorities under the "Grants for Education, Support and Training" programme and funds more than 60 national voluntary organisations. Total funding this year will be well over £8 million. Our support for the voluntary sector recognises its role as a key player in the youth service. As a mark of that continuing commitment, a further three-year scheme of grants has been approved to take over from the present scheme when it comes to an end next March.
  Our plans for the future of the National Youth Agency were recently announced by my predecessor. It is clear from the review of the NYA that its status and accountability needed to change. It needed to reflect its true position as a body primarily supporting local youth services. Its locally focused work has assumed a much greater significance than was expected when it was first established. It is right that it should become accountable to local providers for that work.
  We shall be giving local authorities a major stake in the agency's future. We shall shortly be transferring £1.1 million to them to fund and manage the agency's work in support of local voluntary and statutory youth services. That will be an excellent opportunity for them. Local authorities are examining the arrangements for the future status of the agency. We are confident that they will make good use of the funds transferred so that the NYA continues to support local youth services.
  We have made it clear to local authority associations that new arrangements for the agency should reflect the important role of the voluntary youth service sector. We anticipate that support for both the LEA sector as well the voluntary sector will be strengthened by the changes. We are taking steps to ensure that the quality of training received by youth workers is enhanced. We are continuing funding for the agency's work in overseeing the quality of youth work training. That funding will be included in the sum that we are transferring to local authorities, and
  1290
  this should give them the opportunity to take a longer-term view of appropriate qualifications for youth workers. They will also need to take into account the possible development in this area of national vocational qualifications.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the speech made earlier in the week by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) in support of his ten-minute Bill. The Bill was sponsored by Labour Members but I think that I am right in saying that it has the support of the Liberal Democrat party. I am entitled to ask, "What would the Bill achieve for the youth service?" My answer is, very little. The legal basis for the youth service, if it was in doubt, is not in doubt now. The Education Acts of 1944 and 1992 already place a duty on local education authorities to secure the provision of a youth service. That was relatively recently confirmed by the courts. The courts recognised that each LEA is allowed considerable discretion in how it delivers the service. In fairness, as in a range of other services, there are variations in the nature of the service delivered.
  That leads me to the funding and delivery of the youth service. As I have said, it is a matter for each LEA to set its own priorities within its resources. It is not for central Government to determine how local authorities should spend their money. I submit that the local authorities would not want it otherwise. I note claims that LEAs' youth service budgets have been affected by tight local authority spending settlements. As I think everyone in the House knows, the settlement for the current year represented a 1.1 per cent. increase over 1994–95.
  There have been scare stories in the past about the effect of past grant settlements on the youth service that have turned out not to be true. Let us consider briefly the trends. Levels of funding in individual authorities can vary from year to year. Let us take a slightly longer view. Between 1990–91 and 1993–94, expenditure on the youth service increased by 13 per cent. in cash terms and 1 per cent. in real terms. That is not the only money that LEAs receive. The youth service also benefits from the single regeneration budget, as it did from the programmes that the SRB replaced.
  As a fellow London Member, I would be aware of concerns that the hon. Gentleman would have about funding in the London area. Transitional funding by the Department for the voluntary youth service will come to an end in March 1996 after six years. It was originally intended to run for three years to help voluntary organisations to adjust to funding after the abolition of the ILEA. Obviously, the grant cannot go on indefinitely. The voluntary youth service in London must now look to the London boroughs and the London boroughs grants committee for support.
  The funding of the youth service in London local education authorities is still much higher per capita compared with the rest of the country. For example, for young people aged 13 to 19 years the inner London boroughs spend about two and a half times the national average on their youth service. It is interesting to consider the demands in the light of the recent survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on youth service participation. The Department commissioned that survey, which estimates that the youth service reached 63 per cent. of young people in the 13 to 19 age group at some time in their lives. That is about 2.7 million young people, which is a significant number.

  1291
  Participation in the youth service is highest among 11 to 15-year-olds, at 31 per cent., and declines sharply after the age of 17. Only 4 per cent. of 18 to 25-year-olds take part in youth service activities. The survey shows that the youth service has to compete with young people's leisure activities and with other organised activities and pursuits. There is no clear evidence that a lack of facilities has caused a decline in participation.
  The Government have encouraged participation in the youth service through the youth action scheme. A total of £10 million has been spent over three years on 60 projects in 28 LEAs to develop new kinds of provision for young people who are not normally attracted to the traditional youth service. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, some of them may be at risk of drifting into crime. Young people will have the opportunity to learn to take responsibility for themselves and to make informed choices for the future. A number of innovative and successful approaches have been developed and good work was reported in a recent Ofsted report. The scheme is being evaluated and a report will be presented in August 1996.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned disturbances last weekend in Luton and more recently in Leeds. The evidence from similar disturbances in the past has not demonstrated that they have been caused or exacerbated by a lack of facilities. Bedfordshire's expenditure on its youth service has increased substantially in recent years—by 15 per cent. in real terms between 1990–91 and 1993–94.
  There is a philosophical flavour to this, but my experience, which may be shared by the hon. Gentleman, is that most of those who claim that they have nothing to do have nothing up top. They have chosen to ignore masses of books, places to visit, physical activities, recreational pursuits, self improvement and a wide range of activities that many other people have discovered and which many more will discover in future. Those who claim that it is simply a matter of providing more facilities have not got to the heart of the problem. I do not accuse the hon. Gentleman of taking that view.
  1292
  We recognise that a good education is not just academic achievement: it is also about encouraging good citizenship and a community spirit and about helping others less fortunate than ourselves. Volunteering is one good way of learning and understanding how to play a meaningful role in society. We have a national strategy for encouraging and developing volunteering and it is set out in the report which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary launched in June. It is entitled "Make a Difference: an outline volunteering strategy for the UK", and one of the key aims of that strategy is to encourage and enable people to become and remain volunteers. The education service is ideal for providing volunteering opportunities and nurturing volunteers, as already happens with adults.
  Schools and colleges represent an important volunteering resource. An enormous variety of work aimed at developing a sense of community and shared values is already undertaken in schools, and many colleges have an active volunteer movement. Young people have the capacity to respond positively to challenges and they respond best when they feel that they have a stake in society and in their own future. They can best be served through actions that address specific issues rather than being treated as some sort of minority group, however important.
  Any definition of youth is arbitrary, although I no longer seek to suggest that 51-year-olds come under that definition. Young people are not a separate identifiable group in society. Their needs and circumstances differ. Someone of 25 who is married with children has little in common with a 15-year-old who is still at school. Where a specific area such as youth crime is identified, we are prepared to target young people directly, and there are many examples—
  The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Three o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Computer Suppliers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the top 10 suppliers of computer equipment to his Department and its agencies in the last five years, indicating the total value of the contracts received. [34550]

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

  European Procurement Collaboration
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy concerning European procurement collaborations. [34543]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The UK actively pursues defence equipment collaboration with our European allies when collaboration offers value for money and satisfies our military requirements.

  Advisers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his special adviser has previous connections with defence companies. [34542]

  Mr. Portillo
  My special adviser, Alison Broom, has been a public affairs consultant during two phases of her career. Between 1 September 1993 and 20 July 1994 one of her clients was Rolls-Royce plc.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Mr. David Hart will remain as his independent adviser; and if he will make a statement. [34541]

  Mr. Portillo
  Yes.

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Midland and Oxford

  21.479

  23.475

  28.615

  32.700

  40.285

  North Eastern

  15.041

  18.859

  20.642

  23.476

  24.672

  Northern

  19.017

  24.208

  29.335

  29.619

  34.341

  South Eastern

  77.114

  90.670

  108.805

  113.528

  113.421

  Wales and Chester

  7.682

  10.199

  11.237

  14.395

  19.383

  Western

  14.513

  16.770

  19.124

  19.311

  24.989

  Computer Suppliers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the top 10 suppliers of computer equipment to his Department and its agencies in the last five years, indicating the total value of the contracts received. [34558]
  796

  BMARC
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the applications for export licences for military equipment made by BMARC since 1985 which were examined by his Department in conjunction with the export control office. [30524]

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  As a matter of course, my Department circulates all export licence applications dealt with under the military list to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and to the Ministry of Defence.

  BMARC made the following export licence applications from 1985 to 1990. All were dealt with under the military list.

  Number

  1985

  144

  1986

  128

  1987

  171

  1988 BMARC

  126

  1988 Astra Defence Systems

  3

  1989 BMARC

  50

  1989 Astra Defence Systems

  43

  1990 Astra Defence Systems

  172

  1985–90 Total

  837

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will state for each year the gross Crown court legal aid expenditure by each regional legal aid board for the last five years. [32901]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information cannot be provided in the form requested because Crown court legal aid expenditure is administered by the Court Service, not by the legal aid board. The table shows gross Crown court legal aid expenditure by administrative circuit for each of the last five years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The chief executives of the Land Registry and the Public Record Office will respond on behalf of their agencies, which are separate Departments.

  For my Department, including the Court Service and Public Trust Office agencies, the information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided for all five years only at disproportionate cost.
  797
  On the best information available, a list of the top 10 suppliers, and the value of computer equipment provided, is attached for the last financial year.

  Supplier

  Value £

  Siemens Nixdorf Ltd.

  3,514,310

  Bull Information Systems

  1,144,777

  HMSO

  824,902

  Digital Equipment Co Ltd.

  664,111

  Computacenter

  305,325

  Mitech Europe Ltd.

  69,222

  Digital Computer Services

  58,138

  Action Computer Supplies

  57,342

  Hewlett Packard Ltd.

  44,200

  Cray Communications Ltd.

  33,086

  Top 10 suppliers of computer equipment (hardware) for each of the last five years

  1990–911

  1991–921

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  IBM

  5,931,638

  IBM

  6,676,212

  ICL Nokia Data

  1,211,825

  ICL Nokia Data

  1,029,705

  IBM

  1,693,623

  IBM

  734,354

  IBM

  503,939

  ICL Nokia Data

  1,454,286

  Pragma Ltd.

  186,142

  Storagetek

  195,050

  Memorex Telex

  540,411

  Dell Computer Corporation

  41,925

  Dell Computer Corporation

  51,219

  Storagetek

  321,950

  Dynatech Communications

  31,175

  Dynatech Communications Ltd

  49,080

  Dell Computer Corporation Ltd

  189,474

  Fivemere Ltd.

  25,053

  Pragma

  31,278

  Intergraph

  142,367

  Specialist Computer Centres

  20,774

  Computacentre

  107,274

  Computacenter

  6,056

  Computacenter

  19,648

  Specialist Computers Centres

  86,329

  Technology Plc

  2,795

  Technology Plc

  17,220

  Fivemere

  24,851

  Intergraph (UK) Ltd

  1,175

  Intergraph (UK) Ltd

  13,867

  Dynatech Communication Ltd

  2,375

  1(See Letter)

  Letter from Dr. Elizabeth Hallam Smith to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 14 July 1995:
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION: SUPPLIERS OF COMPUTER EQUIPMENT In the absence of the Chief Executive, who is on leave, I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply to your question about the top 10 suppliers of computer equipment to the Public Record Office and the total value of the contracts.

  The top 10 suppliers of computer equipment in the last five years were:

  1. Logica UK

  2. Bull Information Systems Ltd.

  3. Dell Computer Corporation Ltd.

  4. Optichrome Computer Systems Ltd.

  5. Computer World

  6. Equanet Ltd.

  7. Technology plc

  8. HMSO

  9. Syntax Integration Ltd.

  10. Simmons MaGee

  The total value of the contracts in the last 5 years was £2,374,100.
  798
  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 14 July 1995:
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION—SUPPLIERS OF COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department to reply to your recent question about the top 10 suppliers of computer equipment, and the total value of the contracts received, in each of the last five years.
  The Annex enclosed lists the top 10 suppliers and the total cost of computer equipment supplied during the five year period. Data for 1990/1 and 1991/92 is not held in a form which would enable full information to be provided for those years without disproportionate cost. However the largest supplier during those years has been shown, together with the annual cost of equipment. This relates to mainframe purchases to support the land registration application processing system, a major government computing installation.
  I do hope that this answers the points raised with the Parliamentary Secretary, but please contact me if I can be of further assistance.

PRIME MINISTER

  Deputy Prime Minister
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what precedents he relied on for the creation of a Deputy Prime Minister; which of the previous Deputy Prime Ministers were Ministers without departmental portfolio; how many of these chaired Cabinet committees; and what committees were involved. [34204]

  The Prime Minister
  The following are precedents for a Minister acting as Deputy Prime Minister:

  Name

  Period in office

  The right hon. Clement Attlee (also Secretary for the Dominions 1942–43; Lord President of the Council 1943–45)

  19 February 1942 to 23 May 1945

  The right hon R. A. Butler (also First Secretary of State and Minister in charge of The Central African Office)

  13 July 1962 to 18 October 1963

  799

  The right hon. (Viscount) William Whitelaw (also Home Secretary 1979–83; Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords 1983–88)

  4 May 1979 to 10 January 1988

  The right hon. Sir Geoffrey Howe (also Lord President of The Council and Leader of the House of Commons)

  24 July 1989 to 1 November 1990

  As I have previously stated, it is not the practice to release the details of Cabinet committees of previous Administrations.

  Conservative Party Leadership Campaign
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to public funds of entertainment or travel expenses incurred in his campaign for the leadership of the Conservative party. [34203]

  The Prime Minister
  Any additional costs to the public purse were de minimis and in accordance with long-standing practice; no charge will be levied.

  World Wide Web
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the work his Department has carried out in the last 12 months in making information about his Department available to the public via the Government world wide web server known as "www.open.gov.uk" and his plans and policies to make additional and new information available electronically on the server in the next 12 months. [34683]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer to the hon. Member to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Ministerial Salaries
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what annual salary the Prime Minister is currently(a) entitled to and (b) drawing. [34003]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer to the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 9 June 1995,Official Report, column 345.

  "List of Ministerial Responsibilities"
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government Minister will be responsible for publishing a revised edition of "List of Ministerial Responsibilities" taking into account the recent changes in responsibilities announced in his recent Government reshuffle. [34575]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.
  800

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sports Policy
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on Government sports policy. [34286]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government have today published a sports policy statement, "Sport: Raising the Game", which sets out our ideas for a new deal for sports at all levels. All right hon. and hon. Members have been sent a copy and copies are also available in the Vote Office.

  Sport is important because it is part of our heritage. It teaches us lessons for life such as team spirit and sportsmanship and playing within rules. It is also vital as a means of introducing young people to a healthy way of life.

  It is, therefore, the Government's objective to expand the opportunities to take part in sport, particularly for the young, and to provide the means for people of all abilities and ages to fulfil their sporting potential. The Government believe the time is right for this initiative because, from 1 January 1996, the new United Kingdom and English sports councils will replace the Great Britain Sports Council to work alongside those which already exist in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and to help to deliver our objectives. British sport will also be one of the biggest winners in the national lottery: 440 sports projects across the UK have already been awarded £74,262,000 of lottery money.

  I should confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be launching today his document entitled "Scotland's Sporting Future: A New Start" setting out proposals geared to raising the profile of sport in schools and beyond in the light of Scotland's needs and circumstances. Copies of his document are being sent to all Scottish Members.

  Schools

  "Raising the Game" sets out a four-point plan, which starts in schools. It is in school that lessons can be learnt about sport's potential for enjoyment, health and the development of social skills.

  The new national curriculum ensures that physical education continues to be one of only five subjects which pupils of all abilities must study throughout their school life. It also gives an enhanced position to competitive sport, including team games. However, the Government believe that school sport should go well beyond what is required by the national curriculum. The recent curriculum review has freed more time for schools to use at their discretion, and the Government now wish to see two hours of formal lesson time devoted to PE and sport in all schools.

  Schools must also provide opportunities for sport outside formal curriculum time, be it in lunchtimes, in the afternoons and evenings or at weekends and in the holidays. It should form a continuum with the formal PE curriculum, and there should be a clear expectation that all pupils who want to are able to play games outside school hours.

  The Government also believe it is important for parents to know what is available from individual schools and how they measure up to the best. We will require schools

  801
  to include details in their annual prospectuses of their sporting aims and provision for sport, and to record in their governors' annual report these aims and their sporting achievements during the year. Schools and others with an interest will be consulted on what information will be most useful to parents and the community.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked the Office for Standards in Education to carry out more detailed inspections of the quality and range of games both in and out of the curriculum. Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools has also been asked to report annually in future, specifically on the state of PE and sport in schools.

  In order to recognise those schools which have good sporting provision, the Government will be establishing a sportsmark scheme for schools which have effective policies for promoting sport. For the most innovative schools, there will be an additional award, a gold star for outstanding achievement. A consultation paper on the criteria for sportsmark is being issued today to schools and sporting organisations.

  In order for schools to improve their delivery of sport, it is vital that there are sufficient numbers of qualified and competent teachers. The recent overhaul of the teacher training system will ensure that new PE specialists have the skills to deliver the strengthened system set out in the policy statement. But the Government intend to go beyond this by introducing a comprehensive programme of action on coaching. Through this, all training and serving teachers, whatever their academic discipline, and competent volunteers, will have the opportunity to acquire coaching qualifications.

  Clubs

  Schools provide the basis for a lifetime of sporting enjoyment but they cannot operate alone. The Government wish to see schools and clubs forming links to share facilities and resources for their mutual benefit. In order to promote such links, the Sports Council will establish a challenge fund of £2 million. All schools and clubs will be able to apply to the fund which will be available for projects such as specialist coaching for pupils and coach training for teachers.

  The council will also require governing bodies of sports played in schools to include provision for effective school-club links in their business plans. The Sports Council's regional offices will also have an important part to play by using their local knowledge to assist clubs and schools in establishing links.

  The national lottery provides schools and clubs with an unprecedented opportunity to forge links by making funds available for improving existing facilities, building new facilities and purchasing equipment. The Government have set themselves the target that by the year 2000 all young people will have access to quality facilities, including playing fields. The national lottery provides a means of achieving that goal.

  Action must also be taken to stop the loss of playing fields, which has occurred over many years. We will therefore shortly consult on a proposal that the Sports Council should be given the status of a statutory consultee on planning proposals affecting all playing fields.

  The private sector also has an important part to play in the provision of sport in the clubs and schools. The
  802
  Government wish to encourage business sponsorship of sport in schools and have asked the Sports Council to make this a priority. The private sector can help sport in a number of ways such as sponsoring a school team, adopting a sporting facility or sponsoring coaches to work in the schools.

  Further and higher education

  Many colleges and universities already have good-quality sporting facilities and offer students the chance to take part in sport both within the institution and in inter-college or university competitions. However, a more detailed picture of provision for sport and sports facilities in further and higher education institutions is needed if we are to know what more might be done. The Further Education Funding Council has therefore agreed to draw up a comprehensive analysis of sporting provision and facilities in the further education sector and report to us with recommendations for action. The FEFC will update its information annually and will require institutions to publish details of their sporting provision.

  The Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals and the Standing Conference of Principals have agreed to provide similar information for the higher education sector. They have also agreed to recommend to their members that potential students have available, through the prospectus or a similar document, information on the sports provision they offer.

  To allow as many sportsmen and women to train and compete at the highest level while studying for higher education qualifications, a number of universities have established systems of sports scholarships. These universities provide a number of services to their sports scholars such as flexible study times and bursaries to provide for training and travel costs. To encourage the wider spread of best practice in university sports scholarships, and to encourage further private sector sponsorship, the Government are setting up a working group to look at the whole question of sport scholarships at university, and related matters of sport for students. I am pleased to announce that Sir Roger Bannister has agreed to serve as its chairman. The CVCP and SCOP have agreed to be represented on the working party. An announcement on membership will be made shortly.

  Finally, the statement takes forward the process of building a real British commitment to the development of elite sport, and sets out proposals for a network of institutions to provide the facilities and services to enable those with talent to compete at national and international level.

  The Government therefore want to see established a British academy of sport for top athletes. The Government envisage that a British academy of sport would offer residential accommodation, scholarships and bursaries, the highest level of training, coaching, sports facilities, sport science and sports medicine. To take this proposal forward, the Government have asked the Sports Council, and its successor bodies, to work up proposals for the academy and then, following consultation, to invite bids.

  The sports councils across the UK will invite bids for national lottery funding including, if appropriate, for revenue or endowment funding.

  The Government also envisage the setting up of regional centres of excellence. These would also be eligible for lottery funding.
  803
  Academies of individual sports, to be set up and run by the governing bodies of those sports, would also be eligible for funding from the lottery.

  Together, the Government's radical proposals for putting sport back at the heart of school life, for encouraging a far closer link between schools and sports clubs, for setting up a national academy of sport, with the highest possible standards, and for putting more money into sport than we have ever done before combine to make this the most important day for sport in a generation.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many contracts and for what total sum were let out by her Department and agencies for which it is responsible to(a) Coopers and Lybrand and its subsidiaries, (b) Peat Marwick and its subsidiaries, (c) Ernst and Young and its subsidiaries, (d) Arthur Andersen and its subsidiaries, (e) Price Waterhouse and its subsidiaries, (f) Grant Thornton and its subsidiaries, (g) Stoy Hayward and its subsidiaries, (h) Robson Rhodes and its subsidiaries and (i) Pannell Kerr Forster and its subsidiaries for privatisation, market testing, management advice, accounting, audit, consultancy and other services in 1993–94 and 1994–95. [33913]

  Mr. Sproat
  Neither my Department nor its agencies have let contracts with Coopers and Lybrand, Arthur Anderson, Grant Thornton, Robson Rhodes or Pannell Kerr Forster in the years 1993–94 and 1994–95. However, contracts with the following companies were let by my Department and its agencies during that period:

  Company

  Number of Contracts

  Total cost £

  1993–94

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  2

  104,200

  Ernst and Young

  1

  4,500

  Stoy Hayward

  1

  9,500

  1994–95

  KPMG Peak Marwick

  3

  98,102

  Price Waterhouse

  1

  19,000

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which her Department has been engaged since 1980. [33467]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department commissioned a consultant to examine future options, one of which was privatisation, for the future of the BBC transmission service. The cost of this consultancy was £172,000.

  Neither of my two agencies has commissioned any consultancy of this nature.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will indicate which five consultancy firms have received most contracts from her Department(a) by number of contracts and (b) monetary value in the last five years of which figures are available. [33448]
  804
  Mr. Sproat
  My Department was established in April 1992 and took on- responsibility for funding its own consultancies in August 1992. All contracts are awarded on the basis of value for money. To date the five consultancy firms which have received the most contracts from my Department, by number of contracts and monetary value, are as follows:

  Number of contracts

  Consultancy firm

  Number of contracts

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  6

  Watts and Partners

  5

  Search Training International

  4

  Hill Samuel Blank Limited

  3

  Moon Communications

  3

  (b) Monetary value

  Consultancy firm

  Value of contracts awarded (exclusive VAT) £

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  332,000

  Hill Samuel Bank Limited

  327,000

  Touche Ross

  192,000

  Simmons Surveys

  150,000

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many contracts her Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years. [33566]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department was established in April 1992 and took on responsibility for funding its own consultancies in August 1992. Since that time my Department and its two agencies have awarded 166 contracts to consultancy firms. The total cost in each of the years for which figures are available is as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure £

  1992–93

  2,078,513

  1993–94

  2,466,753

  1994–95

  1,622,022

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which firms of consultants employed by her Department over the last year have been paid more than £1,000 per day. [33876]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: During the last year my Department has awarded contracts to several consultancy firms. Only in two instances have we paid more than £1,000 per day for the services of an individual consultant. These particular contracts were with KPMG and Hill Samuel Bank Ltd.

  Mr. Alan Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which firms have won computer consultancy contracts from her Department and its agencies over the last five years; and what is the number of contracts per firm. [33888]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: My Department was established in April 1992 and took on responsibility for funding its own consultancies in August

  805
  1992. The following computer consultants have been engaged by my Department and its agencies since that time.

  Name of contracts

  Number of consultant awarded

  Sema

  1

  SISL

  1

  CCTA

  11

  Internet Solutions

  1

  Profile Consultants

  1

  Mr. Page

  1

  KPMG

  1

  SouthBank Systems PLC

  1

  Simmons Survey Partnership

  1

  1 Call-off arrangement.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much her Department and its agencies have spent on computer consultancy in each of the last five years; and what is the expected expenditure over the next five years. [33858]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: The Department of National Heritage was established on 13 April 1992. Since that date my Department's expenditure on computer consultancy support has been as follows:

  1992–93: £201,456

  1993–94: £38,000

  1994–95: £231,850

  1995–96: £219,000

  Expenditure on computer consultancy support in the next five years will reflect business requirements and is likely to be broadly similar to that for 1995–96.

  Departmental Staff (Shareholdings)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many staff in her Department or its agencies have(a) declared any company shareholdings they hold or (b) been advised to dispose of shareholdings in the last five years, indicating the companies concerned. [33411]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage was created in April 1992. It has two agencies—the Royal Parks Agency, created in April 1993, and the Historic Royal Palaces Agency, created in October 1989. Within those timeframes one member of staff—working in the central Department—has to date declared a shareholding. This is in the Lappa Valley Railway Company, Cornwall. The member of staff has not been advised to dispose of the shares held.

TRANSPORT

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many unfair dismissal cases were brought against his Department during the last 12 months; how many were successful; and what were the total costs including legal fees and compensation. [34620]

  Mr. Norris
  Staff who are dismissed and who have more than two years' service can appeal to the Civil Service Appeal Board or to the industrial tribunal or to both.
  806
  Three cases were referred to the Civil Service Appeal Board; one was dismissed, one was withdrawn and the third is still in progress.

  A further four cases were referred to the industrial tribunal; two were out of time and one is still in progress. In the fourth, the Department and appellant agreed a settlement of £900 and the case did not proceed.

  Further details of costs are not readily available and I will write to the hon. Member.

  Cut-and-shut Vehicles
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what review is being considered by his Department on controls to stop the selling of damaged cars with particular reference to cut-and-shut cars; and if he will make a statement. [34341]

  Mr. Norris
  The Road Traffic Act 1988 already makes it an offence to sell an unroadworthy vehicle, unroadworthiness being defined in terms of defects which carry potentially serious road safety implications. I am currently considering the specific issue of cut-and-shut vehicles in the context of whether any change in legislation would be justified.

  Crime (London Underground)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the number of(a) assaults and (b) robberies on each of the London Underground stations on the Northern line in each of the last six months; and if he will make a statement [34501]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for London Underground.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the percentage change in(a) robbery, (b) pickpocketing, (c) indecent assault, (d) assault on passengers and staff and (e) total crime on London Underground between 1993 and 1994 and between 1994 and 1995 on an annualised basis. [34308]

  Mr. Norris
  The figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95, supplied by London Underground Ltd., are set out in the table.

  Offence

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Percentage increase/decrease

  Total crime

  13,928

  14,999

  + 7.7

  Assaults on passengers

  490

  359

  -26.7

  Assaults on staff

  120

  94

  -21.7

  Robbery

  517

  614

  +18.8

  Indecent assault

  253

  246

  -2.8

  Pickpocketing

  7,286

  8,352

  +14.6

  Traffic Calming Measures
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has done on the impact of traffic calming measures on children's outdoor play in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [34452]
  807
  Mr. Norris
  The effects of traffic calming on the way in which pedestrians, including children, use local roads is being investigated as part of our current research programme. Past research has not examined any specific effects that there might be on children's street play.

  Midland Main Line
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimate(a) of the increase in traffic on the M1 of a 20 per cent. reduction of the midland main line passenger service and (b) of the equivalent reduction of M1 traffic of a 20 per cent. improvement in that service. [34522]

  Mr. Watts
  The Department of Transport has employed consultants to study the potential for transferring road traffic on to the midland main line. The consultant's report was published last year. On the basis of these findings, a 20 per cent. increase or decrease in service frequency on the midland main line would, on average, alter the number of cars on the M1 by around one third of 1 per cent.

  EUCARIS Scheme
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he is making to seek to extend the EUCARIS scheme to the rest of the European Community; and what representations his Department is making to Interpol to extend the scheme further. [34027]

  Mr. Norris
  The meeting of the EUCARIS Participants Board held at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency on 13 and 14 June drew up a plan for informing other countries and organisations about the scheme. The agency is playing a full part in taking this plan forward in conjunction with other participating registration authorities.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many tenderers for the CTRL put forward variant bids; [34277]

  (2) how many tenderers for the CTRL produced additional bids which identify essential changes in the reference design as set out in the competition overview. [34273]

  Mr. Watts
  All details of all the bids are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what year the Government commitment as set out in the draft development agreement for the channel tunnel rail link not to upgrade existing railway lines between London and the channel tunnel to the extent they could be used as high-speed lines lapses. [34275]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to section 8.6.1 of the "Competition Overview". The second indented paragraph states:"any subsidy or financial assistance provided by the Government in relation to the existing routes between London and the Channel Tunnel would be limited to their repair and refurbishment, and would not encompass any improvement to allow them to be used as high speed lines".
  808
  No termination date has been set for that commitment, which will be enshrined in the development agreement.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent the initial bid for the channel tunnel rail link put forward by Eurorail failed to conform with the requirements of the tender document. [34539]

  Mr. Watts
  All details of all the bids are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the range of public subsidy likely to be required for the construction of the channel tunnel rail link. [34540]

  Mr. Watts
  I have nothing to add to my earlier reply to the hon. Member on this point on 6 June 1995,Official Report column 41.

  Signal Failures (Merseyrail)
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reports he has received regarding failures to the(a) the signalling system and (b) passenger information system on the northern line of Merseyrail; and if he will make a statement. [35022]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack has informed me that it has worked steadily to overcome the problems which it has experienced following the installation of the Sandhills system which controls the signalling on the Merseyrail lines. Up to three weeks ago it was achieving 95 per cent. performance targets. Since then performance has been badly affected by a combination of adverse weather and vandalism. Railtrack informs me that it and Merseyrail have kept local news media informed about the causes of the disruption to services.

  Problems relating to the implementation of new software have delayed the commissioning of the new passenger information system on the northern and Wirral lines. Measures have been put in place to improve the standard of information available to passengers in the absence of passenger information displays and automatic public address systems. Railtrack expects to commission the customer information displays at the end of October and the phased renewal and commissioning of the automatic passenger announcing system by mid-December.

WALES

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) details of all overseas trips made by him or ministerial colleagues in his Department, paid for wholly or partly from public funds and (b) the purpose, destination and duration of such overseas trips, which officials accompanied him and the total cost in each case, including that of officials to public funds for each year since 1992. [32277]

  Mr. Hague
  The following visits were undertaken by Ministers and officials:
  809

  Year

  Destination

  Minister/Party

  Duration/Dates

  1992

  United States, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong

  Mr. David Hunt and 4 officials

  18 days

  1993

  Taiwan, Singapore

  Sir Wyn Roberts, 2 officials, 1 WDA representative

  6 days

  1993

  Japan, United States

  Mr. John Redwood, 2 officials and 1 WDA representative

  9 days

  1994

  Japan

  Mr. John Redwood, 2 officials and 1 WDA representative

  7 days

  The 1992 visit also included Regional Links engagements with the Prefecture of Oita.

  These visits were undertaken to promote inward investment into Wales.

  Year

  Destination

  Minister1

  Duration/Dates

  1992

  Italy (Milan)

  Sir Wyn Roberts

  2 days 16–17 November

  1993

  Switzerland (Zurich)

  Sir Wyn Roberts

  2 days 9–10 June

  1993

  Singapore and Malaysia

  Sir Wyn Roberts

  2 days 18–24 June

  Year

  Destination

  Minister1

  Duration dates

  Purpose

  1992

  Paris

  Sir Wyn Roberts and 1 official

  1 day

  One day visit to Salon International De L'Alimentation.

  1992

  Barcelona

  Mr. Bennett and 3 officials

  3 days 18–20 Feb

  To participate in the Four Nations Conference on disability.

  1992

  Brussels

  Mr. David Hunt and 2 officials

  1 day

  To address the Regional Development Section of the EC Economic and Social Committee.

  1992

  Brussels

  Mr. David Hunt and 2 officials

  2 nights

  Opening of the Wales European Centre and a meeting with Commissioner Millan.

  1993

  Stuttgart

  Mr. David Hunt and 2 officials

  1 day

  To attend part of Wales Art Week.

  1993

  Brussels

  Mr. David Hunt and 1 official

  1 day

  To meet the UK Ambassador to Belgium and to have brief talks with Commissioners Steichen, Ruberti and Flynn.

  1993

  Liege

  Sir Wyn Roberts and 2 officials

  2 nights

  Informal Regional Policy Council representing the United Kingdom.

  1993

  Dublin

  Sir Wyn Roberts and 2 officials

  1 day

  To discuss regional links between Wales and Ireland.

  1993

  Brussels

  Mr. David Hunt and 2 officials

  2 days

  To promote Trade into Wales.

  1994

  Paris

  Mr. Gwilym Jones and 2 officials

  1 day

  Visit to Salon International De L'Alimentation.

  1994

  Dublin

  Mr. Rod Richards and 2 officials

  1 day

  To discuss Holyhead Port.

  1994

  Milan

  Sir Wyn Roberts and 2 officials

  3 days

  To sign a cooperation agreement

  1994

  Paris

  Mr. Gwilym Jones and 1 official

  2 days

  To promote trade into Wales.

  1995

  Luxembourg

  Mr. John Redwood and 2 officials

  1 day

  Transport Council Luxembourg Memberstate Representation.

  1 On each occasion, the Minister was accompanied by an official.

  Information on colsts is not available and could be provided only at dispropotionate cost.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 15 June,Official Report, column 661, if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's reply to the letter from the European
  810

  Year

  Destination

  Minister1

  Duration/ Dates

  1993

  USA and Canada

  Sir Wyn Roberts

  12 days 12–24

  1993

  Dubai/Abu Dhabi/Bahrain

  Gwilym Jones MP

  September 6 days 1–6 October

  1994

  Belgium (Brussels)

  Gwilym Jones MP

  2 days 16–17

  1994

  Spain (Barcelona)

  Sir Wyn Roberts

  February 2 days 14–15 March

  1994

  Sweden (Stockholm)

  Sir Wyn Roberts

  2 days 3–4

  1994

  Australia/ New Zealand

  Gwilym Jones MP

  May 8 days 31 May 7 June

  1995

  Saudi Arabia (Riyadh)

  Rod Richards MP

  3 days 8–10 November

  1994

  Argentina

  Rod Richards MP

  4 days 14–17 May

  1 On each occasion, the Minister concerned was accompanied by an official.

  These visits were undertaken to promote trade with Wales. In each case, the relevant Minister headed the Welsh Office trade mission.

  Commission concerning the participation of the Welsh Development Agency in European development programmes.

  Mr. Hague
  A full reply to the points raised in the commossion's letter will be made in due course, and will be placed in the Library of the House. I have, however, already placed a copy of the Department's interim response in the Library of the House.
  811

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many days were lost in sickness in the last 12 months by employees in his Department(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of the number of days worked; and what was the cost of this absence. [34624]

  Mr. Hague
  The latest available information is for the 1994 calendar year. 21,543 days were lost; 4.06 per cent. of the total days worked. The figures are adjusted for weekends and public holidays. Information is not available on the cost of this absence and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Computer Equipment Suppliers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the top 10 suppliers of computer equipment to his Department and its agencies in the last five years, indicating the total value of the contracts received. [34565]

  Mr. Hague
  The top 10 suppliers of computer equipment to my Department over the last five years were as follows: Ampersand Systems; BISS; Canon; Computercenter; Corporate Software; IBM; ICL; JBA; McDonnell Douglas Information Systems and Siemens Plessey.

  The total value of the contracts over the period was £7,126,615.

  Departmental Redundancies
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many redundancies occurred in his Department over the last 12 months; how many were voluntary; and what was the total sum spent on redundancy payments. [34625]

  Mr. Hague
  Ninety, all of them voluntary. The total cost was £2.568 million.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many unfair dismissal cases were brought against his Department during the last 12 months; how many were successful; and what were the total costs including legal fees and compensation. [34623]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

ENVIRONMENT

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many unfair dismissal cases were brought against his Department during the last 12 months; how many were successful; and what were the total costs including legal fees and compensation. [34590]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  During the past 12 months four cases of unfair dismissal were heard by the Civil Service Appeal Board. The board found for the Department in every case. No compensation was paid and no legal fees were incurred.
  812
  The Health and Safety Executive became part of the Department on 4 July. No unfair dismissal cases have been brought against it in the past 12 months.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many days were lost in sickness in the last 12 months by employees in his Department(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of the number of days worked; and what was the cost of this absence. [34591]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The following provisional information for the calendar year 1994 covers non-industrial staff in my Department, excluding Health and Safety Executive, Ordnance Survey and PSA services. All calculations have been adjusted for weekends and public holidays.

  (a) 43,210 days were lost in sickness

  (b) 3.04 per cent.

  Source: OHSA Sickness Absence Database

  The cost of this absence could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Departmental Redundancies
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Attorney-General how many redundancies occurred in his Department over the last 12 months; how many were voluntary; and what was the total sum spent on redundancy payments. [34607]

  The Attorney-General
  In the 12 months to the end of June 1995, one redundancy occurred in the Crown Prosecution Service, which was compulsory and involved a payment of £6,997.40

  There have been no redundancies in the Serious Fraud Office, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers or Government Property Lawyers.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Attorney-General how many unfair dismissal cases were brought against his Department during the last 12 months; how many were successful; and what were the total costs including legal fees and compensation. [34605]

  The Attorney-General
  During the 12 months to the end of June 1995, three claims of unfair dismissal have been brought against the Crown Prosecution Service. The Department successfully defended one case on which costs of £2,951.25 were incurred in legal fees. A settlement of £5,500 was agreed in another case on which legal fees have yet to be determined. The remaining case is still pending.

  No unfair dismissal claims have been brought against the Serious Fraud Office, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers or Government Property Lawyer.
  813

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Attorney-General how many days were lost in sickness in the last 12 months by employees in his Department(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of the number of days worked; and what was the cost of this absence [34606]

  The Attorney-General
  Information for the 12 months to 30 June 1995 is as follows:

  Department

  Days absence through sickness

  Proportion of days worked Percentage

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  2,256.5

  2.6

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  17.0

  0.3

  Crown Prosecution Service

  65,391.0

  4.72

  Serious Fraud Office

  1,597.0

  4.47

  Government Property Lawyers

  858.5

  2.89

  No records are available which give figures for the cost of this absence.

  Computer Suppliers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the top 10 suppliers of computer equipment to his Department and its agencies in the last five years, indicating the total value of the contracts received. [34556]

  The Attorney-General
  The main suppliers of computer equipment to each of the Departments for which I am responsible are shown in the table. The figures represent total expenditure during the periods shown.

  £ thousand

  1990–95

  Treasury Solicitor's Department1

  ICL plc

  154.0

  Specialist Computer Centres

  152.0

  Computacenter

  140.0

  Dell Computer Corporation Ltd.

  130.0

  Technology plc

  82.0

  Olico Systems plc

  66.0

  P and P Corporate Systems Ltd.

  34.5

  Equanet Ltd.

  32.0

  Atlas Telecommunications Ltd

  32.0

  Lansdowne (UK)

  21.5

  1994–952

  Crown Prosecution Service

  UNISYS Ltd.

  1,308.0

  Bull Information Systems Ltd.

  466.0

  P and P Corporate Systems Ltd.

  193.7

  Vistec Business Systems Ltd.

  177.6

  International Computers Ltd.

  80.4

  McDonnel Douglas Information Systems Ltd.

  52.3

  1993–95

  Serious Fraud Office

  Dell Computer Corporation Ltd.

  301.0

  Cedardata plc

  74.1

  Technomatic Ltd.

  38.8

  European Printing Systems Ltd.

  34.8

  Quantum Business Systems

  33.8

  Network SI Group Ltd.

  33.4

  Olivetti UK Ltd.

  32.4

  Computer Supply Lines Ltd.

  32.3

  814

  £ thousand

  Verity UK

  28.4

  Morse Group plc

  21.9

  1990–95

  Legal Secretaries to the Law Officers

  Programes Unlimited

  37.0

  Equanet Ltd.

  28.5

  Network Stations

  11.9

  East Central (Business Machines) Ltd.

  2.3

  1 Including the Government Property Lawyers an agency established on 1 April 1993.

  2 Information for previous years is available only at disproportionate cost.

SCOTLAND

  Auditors' Remuneration
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much have(a) health authorities and (b) trusts spent on auditors' remuneration in each year since 1992, by region. [34164]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Up to and including the 1994–95 financial year, the cost of auditors' remuneration and expenses for health boards and NHS trusts were met centrally. The majority of audits were undertaken by the Scottish Office audit unit whose running costs are contained within the Scottish Office's central services budget and not assigned to individual health authorities. A number of audits were contracted out to the private sector. A summary of the payments in respect of these external audit services is provided in the tables.

  (a) External audit remuneration health boards

  Health Boards

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Fife

  —

  41,903

  24,664

  Grampian

  —

  39,586

  44,355

  Highland

  194,850

  21,628

  18,497

  Greater Glasgow

  —

  73,948

  60,800

  Lanarkshire

  2119,686

  58,045

  59,750

  1 Paid as a block for the audits of Fife, Grampian and Highland Health Boards.

  2 Paid as a block for the audits of Greater Glasgow and Lanarkshire Health Boards.

  (b) External audit remuneration NHS trusts

  Trusts

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Argyll and Clyde

  —

  15,000

  43,536

  Ayrshire and Arran

  19,700

  35,200

  35,974

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  16,000

  Fife

  —

  —

  42,350

  Forth Valley

  —

  —

  12,000

  Grampian

  18,700

  51,180

  53,219

  Greater Glasgow

  —

  38,700

  104,552

  Highland

  —

  24,520

  38,423

  Lanarkshire

  —

  13,600

  40,899

  Lothian

  —

  14,200

  90,512

  Tayside

  —

  16,500

  54,359

  815

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deaths from hypothermia took place among(a) men aged 65 years and over (b) women aged 60 years and over in each year since 1990, by region. [34175]

  Deaths where hypothermia1 was mentioned on the death certificate, by region and islands area. 1990–1994

  Males aged 65 and over

  Females aged 60 and over

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  19942

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  21994

  Scotland

  47

  31

  44

  35

  34

  72

  50

  47

  77

  62

  Borders

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Central

  3

  3

  3

  0

  3

  0

  2

  1

  5

  3

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Fife

  2

  1

  1

  0

  2

  5

  7

  2

  8

  6

  Grampian

  1

  2

  2

  4

  2

  4

  5

  4

  3

  7

  Highland

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  2

  2

  1

  2

  2

  Lothian

  8

  7

  6

  5

  5

  18

  9

  15

  11

  15

  Strathclyde

  28

  11

  22

  17

  16

  32

  22

  15

  32

  25

  Tayside

  1

  3

  3

  4

  2

  7

  2

  7

  11

  3

  Orkney

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Shetland

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Western Isles

  1

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1 World Health Organisation International Classification of Diseases (Ninth Revision) codes E901 (primary cause), 780.8, 780.9. E901 (secondary cause)

  2 Provisional

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Redundancies
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many redundancies occurred in his Department over the last 12 months; how many were voluntary; and what was the total sum spent on redundancy payments. [34604]

  Mr. Howard
  The total number of redundancies in the Home Office, including its agencies, for the period July 1994 to June 1995 was 16. Of those, four were voluntary redundancies. The total cost of redundancy payments during the same period was £1,190,553. This includes payments made in respect of redundancies which occurred before July 1994.

  Identity Cards
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Her Majesty's Government agreed to admit EC nationals to the United Kingdom by means of identity cards; what was the legislative basis for such a decision; and if he will make a statement. [34425]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  On the accession of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community in 1972, the United Kingdom Government were required to comply with existing Community law allowing nationals of the Community to enter the territory of other member states simply on production of a valid national identity card or passport. Previous arrangements for admission on production of identity cards were governed by agreements with the countries concerned.

  Since 1 January 1994 the same right has been extended to non-European Union nationals of the European economic area—currently, Norway, Ireland, and Liechtenstein—in accordance with the provisions of the European Economic Area agreement which was ratified
  816
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: The information requested is given in the table:

  by the United Kingdom in November 1993 following enactment of the European Economic Area Act 1993.

  The right of European economic area nationals to enter the United Kingdom on this basis was implemented administratively prior to formal incorporation in United Kingdom law by the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994.

  Visas
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Her Majesty's Government advised the Economic Union that it would agree to the mutual recognition of visas issued by European Union states; what was the legislative basis for such a commitment; and if he will make a statement. [34426]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  A form of mutual recognition of short-stay visas issued by other member states is provided in the draft external frontiers convention, which was agreed in substance in June 1991 but has remained unsigned owing to objections by Spain to its application in Gibraltar. The draft convention was drawn up under the ad-hoc arrangements for co-operation on immigration matters which preceded the treaty on European Union, TEU.

  Following the entry into force of the treaty, a revised text of the draft convention was published by the Commission in December 1993, the legal basis for which is article K3.2(c) TEU. Discussions on this text are continuing. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has undertaken that the final text of the convention will be brought back before Parliament before it is signed and that the Government will not ratify the convention before the necessary legislation has been enacted by Parliament in accordance with the normal procedures.
  817

  Frontier Controls
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek the opinion of the European Court of Justice on the legislative standing of the declaration attached to the Single European Act on British border controls; and if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to seek to have the declaration transformed into a treaty clause at the 1996 inter-governmental conference. [34424]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  No, but as we have consistently made clear, we will take whatever steps are necessary to maintain our frontier controls.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unfair dismissal cases were brought against his Department during the last 12 months; how many were successful; and what were the total costs including legal fees and compensation. [34602]

  Mr. Howard
  In the non-prisons Home Office there were 12 appeals to the Civil Service Appeal Board and industrial tribunals. Of these, three were successful and five decisions are pending. In the Prison Service, there were 25 appeals to the Civil Service Appeal Board, of which four were successful. The total cost of legal fees and compensation in completed cases was £40,909.

  Information about industrial tribunal cases involving the Prison Service is not readily available. The Director General of the Prison Service will provide these details shortly.

  Computer Suppliers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the top 10 suppliers of computer equipment to his Department and its agencies in the last five years, indicating the total value of the contracts received. [34555]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department has awarded contracts for computer equipment to the value of £95,438,000 in the last five years. The following table shows the top 10 suppliers:

  £ thousand

  TRW Inc.

  25,000

  ICL

  18,834

  Bull

  13,330

  Dell

  13,063

  Siemens Nixdorf

  10,738

  Apricot

  3,308

  Dec

  2,735

  Data Sciences

  2,580

  Misys Integrated

  2,528

  Computacenter

  2,044

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many days were lost in sickness in the last 12 months by employees in his Department(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of the number of days worked; and what was the cost of this absence. [34603]
  818
  Mr. Howard
  Data for the number of days lost through sickness over the last 12 months is not readily available. The total number of working days lost through sickness in 1994 in the Home Office, including its agencies, was 499,242. This was approximately 4.5 per cent. of the total number of days worked. information on the cost of this absence is not available.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civil servants are currently employed in dealing with matters related to the Scott inquiry; and what has been the total cost to date. [34641]

  Mr. Howard
  Work on matters related to the Scott inquiry is undertaken by staff in my Department as part of their normal duties. It is not, therefore, possible to estimate the overall cost.

  Prison Operating Costs
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the operating costs of(a) privately managed prisons and (b) prisons directly managed by the Prison Service. [35207]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Comparison of the costs per prisoner place at privately managed prisons with similar publicly managed ones indicates that costs of the privately managed prisons were 15 to 25 per cent. lower in 1993–94 than their nearest public sector counterparts. This indicates annual savings to the taxpayer of £5 million to £10 million a year for the four privately managed prisons currently operating. Further analyses will be conducted on the basis of more extended private sector experience.

  Prisoners (Police Cells)
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Prison Service prisoners are currently held in police cells. [35180]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I am pleased to announce that since 16 June there have been no Prison Service prisoners in police cells.

  The necessary use of police cells in the north of England, mainly in the Manchester area, was brought about by population pressures in that area and the lack of appropriate accommodation, The opening of Buckley Hall and the refurbishment of accommodation at Manchester have helped us to cease the use of police cells. Their use in the future cannot be ruled out but every effort will be made to avoid this.

  Trial Arrangements
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for changes to mode of trial arrangements in respect of offences triable either way. [35181]

  Mr. Howard
  I have today published a consultation document, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The closing date for comments is 2 October 1995.
  819

  Remand Prisoners (Teenagers)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average and the minimum and maximum length of time which teenagers were held in prison awaiting trial in each of the last five years(a) in London and (b) nationally. [33806]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 14 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what was the average and the minimum and maximum length of time for which teenagers were held in prisons awaiting trial in each of the last five years (a) in London and (b) nationally.
  Information is not available in the form requested, but information is available on the period spent on remand in a Prison Service establishment in England and Wales. Table 1 shows the number of 15–19 year olds on remand in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales by length of time since first reception on 31 December 1994. Table 2 shows the average completed time spent in custody. The historical information and separate information for London could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Corresponding information for all remand prisoners is published annually in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales" (Tables 2.3 and 2.4 of the 1993 edition, Cm2893) a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
  820

  Table 1: Remand prisoners aged 15–19 years in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales by length of time since first reception1 on 31 December 19942

  Time since first remand

  331 December 1994

  Less than 3 months

  1,300

  Over 3 months up to 12 months

  680

  Over 12 months

  48

  1 Awaiting trial or sentence. Time since first reception on remand into a Prison Service establishment. This includes any intervening time spent on bail, but excludes time spent in police cells beforehand.

  2 Provisional figures.

  3 Rounded estimates.

  4 One of which was held in an establishment in London on 31 December 1994.

  Table 2: Estimated average time spent in custody for Untired and Convicted Unsentenced prisoners, aged 15–19, in Prison Service establishments in 19941

  Type of custody

  align="right">Receptions in 1994

  4Estimated average number of days in custody

  Untried2

  13,056

  44

  Convicted

  Unsentenced3

  8,052

  33

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Time spent in custody before conviction.

  3 Time spent in custody after conviction before sentence.

  4 Estimated from number of receptions and population in 1994 (as measured by population on 30 June).

  821

HEALTH

  Title of "Doctor"
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to provide statutory protection for the title "doctor" as used in the fields of medicine and the professions allied to medicine in order to distinguish between those medical practitioners who are legally entitled to use the term, and those for whom it is an honorific. [33476]

  Mr. Malone
  No. I am satisfied that the matter is adequately covered under section 49 of the Medical Act 1983.

  Single Sex Wards
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of patients who have asked to be treated in single sex wards in accordance with the January 1995 revised patients charter; and what effect that has had on their waiting time for treatment. [33345]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish at six monthly intervals total waiting times from general practitioner referral to hospital admission, including and identifying the waiting time from GP referral to first out-patient appointment; and if he will make a statement. [33631]

  Mr. Malone
  No. We already publish information on waiting times for in-patient treatment on a summary basis each quarter and for individual trusts every six months. Information on waiting times between general practitioner written referral and first out-patient appointment is published in summary form each quarter and will be published for individual trusts for the fist time shortly and at regular intervals thereafter.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that any patient on a waiting list for any elective surgery who is forced by circumstance to change general practitioners or move to a new district health authority should not have to rejoin the waiting list as a new referral; and if he will make a statement. [33671]

  Mr. Malone
  Patients who move house or general practitioner while waiting for hospital admission may choose to stay on their original waiting list. If they choose to be treated at a different hospital the new consultant would need to assess them on an out-patient basis before deciding whether to admit, and if so, placing them on a waiting list. We would expect GPs and health authorities to try to arrange the shortest possible waiting time for such patients taking account both of clinical need and the time they have already waited.

  General Medical Services, Manchester
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he intends to take in response to the decision of the High Court of the result of the case brought by Manchester local medical committee. [35320]
  822
  Mr. Malone
  A recent decision by the High Court ruled that departmental guidance in relation to cash-limited general medical services allocations to health authorities constituted a binding direction. Such sums could therefore be set only on the reimbursement of certain general practitioner expenses. Manchester family health services authority had misapplied some cash limited GMS allocations by using them to support wider primary care developments. The Department is satisfied that Manchester FHSA acted in good faith in an attempt to improve services to patients and the court found no evidence to dispute this. Her Majesty's Treasury has given approval for any such payments to be made on an extra statutory basis and to be noted as such in FHSA accounts. Guidance will soon be issued to all FHSAs following the court's ruling and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Edgware General Hospital
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will re-examine the decision by his predecessor announced on 5 April to confirm and accept the regional health authority's endorsement of Barnet district health authority's recommendation to close the accident and emergency department of Edgware general hospital by April 1997; [34086]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the local public petition against the closure of the Edgware general hospital accident and emergency department, delivered to his Department and No. 10 Downing street on Wednesday 5 July. [34085]

  Mr. Malone
  No. Consultation was thorough and the changes will improve services for patients.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that the service volumes and quality standards defined by contracts with health care providers and the standards and rights defined by the patients charter are binding on the providers and commissioners of health services; and if he will make a statement. [33675]

  Mr. Malone
  Health authorities and fundholding general practitioners are required to deliver patients charter standards and guarantees through their contracts with providers. National health service contracts should provide for arbitration in cases of non-compliance and this applies equally to service levels and quality standards agreed locally. The NHS and Community Care Act 1990 provides a formal mechanism for disputed cases to be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Operations
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) hip replacements, (b) pacemaker operations and (c) cataract operations were carried out in Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively in the last year; and what was the average waiting time for each operation in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. [33823]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information for 1993–94 is shown in the table:
  823

  Finished Consultant Episodes

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  Number of operations

  Average waiting time (days)1

  Number of operations

  Average waiting time (days)1

  (a) Hip replacement and other arthroplasty of the hip2

  67,571

  192

  1,660

  184

  (b) Pacemaker sytem operations2

  18,939

  27

  418

  —3

  (c) Cataract and other eye lens operations2

  152,355

  193

  3,766

  292

  Notes:

  1 Waiting list and booked admission cases, excluding emergency admissions.

  2 Operation procedure codes (a) W37-W39 and W46-W48, (b) K60 and K61, (c) C71, C72, C74 and C75.

  335 per cent. of these cases were either emergencies or did not have a recorded decision to admit date. Any calculation of average waiting time for this operation would therefore be unreliable.

  Sources:

  Estimates from, for England, Hospital Episode Statistics; for Scotland, SMR1; for Wales, Welsh Office Health Statistics; and for Northern Ireland, Hospital Inpatient System.

  Disabled People (Direct Payments)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress he has made towards implementing his pledge to introduce direct payments to disabled people to arrange, in appropriate circumstances, their own care. [34303]

  Mr. Bowis
  We announced in November 1994 our intention to introduce the necessary legislation to allow direct payments as soon as practicable. This remains our intention. There are a number of complex issues to be resolved before legislation can be introduced and my Department has set up a technical advisory group to consider these.

  Numbers of deaths from testicular cancer (ICD1 186)

  Regional health authorities

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Northern

  10

  6

  9

  12

  9

  6

  10

  5

  10

  8

  Yorkshire

  14

  8

  10

  10

  11

  18

  6

  9

  10

  10

  Trent

  13

  11

  13

  18

  18

  9

  9

  14

  13

  11

  East Anglian

  4

  1

  5

  6

  3

  8

  4

  5

  7

  2

  North West Thames

  6

  14

  7

  1

  8

  2

  5

  4

  7

  6

  North East Thames

  6

  6

  7

  7

  8

  6

  8

  9

  5

  4

  South East Thames

  17

  7

  10

  16

  8

  9

  11

  2

  7

  5

  South West Thames

  12

  10

  6

  10

  11

  5

  4

  7

  4

  4

  Wessex

  7

  6

  5

  8

  6

  4

  10

  6

  7

  4

  Oxford

  5

  4

  4

  3

  12

  8

  7

  9

  9

  3

  South Western

  15

  9

  9

  9

  6

  6

  10

  7

  13

  8

  West Midlands

  20

  9

  7

  15

  16

  15

  15

  11

  9

  11

  Mersey

  6

  8

  13

  7

  9

  3

  10

  4

  6

  8

  North Western

  14

  8

  11

  9

  9

  9

  8

  12

  10

  10

  Wales

  7

  3

  9

  14

  4

  3

  10

  6

  6

  8

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many unfair dismissal cases were brought against his Department during the last 12 months; how many were successful; and what were the total costs including legal fees and compensation. [34599]

  Mr. Bowis
  In the period 1 July 1994 to 30 June 1995, six cases of unfair dismissal were lodged with the industrial tribunal against the Department of Health. Of these, one case was successful, resulting in compensation of £9,032.88. Of the remaining five cases, one was successfully defended, one application was ruled out of time and three cases are still to be heard by the tribunal.
  824

  Car Park Charges
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospital trusts which levy a charge for car parking at trust units; and if he will list them. [34573]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Testicular Cancer
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many men died from testicular cancer in each year for the last 10 years, by region. [34633]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is in the table.

  Details of legal fees incurred for unfair dismissal cases are not recorded separately.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many days were lost in sickness in the last 12 months by employees in his Department(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of the number of days worked; and what was the cost of this absence. [34600]

  Mr. Bowis
  The estimated number of days lost through sickness in the Department of Health and its agencies during the 1994–95 financial year was 69,363. This represents 6.23 per cent. of the total working days in that financial year.
  825
  The figures have not been adjusted to exclude bank holidays, nor has any allowance been made to account for the working patterns of part-time staff. The sickness absence data is not analysed by cost.

  Tendering
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 July at column 440, on tendering, (1) if he will estimate the total value of contracts under (a) market testing and (b) compulsory competitive tendering; [34382]

  (2) how many contracts have been notified under (a) market testing and (b) compulsory competitive tendering; and what has been their value. [34380]

  Mr. Bowis
  The total value of the 3,927 NHS service contracts currently logged on the NHS executive market testing database is £964 million. Of these 1,404 contracts were for catering, laundry and domestic services, with a contract value of £694 million.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 July at column 440, on tendering if he will place in the Library a copy of all contracts notified to the NHS executive. [34381]

  Mr. Bowis
  No. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost, some is commercially sensitive and some could be released only with the permission of the parties concerned.

  Chronic Disease Management Programmes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make an assessment of the effectiveness for asthma sufferers of the chronic disease management programme; and if he will make a statement. [34379]

  Mr. Bowis
  Over 90 per cent. of general practitioners are running organised programmes of high-quality care for patients with asthma.

  Departmental Redundancies
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many redundancies occurred in his Department over the last 12 months; how many were voluntary; and what was the total sum spent on redundancy payments. [34601]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) on 25 May at column 759.
  826

  Computer Suppliers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the top 10 suppliers of computer equipment to his Department and its agencies in the last five years, indicating the total value of the contracts received. [34554]

  Mr. Bowis
  For the period from April 1991, the earliest date for which figures are available, to April 1995, the main suppliers of computer equipment to the Department and its agencies were:

  £

  Siemens Nixdorf

  13,771,522

  P and P Corporate Systems Ltd.

  13,589,832

  Bull Information Systems

  304,193

  These amounts include not only computer equipment but computer software and some implementation costs. It is not possible to separate out these amounts except at disproportionate cost. There were a number of smaller contracts with other companies, none of which exceeded £100,000 in the period.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Officials
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many officials worked within(a) her Department and (b) the Department of Employment on 5 July; and how many she estimates will be working within the new Department once the merger has been completed.

  Mr. Forth
  At 5 July 1995 the Department for Education employed 2,170 civil servants, of whom 432 were based in the Teachers Pensions Agency. The Employment Department group employed some 54,450 staff. The merger entails some 6,200 staff joining other Government Departments, while some 48,250 join the new Department for Education and Employment, giving the new Department a total staff figure of some 50,420.

  Computer Suppliers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the top 10 suppliers of computer equipment to her Department and its agencies in the last five years, indicating to total value of the contracts received. [34551]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what additional funding will be provided for the training of special educational needs co-ordinators to ensure they fulfil their widely extended role in identifying and assessing special educational needs. [34506]

  Mr. Forth
  The grants for education, support and training programme in 1995–96 includes support for £10.5 million to help schools develop their policies on
  827
  special educational needs, SEN. Eligible expenditure under this programme includes the cost of providing training or professional advice to SEN co-ordinators in schools.

  Education Standard Spending Assessment
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list, by order of the sum involved, the figure per child represented by the 1995–96 education standard spending assessment(a) primary and (b) secondary school children in each local education authority in England and Wales. [34484]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The allocations per pupil for the 1995–96 education standard spending for each English local education authority are set out in the table. Figures for Welsh authorities are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Unit Allocations for 1995–96 SSAs Sorted in descending order of primary unit allowances

  LEA

  Primary (£) per 5–10 pupil

  Secondary (£) per 11–15 pupil

  Isles of Scilly

  3,347

  4,381

  Hackney

  3,076

  4,359

  Lambeth

  3,066

  4,463

  Tower Hamlets

  3,035

  4,034

  South wark

  2,947

  4,090

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,904

  3,777

  City of London

  2,901

  9,055

  Camden

  2,900

  3,648

  Islington

  2,888

  3,963

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,852

  4,071

  Lewisham

  2,777

  3,778

  Westminster

  2,750

  3,637

  Greenwich

  2,711

  3,589

  Wandsworth

  2,683

  3,617

  Haringey

  2,589

  3,583

  Newham

  2,581

  3,439

  Brent

  2,500

  3,448

  Waltham Forest

  2,434

  3,261

  Ealing

  2,350

  3,224

  Hounslow

  2,260

  2,959

  Manchester

  2,258

  3,072

  Croydon

  2,243

  3,050

  Enfield

  2,234

  2,941

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,231

  2,951

  Barnet

  2,197

  2,883

  Knowsley

  2,186

  2,986

  Merton

  2,184

  2,904

  Redbridge

  2,164

  2,884

  Harrow

  2,147

  2,898

  Hillingdon

  2,133

  2,838

  Liverpool

  2,110

  2,821

  Sutton

  2,093

  2,722

  Birmingham

  2,083

  2,794

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,064

  2,720

  Bexley

  2,064

  2,734

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,045

  2,717

  Havering

  2,023

  2,686

  Isle of Wight Council

  2,016

  2,696

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,015

  2,635

  Bromley

  2,013

  2,678

  Hertfordshire

  2,010

  2,663

  East Sussex

  2,000

  2,672

  Surrey

  1,998

  2,679

  Bedfordshire

  1,995

  2,664

  Wolverhampton

  1,995

  2,691

  Essex

  1,989

  2,647

  Berkshire

  1,988

  2,664

  828

  Unit Allocations for 1995–96 SSAs Sorted in descending order of primary unit allowances

  LEA

  Primary (£) per 5–10 pupil

  Secondary (£) per 11–15 pupil

  Bradford

  1,986

  2,679

  Sandwell

  1,986

  2,642

  Coventry

  1,984

  2,648

  Salford

  1,975

  2,652

  Kent

  1,968

  2,620

  Buckinghamshire

  1,966

  2,630

  Wirral

  1,948

  2,606

  Cleveland

  1,940

  2,589

  Gateshead

  1,937

  2,601

  Doncaster

  1,934

  2,572

  Oxfordshire

  1,933

  2,575

  Rochdale

  1,932

  2,608

  West Sussex

  1,932

  2,571

  South Tyneside

  1,932

  2,562

  Hampshire

  1,930

  2,575

  Sheffield

  1,922

  2,565

  Oldham

  1,919

  2,530

  Sunderland

  1,919

  2,549

  Kirklees

  1,900

  2,539

  Calderdale

  1,896

  2,527

  Walsall

  1,894

  2,501

  Cornwall

  1,893

  2,522

  Humberside

  1,891

  2,509

  Durham

  1,884

  2,512

  Nottinghamshire

  1,883

  2,506

  Norfolk

  1,881

  2,508

  Devon

  1,879

  2,506

  Lancashire

  1,877

  2,502

  Cambridgeshire

  1,876

  2,508

  Sefton

  1,875

  2,492

  Lincolnshire

  1,873

  2,483

  Rotherham

  1,871

  2,462

  Barnsley

  1,869

  2,489

  Bolton

  1,866

  2,488

  Leicestershire

  1,864

  2,483

  Leeds

  1,864

  2,480

  Shropshire

  1,862

  2,479

  Cumbria

  1,856

  2,470

  Somerset

  1,846

  2,489

  North Tyneside

  1,845

  2,483

  St. Helens

  1,845

  2,467

  Avon

  1,838

  2,460

  Gloucestershire

  1,836

  2,435

  Northamptonshire

  1,836

  2,448

  Wiltshire

  1,835

  2,451

  Dorset

  1,833

  2,440

  Tameside

  1,831

  2,428

  Trafford

  1,830

  2,420

  North Yorkshire

  1,827

  2,422

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,827

  2,439

  Wakefield

  1,825

  2,421

  Northumberland

  1,825

  2,421

  Warwickshire

  1,822

  2,433

  Suffolk

  1,820

  2,422

  Cheshire

  1,817

  2,408

  Bury

  1,813

  2,405

  Dudley

  1,813

  2,408

  Derbyshire

  1,812

  2,415

  Wigan

  1,809

  2,391

  Staffordshire

  1,805

  2,398

  Solihull

  1,798

  2,376

  Stockport

  1,775

  2,374

  England average

  1,981

  2,630

  Inner London average

  2,890

  3,894

  Outer London average

  2,242

  2,973

  Metropolitan average

  1,945

  2,589

  Shire average

  1,895

  2,525

  829

  Office for Standards in Education
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was for each school term since September 1994(a) the number of primary schools informed by Ofsted they were to be inspected and (b) the number where inspections were actually carried out.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  These are matters for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

  Education (School Premises) Regulations
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will announce the conclusions of the review of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981. [35179]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Wales have concluded that the regulatory burden placed on school by the Education (School Premises) Regulations should be significantly reduced.

  We therefore propose to consult on a revised set of school premises regulations which will dispense with the statutory area standards for teaching accommodation and recreation area. The change will give local education authorities and school governors more flexibility to manage school land and buildings in the interests of pupils and in the light of the facilities available.

  To take account of public concern that playing fields should be preserved, however, we propose to retain minimum area standards for school playing fields. We have taken the view that these restrictions should be maintained because there may be a temptation to dispose of playing fields that schools need. That temptation does not arise in the same way in the case of teaching accommodation or recreation area.

  We also intend to retain the central core of requirements in the existing regulations which are aimed at safeguarding the health, safety and welfare of pupils. In particular, we propose to retain the general health and safety requirements of the 1981 regulations and the specific requirements relating to washrooms, medical accommodation, boarding accommodation, fire safety, acoustics, lighting, heating, ventilation, water quality and drainage.

  The Department will be consulting soon on a revised set of draft regulations with those in schools and local authorities who will be responsible for implementing them. Subject to the outcome of that consultation and to the approval of Parliament, we intend that a revised set of regulations reflecting the changes I have set out will enter into force from the beginning of January 1996.
  830
  To assist local education authorities and schools in interpreting and applying the regulations, my Department will continue to provide advice and guidance on the design and use of school premises.

  Black Economy
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to reduce the size of the black economy. [32094]

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Employment in the black economy is minimised by reducing regulatory and administrative burdens on employers; keeping down tax and other non-wage labour costs; and by effective action against fraud. The regulatory burden on employers in the UK is lower than in the other EU countries, and non-wage cost as a proportion of total hourly labour costs are among the lowest in the OECD. The Employment Service aims to protect taxpayers' money from abuse by conducting fraud drives in areas of the economy where experience has shown fraud to be prevalent.

  Advertising
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much has been spent on outside advertising agencies for each year since 1979; and if he will list the specific advertising campaigns undertaken by his Department, their purpose and their cost. [32477]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Employment Department does not spend money directly with advertising agencies, but channels its expenditure through the central office of information, which manages advertising on behalf of central Government.

  Total advertising expenditure by the Department since 1979 is:

  £

  1979–80

  1 2 3175,296

  1980–81

  1 36,867,309

  1981–82

  1 3 4,395,776

  1982–83

  1 6,186,195

  1983–84

  1 4,754,522

  1984–85

  1 3,254,828

  1985–86

  1 20,621,583

  1986–87

  1 53,241,911

  1987–88

  1 40,706.040

  1988–89

  1 30,229,606

  1989–90

  1 21,797,896

  1990–91

  1 12,293,720

  1991–92

  14,039,415

  1992–93

  1 5,584,560

  1993–94

  1 8,441,609

  1994–95

  To be advised

  Notes:

  1 At constant 1994 prices.

  1 The 1979–80 total does not include expenditure by the former Manpower Services Commission as the figure is not available.

  1 The 1979–80, 1980–81, 1981–82, 1982–83, 1983–84 and 1984–85 totals do not include expenditure by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as figures are not available.

  831
  From 1979–90 a list of subject matter and specific costs is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Major campaigns each year from 1990–95 are shown in the following table:

  £

  1990–91

  TEC National Launch

  4,214,000

  National Training Awards

  942,386

  Career Development Loans

  491,214

  JobClub

  980,455

  Disability Symbol

  447,222

  1991–92

  TEC National Launch

  4,272,340

  National Training Awards

  868,307

  Just the Job Launch

  1,698,048

  Investors in People

  447,752

  Disability Symbol

  608,248

  1992–93

  National Training Awards

  462,437

  Career Development Loans

  569,881

  Disability Symbol

  814,060

  Just the Job

  359,666

  Employers/Job Centres

  741,066

  1993–94

  National Training Awards

  434,032

  Career Development Loans

  1,242,152

  Make it Your Business/IIP

  1,712,579

  Just the Job

  1,381,333

  Disability Symbol

  11,053,404

  Employers/Job Centres

  978,723

  1994–95

  NVQ/Free Your Potential

  2,717,685

  Career Development Loans

  1,264,951

  Disability Symbol

  936,000

  Just the Job

  850,502

  National Training Awards

  303,355

  The above campaigns have all been undertaken with a view to increasing awareness and encouraging participation in the Department's initiatives.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what calculations she has made on the impact for public expenditure of the United Kingdom signing the European Union social chapter; and if he will make a statement. [32871]

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not possible to put an exact figure on the costs of the draft social chapter proposed at Maastricht because it is a mechanism for legislating rather than a body of legislation. However, there can be no doubt that accepting the social chapter would lead to legislation being imposed on the UK which would adversely affect public finances. Most important, the costs of public sector employers would be increased and the flexibility and competitiveness of British business reduced so that jobs would be lost and tax revenue reduced.
  832

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action she proposes to create greaterstability amongst training providers contracted to TECs. [31786]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I am sure that the combination of responsibilities within my new Department will offer many opportunities to strengthen our policies for training. Training and enterprise councils will continue to have a central role to play and I look forward to a very positive relationship with them. But let us be clear that TECs are independent companies and the contractual arrangements they make with their providers are a matter for them.

  Career Development Loans
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total public expenditure on career development loans in each year for which figures are available in(a) actual and (b) current prices. [33148]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: I have been asked to reply.

  The programme costs for career development loans for each year since 1988 together with the equivalent cost at 1995–96 prices are shown in the table:

  £ million

  Year

  Actual cost

  Cost at 1995–96 prices

  1988–89

  0.650

  0.901

  1989–90

  1.404

  1.819

  1990–91

  3.750

  4.498

  1991–92

  5.389

  6.082

  1992–93

  6.884

  7.472

  1993–94

  7.975

  8.399

  1994–95

  9.392

  9.697

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications for career development loans there were in each year for which figures are available; and what percentage of these applications were successful. [33150]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: I have been asked to reply.

  The number of approved career development loans for each year since 1988 together with the number of rejections, as provided to the Employment Department by the participating banks, and the consequent percentage of successful applications is shown in the table:

  Year

  Loans approved

  Loans rejected

  Percentage of successful applications

  1988–89

  2,762

  735

  79

  1989–90

  5,805

  1,733

  77

  1990–91

  8,054

  1,767

  82

  1991–92

  10,432

  4,260

  71

  1992–93

  10,230

  3,978

  72

  1993–94

  12,159

  4,966

  71

  1994–95

  15,169

  4,790

  76

  833
  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of those taking out career development loans were(a) unemployed, (b) employed and (c) continuing students in each year for which figures are available. [33149]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: I have been asked to reply.

  The following table lists, in percentage terms, the employment status of approved career development loan applicants for each year since 1991:

  Percentage

  Year

  Unemployed

  Employed

  Student

  Other

  1991–921

  31

  51

  17

  1

  1992–93

  35

  45

  18

  2

  1993–94

  36

  42

  19

  3

  1994–95

  33

  44

  20

  3

  1 Figures for earlier years were not collected in a comparable format.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Sexism
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the Government intend to give effect to recommendation No. R(09)4 adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 21 February 1990, on the elimination of sexism from language, by bringing the terminology used in legal drafting and public administration into line with the principle of sex equality. [33034]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government are fully committed to the principle of sex equality. As regards parliamentary drafting, the Government have no plans to alter present practice, which is to use language that is best suited to conveying meaning clearly and simply. Within Government communications, non-gender specific language is already widely used by Departments, who follow the principles of the "Plain English" campaign to communicate with clients and staff.

  World Wide Web Server
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the work his Department has carried out in the last 12 months in making information about his Department available to the public via the Government world wide web server known as "www.open.gov.uk" and his plans and policies to make additional and new information available electronically on the server in the next 12 months. [34674]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has been responsible for the development of the CCTA Government information service on the world wide web. Since its launch in November 1994, over 80 public sector organisations have made information available, including 15 major Departments of State and 50 agencies, business units and non-departmental public bodies.

  The Office of Public Service has made available a wide range of information, including all the citizen's charters; the code of practice on access to Government information; a directory of Ministers and Whips; details of publications, services and events from CCTA—the Government Centre for Information Systems; information
  834
  on HMSO'S publications, business systems and electrical trading services; and courses and services available from the Civil Service college.

  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service is today setting out the progress made to date and our vision for further developments in a speech at the CCTA's information superhighways conference. Further information on our achievements and plans can be found in the CCTA's report on information superhighways, which was placed in the Library of the House last month.

  Civil Service Pension Scheme
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil servants contribute to the civil service pension scheme; how many people are currently in receipt of pensions; and how many people, having ceased to be employed in the civil service, will receive delayed civil service pensions. [33299]

  Mr. Horam
  As at 1 April 1995, some 514,000 civil servants were members of the principal civil service pension scheme. In addition, there are some 12,000 staff of other bodies who are covered by the scheme.

  The number of PCSPS pensions in payment, at the end of June 1995, was 528,251. This figure includes widows and dependants in receipt of pensions. There are some 225,000 awards preserved for payment at pension age.

  "List of Ministerial Responsibilities"
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to publish a revised edition of "List of Ministerial Responsibilities", taking into account the recent changes in responsibilities announced in the recent Government reshuffle. [34574]

  Mr. Freeman
  A revised edition of the "List of Ministerial Responsibilities including Agencies" is currently being prepared and I shall publish it shortly. Copies of the new edition will be made available to Members free of charge from the Vote Office.

TREASURY

  Public Sector Debt
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost in 1994–95 of servicing(a) the total public sector debt and (b) that part of the debt accumulated in that year. [34298]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Excluding flows within the public sector, gross public sector debt interest payments in 1994–95 amounted to £22.5 billion. Central Government debt interest payments were £21.9 billion, of which it is estimated some £700 million represented gross interest on gilts issued during 1994–95. It is not possible to provide reliable estimates of debt service costs arising from other forms of debt issued in the year.

  Corporation Tax (Shipping Companies)
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rates of corporation tax applicable to shipping companies in each country of the
  835
  European Union; and if he will make it his policy to bring United Kingdom rates into line with those elsewhere in the European Union. [33344]

  Mr. Jack
  The UK continues to provide one of the lowest rates of corporation tax in the European Union. Current confined main national rates of corporation tax applicable to shipping companies in each European Union country are:

  Table: Main national rates of corporation tax applicable to shipping companies in the European Union

  Country

  Rate (percentage)

  Notes

  Austria

  34

  —

  Belgium

  39

  Plus 3 per cent, surcharge, making an effective rate of 40.17 per cent.

  Denmark

  34

  —

  Finland

  25

  —

  France

  33.33

  —

  Germany

  45

  On undistributed profits (30 per cent, on distributed) plus 7.5 per cent, surcharge and local trade taxes (average 20 per cent., giving an average total effective rate of 58 per cent, on undistributed profits (46.25 per cent, on distributed).

  Greece

  Nil

  Profits from shipping are not subject to corporation tax. Instead a special tax, based on gross tonnage and age, is charged on usage of a vessel.

  Ireland

  38

  —

  Italy

  37

  Plus 16.2 per cent, local tax, making an effective rate of 53.2 per cent.

  Luxembourg

  33

  Plus 4 per cent, surcharge and local trade taxes (in range 8 per cent-12 per cent.), making an effective rate of 40.9 per cent.

  Netherlands

  35

  —

  Portugal

  36

  —

  Spain

  35

  Plus 1 per cent, surcharge, making an effective rate of 35.35 per cent. A special regime exists in the Canary Islands which broadly grants shipping companies a 35 per cent, reduction in corporation tax, giving an effective rate of 22.75 per cent.

  Sweden

  28

  —

  United Kingdom

  33

  —

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide the latest estimates of the outturn of public expenditure by department on the same basis as table 6A.3 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" 1995–96. [34494]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The latest available figures for provisional outturn for 1994–95 are published in table 1 of the public expenditure outturn White Paper for 1994– 95, Cm 2903. The latest figures for earlier years are published in the statistical supplement to the FSBR 1995–96, Cm 2821. Following usual practice, figures for estimated outturn for 1995–96 will be published for the 836
  first time in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" 1996–97 in November.

  Central Statistical Office
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the Central Statistical Office performed against its key targets in 1994–95. [35206]

  Mrs. Knight
  The Central Statistical Office's performance for 1994–95 is described in the agency's annual report and accounts for 1994–95 which is being laid before the House and published today.

  The CSO achieved 27 out of the 33 published targets, including 18 out of 19 targets relating to the quality of key economic statistics.

  A number of targets for 1995–96 have been tightened and these are set out in the CSO programme strategies 1995–96 to 1997–98 which was published in April.

  Public Bodies (External Audits)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the timetable for the review of the arrangements for the external audit of public bodies recommended by the Nolan committee; who will be conducting the review; and who will be consulted during the review. [33545]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: We aim to reach provisional conclusions by the end of 1995 and then issue a consultation paper. The review is being conducted jointly by the Treasury and the Cabinet Office and covers separate recommendations which the Nolan committee addressed to those departments on external audit and on the legal framework governing propriety and accountability. The review will take account of evidence submitted to the Nolan committee but the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, has invited all who wish to provide further comments to do so by 30 September. They should be sent to Room 130G/4, Office of Public Service, Horse Guards Road, London, SWIP 3AL.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Upper Waiting Hall
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the British Association of Social Work, "Then, Now and Onwards" to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 27 November to Friday 1 December 1995.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to plastics and recycling to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.
  837
  Mr. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 18 December to Friday 22 December 1995.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Deputy Prime Minister
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what will be the involvement of the Deputy Prime Minister in the work of his Department. [34121]

  Company

  Number of contracts

  Company

  Value of contracts £

  1990

  Price Project Service

  8

  RSCG Conran Design

  898,000

  PA Consulting

  7

  PA Consulting

  759,572

  PE International

  7

  Strategic Sponsorship Ltd

  690,000

  Les Probert Associates

  7

  Manchester University

  599,739

  Coopers and Lybrand

  6

  Ernst and Young

  369,031

  1991

  PA Consulting

  15

  CMG Computer Management Group

  1,139,750

  Coopers and Lybrand

  12

  Price Waterhouse

  1,227,335

  PE International

  10

  P-Four Consultancy Ltd.

  992,309

  Touche Ross

  8

  Environmental Resources

  839,226

  Ernst and Young

  8

  Kermon Ltd.

  737,772

  1992

  PA Consulting

  19

  Touche Ross

  2,760,230

  KPMG

  14

  PA Consulting

  836,756

  Ernst and Young

  10

  Boyds

  789,733

  Coopers and Lybrand

  9

  KPMG

  741,283

  PE International

  8

  CSC Computer Sciences Ltd

  688,070

  1993

  PA Consulting

  21

  Crown Business Communications

  2,078,349

  KPMG

  17

  PA Consulting

  1,192,450

  Ernst and Young

  14

  Price Waterhouse

  990,083

  Coopers and Lybrand

  7

  Scientific Generics

  851,300

  Price Waterhouse

  6

  KPMG

  718,370

  1994

  Coopers and Lybrand

  10

  Coopers and Lybrand

  720,674

  PA Consulting

  10

  PA Consulting

  480,916

  Ernst and Young

  5

  BZW Corporate Finance

  380,000

  Segal Quince Wicksteed

  5

  KPMG

  378,000

  Touche Ross

  3

  Dewe Rogerson Ltd.

  360,000

  Accountancy Profession
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for democratising the accountancy profession. [33900]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My primary responsiblilty is to ensure that the professional accountancy bodies fulfil their statutory duties in the fields of company audit and insolvency work.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the latest statistics from the Invest
  838
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a question from the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 11 July 1995, Official Report, columns 496–97.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will indicate which five consultancy firms have received most contracts from his Department(a) by number of contracts and (b) monetary value in the last five years for which figures are available. [33437]

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested in given in the tables. These include details of contracts let centrally and exclude those contracts let independently by the Department's executive agencies.

  in Britain Bureau of the number of inward investment projects coming into the United Kingdom will be published. [34634]

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 13 July 1995.

  Fireworks
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for amending section 67 of the Explosives Act 1875, authorising local authorities in metropolitan areas to enforce section 31 of the Act and deal with dangerous fireworks. [32494]
  839
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I do not consider it is necessary to amend the Explosive Act 1875 in order to empower trading standards officers to deal with any traders supplying fireworks to children apparently under 16 years of age. While enforcement of section 31 of that Act is for the police, trading standards officers have powers under the General Product Safety Regulations 1994 to prevent the supply by traders of goods, including fireworks, which are unsafe in the hands of those to whom they are supplied, for example the supply of fireworks to children under 16 years of age.

  Computer Suppliers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the top 10 suppliers of computer equipment to his Department and its agencies in the last five years, indicating the total value of the contracts received. [34562]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Such information is not readily available and cannot be provided other than at disproportionate cost. However, the major suppliers from which computer equipment has been purchased over the past three years, excluding purchasing by executive agencies, are:

  Contract value £

  ICL Enterprises

  11.5 million

  Digital Equipment Company Ltd.

  1.2 million

  Unisys Ltd.

  750,000

  Sequent Computer Systems Ltd.

  250,000

  A much wider range of companies has been involved in the supply of smaller, individual system requirements.

  Financial Reporting
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what responsibilities he has in relation to the operations of(a) the Auditing Practices Board and (b) the Accounting Standards Board. [34101]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My Department supports the work of both bodies to improve the quality of financial reporting and my officials attend their meetings as observers. My Department provides about one third of the funding of the Financial Reporting Council and its subsidiaries, of which the Accounting Standards Board is one.

  Chartered Association of Certified Accountants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will be advising the Privy Council to approve the name and designatory change of the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants from CACA to CPA. [33901]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Privy Council Office will be consulting my Department about this once it has consulted the others concerned.
  840

  Audit Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many audit firm partners have been barred from public practice as a result of the criticisms contained in the inspectors' reports published since 1979. [33899]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  This information is not immediately available. I will write to the hon. Gentleman in due course.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to achieve the aim of closing the episodes that led to the Scott inquiry as set out in the list of principal objectives of his Department's export control and proliferation division, published in his departmental MINIS 1995 returns part 2 on 12 June. [30601]

  Mr. Lang
  Principal objective(d) of my Department's export control and non-proliferation division, as published in my Departmental MINIS 1995 returns part 2 on 12 June, calls for the episodes which led to Sir Richard Scott's inquiry to be closed, but in the context of a Government response to the Scott report. It would be premature for me to decide how best to close these episodes before Sir Richard Scott's report is published. Meanwhile, my Department's Scott inquiry unit is providing papers and information on request to Sir Richard Scott's inquiry, and lending factual assistance to witnesses to the inquiry.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if Lord Justice Scott has requested his Department to provide documentation on the role played by the N. M. Rothschild bank in assisting Iraq and Iran to obtain munitions during the Iran-Iraq war. [32884]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]: Requests for information from Sir Richard Scott's inquiry are a matter for the inquiry.

  N. M. Rothschild Bank
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what information has been provided to his Department by(a) N. M. Rothschild bank Ltd. or (b) Rothschild Asset Management Ltd. in regard to investment made in Chinese factories between April 1983 and June 1987; [32885]

  (2) what investigations have been conducted by his Department into the funding support provided by N. M. Rothschild bank to companies based in China known to have supplied munitions to the combatants during the Iran-Iraq war. [32889]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]: My Department is not immediately aware of such information; nor has it conducted such investigations.
  841

  BMARC
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the oral statement of 13 June at columns 595–606, who were the directors of BMARC at the time that possible breaches of export controls occurred. [29259]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 19 June 1995]: H. M. Customs and Excise is responsible for investigating whether any breaches of export control have occurred.

  The directors of BMARC for 1986–89, the period covered by the statement made in the House by my right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade on 13 June 1995, were as follows:

  From 1986, the directors of BMARC were Sir R. Freer, Mr. M. Funk, Mr. D. Isles and Mr. W. Leuch.

  In May 1988 BMARC was acquired by Astra. Mr. D. Isles remained a director, and the following were also appointed directors: Mr. G. James, Mr. C. Gumbley, Mr. J. Miller, Mr. S. Kock, Mr. W. McNaught.

  In September 1988 Mr. J. Aitken was appointed a director. In February 1989 Mr. J. Sellens was appointed a director. In July 1989 Mr. D. Isles resigned as a director.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  United Kingdom Nationals
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provisions are in place, when assessing United Kingdom nationals under the income related benefit scheme (MISC amendment (No. 3)), Regulation 1994 and with reference to article 1 of the 1953 European convention on social and medical assistance and article 13 of the 1961 Council of Europe social charter, for Untied Kingdom nationals returning to the United Kingdom from another EU state, in line with protection offered under EU directions to non-United Kingdom nationals. [31324]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  All income support claimants, including British citizens returning to the United Kingdom from another member state of the European Union, and including non-United Kingdom nationals, are required to show that they are habitually resident in accordance with the provisions of the Income Related Benefit Scheme (Miscellaneous Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 1994 before they can receive benefit. Article 1 of the European convention on social and medical assistance and article 13 of the Council of Europe social charter require the United Kingdom to allow nationals of other signatory states to these conventions, who are lawfully present in this country, access to income support on equal terms with British citizens. The protection afforded under EC legislation to non-United Kingdom nationals is restricted to nationals of the European Economic Area. It applies to certain workers and former workers in this country and meets our current obligations under European Community law.

  Income Support
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many unemployment benefit claimants were disqualified from benefit and(a) were in receipt and (b) were not in receipt of a reduced rate of
  842
  income support during the disqualification period, for each region and for Great Britain as a whole for each quarter since April 1994, indicating those whose unemployment benefit was disqualified for (i) leaving employment voluntarily, (ii) being dismissed for misconduct and (iii) refusal of employment. [32593]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The latest available information is set out in the tables. The information requested on refusal of employment is not kept separately.

  Income Support recipients whose benefit is reduce because of voluntary unemployment or misconduct

  Region

  May 1994

  August 1994

  North eastern

  4,000

  5,000

  London north

  5,000

  7,000

  London south

  3,000

  6,000

  South western

  3,000

  3,000

  Midlands

  6,000

  7,000

  North western

  3,000

  4,000

  Scotland

  3,000

  3,000

  Wales

  1,000

  2,000

  Total

  27,000

  37,000

  Notes:

  1 Figures are at a point in time.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000 and so may not sum to the total given,.

  >

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Inquiries for May and August 1994.

  Unemployed Claimants disqualified because of voluntary unemployment or misconduct and receiving neither Unemployment Benefit nor Income Support as at May and November 1994

  Refused for leaving work voluntarily

  Refused for losing work through misconduct

  May 1994

  1,800

  600

  November 1994

  2,200

  500

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

  Source:

  Table 2.2 of Half-yearly analysis of Unemployed Claimants for May and November 1994.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will re-examine the rules on severe hardship payments in respect of young people denied financial help from their families though their relationships have not irretrievably broken down. [32833]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No. Benefits Agency officers take all the relevant factors into account when deciding whether a young person is at risk of severe hardship. Among the factors considered would be the young person's relationship with their parents and whether they were being provided with any financial or other support.

  Contributions Agency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning his restructuring plans for the Contributions Agency; and if he will make a statement. [32690]

  Mr. Heald
  The administration of the Contributions Agency is a matter for Mrs. Faith Boardman, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.
  843
  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Ms Joan Walley, dated 13 July 1995:
  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency, I have responsibility for answering questions about operational matters relating to the Agency and the National Insurance (NI) scheme. I have been asked to reply to your questions about representations that have been received concerning the restructuring plans for the Agency.
  Current research has shown that there is a need to match more closely Contributions Agency Field outlets to customer requirements while still maintaining nationwide cover for administration of the NI scheme and the proposed restructuring addresses this issue.
  Representations about the restructuring have been made by the relevant Civil Service Trade Unions and some enquiries about the changes have been made by the business community. The proposed changes take account of research among customers which shows, in general, that they prefer to make contact by telephone or correspondence. The Agency is engaged in a consultation process with staff to consider their views on the proposed future network.
  I hope that my reply proves helpful. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what further steps he is taking to ensure that his Department is able to meet its obligations as stipulated by the National Audit Office in relation to the collection and administration of national insurance contributions; and if he will make a statement; [33318]

  (2) how many staff of the Contributions Agency are involved in (a) the administration and (b) the collection of national insurance contributions; if he will provide a breakdown by (i) region and (ii) Contributions Agency office; and if he will make a statement; [33319]

  (3) what recent meetings have been held with organisations concerning the planning and restructuring exercise, business unit analysis, by the Contributions Agency; and if he will make a statement on the names of those in attendance, the date of each meeting and the matters discussed; [33320]

  (4) what recent representations he has received on the planning and restructuring exercise, business unit analysis, by the Contributions Agency, what is the time scale envisaged for the completion of the exercise; and if he will make a statement; [33321]

  (5) what is the number of inspectors employed in the Contributions Agency who are involved in undertaking regular visits to (a) employers and (b) the self-employed; and if he will provide a breakdown by (i) region and (ii) Contributions Agency office; [33322]

  (6) if he will provide a breakdown of the offices of the Contributions Agency indicating the numbers employed at each office; and if he will make a statement. [33323]

  Mr. Heald
  The administration of the Contributions Agency is a matter for Mrs. Faith Boardman, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mrs. Margaret Ewing, dated 13 July 1995:
  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency, I have responsibility for answering questions about operational matters relating to the Agency and the National Insurance (NI) scheme. I have been asked to reply to your questions about the numbers of staff employed in different areas and their roles within the Agency, the arrangements concerning the current restructuring exercise and the steps that are being taken to meet obligations as stipulated by
  844
  the National Audit Office. In view of the nature of the questions I have combined the responses.Unfortunately the information is not available exactly in the form that you have requested.The Contributions Agency is responsible for ensuring compliance with the law on National Insurance matters. In 1991 the Agency began to move towards a Field Operations network of some 184 Field Offices supported by 90 Inspector outstations. Current research has shown that there is a need to match more closely Contributions Agency outlets to customer requirements while still maintaining nationwide cover for the administration of the NI scheme. Information obtained about density of businesses, density of population and locations of the self employed, has been incorporated into the design of a new network to consist of around 100–115 locations, comprising 70–75 Field Offices and 30–40 Inspector outstations, which will meet National Audit Office requirements. It is planned that most of the changes will be in place within the next two to three years.Representations about the restructuring have been made by the relevant Civil Service Trade Unions and some enquiries about the changes have been made by the business community. The proposed changes take account of research among customers which shows, in general, that they prefer to make contact by telephone or correspondence. The Agency is engaged in a consultation process with staff and Trade Unions to consider their views on the proposed future network.Meetings whose Agendas have included the restructuring plans have taken place between Field Operations management and representatives of the Trade Unions on the following dates: 4 and 5 April, 2, 3 and 12 May, 12 June and 5 July 1995. Representation at these meetings involved Field senior management including the Director of Field Operations and the Business Change Manager. Trade Union representatives were from the Civil and Public Services Association and the National Union of Civil and Public Servants. Meetings have also been held at local levels between management and staff, but details of these are not kept centrally.There are currently 8853 staff in post the Agency. It is not possible to differentiate between staff who are employed on purely administrative work as opposed to those who are involved in the actual collection of National Insurance Contributions.The operational area in regular face-to-face contact with our customers is Field Operations, whose NI inspectors visit employers and self-employed contributors both to monitor their compliance with NI law and in an educational role. At 1 June 1995 there were 3440 staff in post in Field Operations. I regret that at this staff I am unable to supply you with up-to-date figures for the number of staff employed at each location. However, these figures are about to be collated and I will write to you again when they are available. At 31 March 1995 1780 staff held Inspectors' Warrants. Details of the number of inspectors attached to each location are not kept, but the table in Annex 1 shows the number of Warrant holders in each of the Agency's Divisions.I regret that I have been unable to answer the precise questions that you have raised, but I hope that my reply proves helpful. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

  Annex 1: Number of Inspectors Warrants in issue—year end March 1995

  Number of Warrants

  Northern sector

  Caledonia

  70

  East and West Yorkshire

  66

  Edinburgh

  61

  North Lancashire and Cumbria

  48

  Northumberland, Durham and Teeside

  51

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  59

  Total

  355

  Midland sector

  Birmingham

  61

  Manchester

  47

  845

  Annex 1: Number of Inspectors Warrants in issue—year end March 1995

  Number of Warrants

  Mersey side

  50

  Midlands/North West

  60

  Nottinghamshire/Lincolnshire/Derbyshire

  52

  South Lancashire and Cheshire

  61

  Total

  331

  Eastern sector

  Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire

  57

  East Anglia

  58

  Essex

  78

  Hertfordshire

  90

  Leicester and North Hampshire

  55

  North Circular

  72

  Total

  410

  South Eastern Sector

  Capital

  68

  Central

  68

  Kent

  46

  Special Compliance Unit (Bromley)

  6

  South Bank

  33

  South Coast

  45

  Surrey

  50

  Total

  316

  South Western Sector

  Devon and Cornwall

  53

  Hants

  45

  Severn Estuary

  56

  South Circular

  48

  Thames Valley

  48

  Wales

  58

  Wessex

  60

  Total

  368

  Departmental Staff (Shareholdings)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff in his Department or its agencies have(a) declared any company shareholdings they hold or (b) been advised to dispose of shareholdings in the last five years, indicating the companies concerned. [33423]

  Mr. Burt
  None.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many unfair dismissal cases were brought against his Department during the last 12 months; how many were successful; and what were the total costs including legal fees and compensation. [34614]

  Mr. Burt
  In the year ending 30 June 1995 there were 58 applications to industrial tribunals for unfair dismissal brought against the Department. Three of these were unsuccessful, six were withdrawn, two were settled before a hearing and 47 are waiting to be heard. Information on legal costs is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of 846
  employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980. [33452]

  Mr. Burt
  There have been no privatisation programmes and no costs have therefore been incurred.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years. [33572]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Year

  Number of contracts

  Total cost £ million

  1990–91

  952

  83.2

  1991–92

  933

  69.7

  1992–93

  863

  36.4

  1993–94

  971

  34

  1994–95

  863

  26.1

  Figures for 1992–93 onwards refer solely to expenditure on consultancy services following work undertaken for the Efficiency Scrutiny into the Government's Use of External Consultants. Figures for earlier years include the costs of contracted services.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will indicate which five consultancy firms have received most contracts from his Department(a) by number of contracts and (b) monetary value in the last five years for which figures are available. [33433]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Consultancy Firm

  Number of contracts 1990–91 to 1994–95

  Anderson Consulting

  536

  ICL

  409

  PA Consulting

  345

  Price Waterhouse

  327

  Sema

  428

  The monetary value of contracts is restricted commercial information.

  Personnel
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list separately, by each office of his Department, the numbers and grades of casuals, fixed appointments and vacancies in the Coventry travel-to-work area. [33776]

  Mr. Burt
  The information as at 30 June this year is as follows:

  (a) Two staff employed on fixed term contracts in the Administrative Officer grade at the Nuneaton office of the Benefits Agency.

  (b) One member of staff employed as an Administrative Assistant on a casual basis at the Coventry office of the Child Support Agency.

  (c) One member of staff employed as an Administered Assistant on a casual basis at the Nuneaton office of the Child Support Agency.

  (d) One vacancy at Higher Executive Officer grade in the Child Support Agency to be based in the Coventry area.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what representations he has received in
  847
  relation to staff (a) contracts of employment and (b) pension arrangements at SERCO Ltd, following the contracting out of operation by the Benefits Agency; and if he will make a statement; [33850]

  (2) when he last met the head of Serco Ltd; what discussions took place about the staffing levels, protecting confidentiality of claimants and market testing; and if he will make a statement; [33964]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the arrangements that exist at the Benefits Agency offices in Lea Roding district in relation of processing the post; and if he will make a statement; [33965]

  (4) what representations he has received in relation to staffing arrangements at Serco Ltd, following contracting out by the Benefits Agency; and if he will make a statement. [33967]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Mike Gapes, dated 13 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about: (a) staff contracts of employment and pension arrangements following transfer to SERCO Ltd; (b) when he last met the head of SERCO Ltd; (c) discussions and representations received in relation to staffing levels at SERCO Ltd; (d) protecting confidentiality of claimants and the adequacy of the arrangements that exist at the Benefits Agency (BA) offices in the Lea Roding District in relation to processing the post.
  The contract for work was awarded to SERCO Ltd on the understanding that the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, also known as TUPE, applied. This meant that all BA staff transferred with existing terms and conditions, except pension provisions, to their new employers.
  However, prior to the award of the contract, SERCO Ltd needed to satisfy the Government Actuaries Department that the pension scheme they proposed was broadly comparable with the Principal Civil Service Pension scheme. The BA also provided the opportunity for staff who were transferring to attend advice seminars with representatives from the Government Actuaries Department prior to making any decision about their pension position. The BA has not received representations from staff who transferred to SERCO Ltd in relation to contracts of employment or pensions.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has not met with the head of SERCO Ltd. There are, however, regular monthly meetings between BA management and SERCO Ltd to discuss service delivery issues. Staffing levels and customer confidentiality have not been on the Agenda at these meetings. However, SERCO Ltd have kept BA management informed of changes and increases in their key staff. I am unaware of specific representations about staffing arrangements at SERCO Ltd in connection with the work the BA has contracted to them.
  In Lea Roding District, post opening and sorting is sub-contracted out by SERCO Ltd to the Royal Mail. The post is opened by Royal Mail staff in a secure area within the sorting office.
  All staff working for SERCO Ltd, and those opening the post, are required to sign a declaration acknowledging the provisions of Section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which makes it a criminal offence to disclose personal information provided for Social Security purposes.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made about the number of complaints that have been received about the delays in processing the claims at the Benefits Agency at Lea Roding district; and if he will make a statement. [33966]
  848
  Mr. Evans
  This is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Mike Gapes, dated 13 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about what assessment has made of the number of complaints received at the Benefits Agency's Lea Roding District concerning delays in the processing of claims.
  For the six month period 1 February 1995 to 13 July 1995 the Customer Service Section at Lea Roding District received a total of 233 customer complaints, of which five were in respect of delays in processing claims. All five of these complaints were investigated and responded to within eleven working days of receipt and four of the five delays resulted from the need for the adjudication officer to obtain additional information.
  The level of complaints is closely monitored in all Districts. However, in view of your concern, I have asked the relevant Territorial Director to satisfy herself of the standard of service provided.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mortgage Protection Policies
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the proportion of homeowners that will be unable to purchase mortgage protection insurance policies. [32046]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We have made no such estimate. The Association of British Insurers and the Abbey National building society both take the view that virtually anyone who is able to obtain a mortgage should also be able to obtain appropriate insurance. We have identified certain groups such as pensioners and those with pre-existent medical conditions whose ability to obtain full insurance is questionable and we have accordingly made special provisions for such groups in the new scheme.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many days were lost in sickness in the 12 months by employees in his Department(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of the number of days worked; and what was the cost of this absence. [34615]

  Mr. Burt
  The number of working days lost due to sickness in 1994 was 1,117,263–5.37 per cent. of the number of available days. These are the latest figures available and use provisional information. Details of the cost of these absences are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Redundancies
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many redundancies occurred in his Department over the last 12 months; how many were voluntary; and what was the total sum spent on redundancy payments. [34616]

  Mr. Burt
  During the 1994–95 financial year, 864 staff took early retirement or redundancy of which 823 were on voluntary grounds. The total cost of early retirement and redundancies borne on the Department's running costs in 1994–95 was £.18.120 million.
  849

  Residential Care and Nursing Homes
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 193, what measures are in place to ensure that care and nursing homes do not increase their fees in excess of increases in the rates of the higher level of income support so that residents of such homes with preserved rights are not forced to use personal savings to meet the difference if fees exceed welfare payments. [34383]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Under the old system of income support limits, the level of fees charged in independent residential care and nursing homes are a matter between the proprietors and the residents, or their relatives and the Government have no authority to intervene.

  Computer Suppliers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the top 10 suppliers of computer equipment to his Department and its agencies in the last five years, indicating the total value of the contracts received.

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not available in the format requested.

  When buying computer equipment on this scale, in order to obtain the most competitive prices it is the practice to create a framework contract covering the major suppliers—ICL, IBM and SNI—to span a number of years: for example, a large, long-term contract for regular bulk purchases, rather than separate contracts for the large numbers of individual purchases of equipment.

  Benefit Payment Card
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the first benefit payment cards to be issued; and when all such cards will be issued. [34442]

  Mr. Heald
  It is envisaged that the first benefit payment cards will be issued in 1996. The full implementation process is expected to take three years from then.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the benefit payment cards he intends to introduce with particular reference to the information carried on the cards and the methods photographic and electronic of identifying the holder. [34443]

  Mr. Heald
  The design and the type of security features of the benefit payment card have not been decided. Precise details will depend on the evaluation of the proposals from the potential suppliers of the benefit payment card system, including the acceptability to customers and post office staff.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the firms who have been invited to tender for the introduction and operation of the benefit payment card system. [34445]
  850
  Mr. Heald
  Five companies, some of which lead consortiums, were invited to submit proposals in response to a statement of service requirements. These are:

  Cardlink UK

  BT

  EDS

  IBM

  ICL

  The proposals are currently being evaluated with the intention of producing a shortlist of potential prime contractors with whom Post Office Counters Ltd. and this Department will enter into negotiations which we expect to lead to an awarded of contract.

  Benefits Agency (Home Visits)
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many home visits have been made by Benefits Agency staff in the course of their duties in the latest period for which figures are available; and what were the equivalent figures(a) three, (b) five, (c) 10 and (d) 15 years ago. [34444]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Income Distribution
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the percentage contribution of social security to the incomes of those in the bottom 10 per cent. through to 50 per cent. of the income distribution, by decile. [33474]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: The information is in the table.

  Results for the lowest income deciles exaggerate the proportion of income from social security benefits. This is because the value of benefits received by one member of the household entitled to receive them may be higher than total net household income, after taking into account, for example, business losses by other household members. Such cases are concentrated towards the bottom of income distribution.

  Contribution of Social Security benefits to the bottom five deciles of the income distribution.

  Decile Group

  Social Security benefits as a percentage of total income

  Bottom

  82

  Second

  70

  Third

  50

  Fourth

  31

  Fifth

  20

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for the United Kingdom in 1992–93—the two calender years combined.

  2. Results for the bottom decile will be dominated by people in the top half of the decile since they will have the higher incomes.

  Pension Splitting
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of splitting pensions on divorce for the year 1997 assuming a long term inflation rate of 5 per cent. [32615]
  851
  Mr. Heald
  [holding answer 4 July 1995]: Further to the reply given by the former Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), the information is not available in the form requested.

  Such information as is available is as follows. The Government Actuary has estimated that if pension splitting on divorce was introduced in 1997, the annual cost to unfunded public service schemes in the first full year would be approximately £500 million at 1994 prices. This estimate assumes that pensions will be split in all divorces relating to active public service scheme members, and that 50 per cent. of the accrued cash equivalent transfer valuation of each divorced member is transferred out of the scheme. No allowance is made for offsetting against other assets, and it is assumed that the current divorce rate continues. There would also be additional legal aid costs.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assumptions have been used to reach the figure for the cost of splitting pensions on divorce for the year 2037; and what is the figure. [32616]

  Mr. Heald
  [holding answer 4 July 1995]: Further to the reply given by the former Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), splitting pensions on divorce affects the public finances through its effects on tax revenue, the unfunded public service schemes, legal aid and income-related benefit expenditure. In 2037, the main cost arises from lost tax revenue and increased tax relief on pension contributions.

  Using data from the survey of personal incomes and the 1991 Government Actuary's Department occupational pension survey, Inland Revenue has estimated that allowing pensions to be split on divorce would lead to a loss of tax revenue of around £200 million per year by 2037 in 1994 prices.

  This estimate assumes that pensions will be split in up to three quarters of divorces of first time marriages in which the husband has substantial pension rights and the wife has no non-state pension entitlement, and that the whole of the pension earned up to the date of retirement is split. It is also assumed that two thirds of men who are subject to a pension split on divorce will choose to at least partially rebuild their pension by making additional contributions.

  The assumptions used in estimates of the loss of tax revenue in 2037 are not the same as those used in estimates of the costs to unfunded public service schemes arising in 1997. Estimates have necessarily been based on different methods using data from different sources, which has not allowed for the use of consistent assumptions.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  French Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of what Pacific forums the UK Government are a member; and if he will list for each one the position they have taken on French 852
  nuclear tests in the Pacific and specify Her Majesty's Government's position on that decision. [34151]

  Mr. David Davis
  The United Kingdom is a member of the South Pacific commission, which has not taken a position on the resumption of French nuclear testing.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what dependent territories the United Kingdom has in the Pacific; how far these are from Muroroa; what views have been expressed by the Governments on French nuclear testing; and how these views will be transmitted to the French Government. [34154]

  Mr. Davis
  Pitcairn is the only UK dependent territory in the South Pacific. It is approximately 900 km from Mururoa. The island council has not expressed an opinion on the resumption of French nuclear testing.

  Computer Suppliers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the top 10 suppliers of computer equipment to his Department and its agencies in the last five years, indicating the total value of the contracts received. [34553]

  Mr. Hanley
  To provide the top 10 suppliers of computer equipment to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its agencies for the last five years would involve disproportionate cost. Details for each of the last three years, covering both computer hardware, h/w, and software, s/w, are as follows:

  Supplier

  Total IT

  Hardware

  Software

  1992–93

  Easams

  2,667,087

  2,664,141

  2,946

  Wang UK

  2,186,845

  2,045,591

  141,254

  ICL

  1,128,347

  1,067,687

  60,660

  Secure Computer Systems

  997,312

  934,794

  62,518

  Olivetti

  721,850

  625,778

  96,072

  AT and T

  459,057

  314,311

  144,746

  Informix Software

  372,641

  0

  372,641

  Unitech

  355,439

  213,822

  141,617

  Ferranti

  312,400

  32,400

  280,000

  Lynwood

  310,866

  310,866

  0

  1993–94

  Easams

  2,979,675

  2,843,657

  136,018

  ICL

  1,862,698

  1,631,793

  230,905

  Wang UK

  1,269,422

  1,254,944

  14,478

  Lynwood Scientific Dev

  1,095,640

  1,095,640

  0

  A T and T

  1,084,390

  895,860

  188,530

  Informix

  598,686

  0

  598,686

  Uniplex

  579,585

  0

  579,585

  Secure Computer Systems

  381,784

  377,226

  4,558

  Computer Network Consultants

  341,888

  331,831

  10,057

  Unitech

  249,265

  95,877

  153,388

  1994–95

  Easams

  2,764,947

  2,752,962

  11,985

  ICL

  2,041,195

  1,653,598

  387,597

  A T and T

  1,032,684

  864,691

  167,992

  Lynwood

  464,218

  464,218

  0

  853

  Supplier

  Total IT

  Hardware

  Software

  Unitech

  388,480

  328,704

  59,776

  IQ Software

  385,500

  0

  385,500

  Secure Computer Systems

  341,162

  341,162

  0

  Wang UK Ltd

  292,308

  292,308

  0

  Traderman

  163,165

  71,441

  91,724

  Uniflex Group

  108,920

  0

  108,920

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many days were lost in sickness in the last 12 months by employees in his Department(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of the number of days worked; and what was the cost of this absence. [34594]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not at present have a comprehensive computerised system for recording sick leave. The diplomatic wing compiles this information manually and no statistical analysis is available. Work on computerising these records has begun. Once this project has been completed later this year, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be able to answer this type of question.

  Therefore the information requested by the hon. Member can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Genetically Modified Food (Labelling)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it compulsory to have special labels on genetically modified food products in Britain; and if he will make a statement. [33701)

  Mrs. Browning
  The draft EC regulation on novel foods and novel food ingredients currently under discussion in Brussels will introduce compulsory labelling to indicate the presence in a food, including genetically modified foods, of ethically sensitive material, material which may have health implications for certain sections of the population and the presence within the food of a genetically modified organism, as defined by directive 90/220/EEC, if it has not been modified solely for agronomic reasons.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will indicate which five consultancy firms have received most contracts from his Department(a) by number of contracts and (b) monetary value in the last five years for which figures are available. [33445]

  Mr. Boswell
  Centralised records are not kept of the numbers of individual contractors between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and consultants, and I am unable to give a definitive reply at this time. However, the information is being collated, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.
  854
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980. [33465]

  Mr. Boswell
  Since 1980 the core Department has spent £159,000 on consultants in connection with privatisation programmes. In addition, studies into the privatisation of the Covent Garden Market authority were undertaken by consultants at a total cost of approximately £41,000.

  During the three years since its establishment as a MAFF agency a total of £142,000 has been spent by ADAS on consultancy projects in connection with privatisation.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department and its agencies have spent on computer consultancy in each of the last five years: and what is the expected expenditure over the next five years. [33863]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: Expenditure on computer consultancy over the past five years is:

  £ million

  Year

  Expenditure

  1990–91

  4.4

  1991–92

  4

  1992–93

  5.2

  1993–94

  8.3

  1994–95

  5.4

  The estimated expenditure in 1995–96 is around £6 million. Expenditure in the following four years is expected to be in the range of £3.5 million annually, depending upon the requirements, assessment of priorities and PES settlements.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which firms won computer consultancy contracts from his Department and its agencies over the last five years: and what is the number of contracts per firm. [33894]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: The details requested are as follows:

  Consultants

  Number of contracts

  ACT Logsys

  1

  ACT Business Systems

  1

  Admiral

  3

  AIMS Systems

  1

  Aimtech Europe

  1

  Ampersand

  5

  AMP Systems

  1

  AMTEC

  4

  Applied Information Systems

  1

  Arena

  1

  ASK Group

  2

  Aslib Consultancy

  1

  Asterisk Systems

  6

  Benson Networks

  1

  BIS

  1

  Brandt Computers

  1

  Bristol University

  1

  Brook Systems

  1

  855

  Consultants

  Number of contracts

  Keith Butterfield Associates

  1

  Cambridge Ergonomics

  1

  CAPITA

  1

  CCT

  6

  Chris Cole Associates

  1

  Coopers and Lybrand

  1

  Corporate Computers

  1

  Cray Systems

  1

  CSS Trident

  2

  Digital Equipment Corporation

  1

  D M Shaw Associates

  3

  DPP International

  1

  Duhig Berry

  1

  Electronic Facilities Design

  3

  Eosys

  1

  Ernst and Young

  2

  Exclusive Software

  2

  Exeter University

  1

  FI Group

  4

  Forvus Ltd

  1

  Foxware

  3

  Gateway Systems

  1

  Grafton

  1

  R. T. Grandy Associates

  1

  Harwell Computers

  1

  Hayes-Davies

  1

  Hay Management

  1

  Haynes Associates

  1

  Hoskyns

  3

  Hunterskill

  1

  IBM

  1

  Independent Training Solutions

  1

  Inference Ltd

  1

  Infocus

  1

  Infologistix

  1

  Ingres

  1

  Insight Consultancy

  1

  ISM Consultants

  1

  Intergraph

  1

  Intersect

  1

  International Software

  1

  John Guest Ltd.

  1

  Kermon Associates

  2

  LBMS

  3

  Logica

  2

  Mansell Associates

  1

  Megaware Consultants

  1

  MSB International

  1

  Metron

  1

  Midsummer Computing

  1

  MMT Ltd.

  6

  Mouncey and Partners

  10

  MSB International

  2

  MSG Business Systems

  1

  Neville Clarke

  1

  OFICE

  1

  Oracle

  6

  PA Consulting

  12

  PACTUM Ltd.

  1

  Perspective

  1

  Premier Computing

  1

  Price Waterhouse

  3

  Prime Computer Systems

  1

  Projects Group

  1

  Quanta Learning Systems

  3

  Reading University

  1

  Reed Personnel

  1

  Ricardo Ltd.

  1

  SAC Ltd.

  1

  Sapphire Ltd.

  1

  SEMA Group

  19

  Sequent Computer Systems

  2

  Sequelogic

  1

  Sherwoods Ltd.

  9

  856

  Consultants

  Number of contracts

  Shreeveport Ltd.

  1

  Siemens Nixdorf

  4

  Software Innovations

  1

  Software Support

  1

  Soft Toolrack

  1

  South-West Health Authority

  1

  Softbridge Support Services

  1

  Softlab

  1

  Span Group

  3

  STATUS IQ

  2

  Syntech

  2

  Surrey Training and Enterprise

  1

  Council

  Touche Ross

  11

  TMS Computer Authors

  1

  Triad Ltd.

  15

  Unidata

  1

  Zergo Ltd.

  1

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which firms of consultants employed by his Department over the last year have been paid more than £1,000 per day. [33870]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: During the past year, the following consultants have been employed by my Department at an agreed daily rate of £1,000 or more:

  Charterhouse Bank

  Oxford Communications Group

  Price Waterhouse

  Mrs. J. Olsen

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Ernst and Young

  Waste Paper Sludge (Thieveley Pike)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the problems caused by the spreading of waste paper sludge at Thieveley Pike, Cliviger, Burnley. [33614]

  Mr. Boswell
  We have received two letters on this subject and will reply to those parts of the letters which relate to MAFF's interests as soon as we have investigated the matters raised.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many unfair dismissal cases were brought against his Department during the last 12 months; how many were successful; and what were the total costs including legal fees and compensation. [34584]

  Mr. Boswell
  Four applications to an industrial tribunal on the grounds of unfair dismissal have been brought against this Department within the last 12 months. Two are pending. Two were withdrawn by the applicants, one of which was on terms providing £1,000 compensation as part of an agreed settlement. No external legal fees have been paid.
  857

  Deputy Prime Minister
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the involvement of the Deputy Prime Minister in the work of his Department. [34036]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 11 July 1995, Official Report, columns 496–97.

  Allowances
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will detail the amount of travel claims at constant prices in his Department in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 broken down by (i) public transport, (ii) car mileage allowance and (iii) bicycle allowances. [32214]

  Mr. Jack
  The amount spent by the Department during each of the last two years on public transport and car mileage allowance, at prices and rates current in the relevant year, is as follows:

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  (i) Public transport

  2,285,933

  2,148,659

  (ii) Car mileage allowance

  3,770,826

  3,714,600

  Expenditure on bicycle allowance is not recorded separately but is contained in the public transport figures, which also include some other associated travel costs.

  The figures for 1993–94 include the Pesticides Safety and Veterinary Medicines Directorates.

  Responsibility for such matters within ADAS, the Central Science Laboratory, the Central Veterinary Laboratory and the Pesticides Safety and the Veterinary Medicines Directorates has been delegated to the agency chief executives and I have asked them to reply to you direct.

  Letter from Professor P. I. Stanley to Mrs. Anne Campbell, dated 14 July 1995:
  The amount of travel claims at constant prices in 1993/94 and 1994/95
  The Central Science Laboratory (CSL) was launched as an executive agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) on 1 April 1992 and following the merger with 2 further laboratories was relaunched on 1 April 1994. Expenditure on travel claims are as follows:

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Public Transport

  99,051.96

  203,385.79

  Car Mileage Allowance

  66,749.71

  177,904.37

  Bicycle Allowance

  Nil

  Nil

  858
  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mrs Anne Campbell, dated 14 July 1995:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question concerning the amount of travel claims at the Central Veterinary Laboratory.
  We do not distinguish between bicycle and car mileage and neither do we analyses overseas travel by mode of transport. Against this background the expenditure based on constant 1993/94 prices was as follows:

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Public transport (UK)

  34,482

  133,673

  Mileage (UK)

  17,839

  115,176

  1 2.75 per cent, deflator used on 1994–1995 costs.

  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Mrs. Anne Campbell, dated 14 July 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to your Question about travel claims.
  The amounts of travel claims at actual prices in 1993/94 and 1994/95 were as follows:

  £

  1993/94

  1994/95

  Public transport (UK and foreign travel)

  77,909

  81,921

  Car mileage allowance

  9,039

  12,923

  Bicycle allowance

  0

  0

  Please note that the figures for 1993/94 are also included in the reply from the Minister. They are given here to enable a comparison to be made between the two years.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Mrs. Anne Campbell MP, dated 3 July 1995:

  PQ1 28 JUNE 1995
  The Minister of State has asked me to reply to your question about travel costs incurred by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  The information you requested (at 1994–95 prices) is as follows:

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Public transport

  12,456

  14,434

  Car mileage allowance

  6,842

  9,831

  Bicycle allowance

  Nil

  Nil

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Walsh to Mrs. Anne Campbell, dated 14 July 1995:
  Recently you tabled a question in the House of Commons (PQ Number 1584) asking the Minister of Agriculture for details of travel claims at constant prices in his Department in (a) 1993/94 and (b) 1994/95, broken down by 1) public transport, 2) car mileage allowance and 3) bicycle allowance.
  I understand that he will be writing to you with details of the core part of the Ministry, but has asked the Chief Executive's to reply on behalf of their agencies. ADAS was formed as an Executive Agency of MAFF and the Welsh Office in April 1992.
  The details requested in constant 1994/95 prices are as follows:

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Car Mileage Allowances

  3,626,346

  3,458,338

  Public Transport Claims

  217,818

  213,292

  Bicycle Allowances

  0

  0

  859

  Tobacco (Intervention Stock)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current tonnage and value of tobacco held in intervention by the European Commission. [34640]

  Mr. Baldry
  From the 1993 harvest, the facility to take tobacco into intervention was removed and it can be 860
  re-introduced only in exceptional circumstances. Details of the remaining- volume of intervention stocks for tobacco for harvests prior to 1993, updated on a monthly basis, are available in the Library of the House. There is no information readily available on the value of those stocks, although the value of the different consignments at the time of being taken into intervention, was taken into account in reimbursing member states for storage costs and stock depreciation.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Defence Estimates
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) rose to move, That this House takes note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995 (Cm 2800).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the annual debate on the Defence White Paper is invariably characterised by its high quality. During last year's debate, my noble friend and predecessor Lord Henley faced the intimidating experience of addressing this knowledgeable gathering for the first time in his capacity as the very newly-appointed Under-Secretary of State for Defence. This year, the timing of his departure to the Department for Education and Employment has set me precisely the same challenge. So perhaps I may start by congratulating my noble friend on his promotion; and by following in his footsteps by asking noble Lords to make at least some allowance for my newness to defence matters.
At the launch of this year's Defence White Paper, my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Defence, Malcolm Rifkind, described it as very different in nature from its recent predecessors. It marks the end of the period of turbulence immediately following the end of the Cold War: five years of extensive and profound change for British defence as we, together with our allies, have worked to adapt our policies, the structure of our Armed Forces and the management of defence to the post-Cold War world—a world in which we are immeasurably safer, hut in which we face increased uncertainty and rapid change.
As the White Paper makes clear, we have achieved much over those five years. The strength and capability of our Armed Forces underpins Britain's role in the world. We have a clear view of that role, and coherent defence and security policies to back it up. As a nation with global interests and responsibilities, Britain is and will continue to be a major participant in world affairs, willing and able to lead decisively rather than to follow, and using our assets and vast experience for the benefit of the world community.
We will further our interests through partnership with those who, like us, are willing to bear a share in promoting peace and stability. NATO is the bedrock of our security. We shall continue to play a leading role in adapting NATO to the post-Cold War world, enabling it to carry out new crisis management tasks and to extend security to our new partners in central and eastern Europe. At the same time, we shall work to develop the Western European Union as a vehicle for European military co-operation when NATO cannot or chooses not to be involved.
But what of the present? In Europe and beyond, the welcome end of super-power rivalry has led to an unwelcome rise in instability. This has led to civil war and cross-border conflict, and the suffering which they bring in their wake. Britain's professional Armed Forces are, naturally, in high demand for international conflict prevention, conflict resolution, peacekeeping and humanitarian aid missions. At the moment there are well over 5,500 British servicemen and women serving on United Nations "blue beret" operations, with many more acting in support.
Our forces' achievements, past and present, in the former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda, in the Gulf and in Cambodia, among others, are well known. The first half of 1995 has already seen them engaged, highly successfully, in a substantial new deployment as part of the new United Nations operation in Angola. And, of course, it has seen a major increase in their contribution to UNPROFOR, in response to the worsening situation in Bosnia. I expect Bosnia is uppermost in many of your Lordships' minds today, so perhaps I may talk about recent events there.
The Government are deeply concerned about the situation in Bosnia and particularly Srebrenica. The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution on Wednesday night condemning the Bosnian Serb offensive and calling for the immediate release of the detained Dutch soldiers. This resolution also asks the UN Secretary-General to use all the resources available to him to restore the agreed status of the safe area in accordance with the mandate of UNPROFOR.
Following the Serb offensive on the town, some 40,000 civilian refugees fled to the Dutch camp at Potocari, just north of the town. Under the direction of General Mladic, most of them have been taken by bus to the Bosnian Government area around Tuzla. But the Moslem men have been taken separately to Bratunac.
We are very concerned for the safety and plight of the civilian refugees, who are naturally very frightened. Our immediate priority is to get humanitarian aid to them to alleviate the situation.
Noble Lords will also share my concern for the safety of British troops in the enclave of Gorazde. As of today, the situation remains stable: there is continued sporadic shelling, but there has been no increase in activity. I can assure noble Lords that we will take appropriate measures to safeguard the security of our forces. Your Lordships will not, of course, expect me to go into details about what we have in mind.
Some have called for our forces to be withdrawn from Bosnia. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said, the situation is certaily serious, and there may be a point at which circumstances are such that it will be impossible for the UN troops to remain; hut unless and until those circumstances do arise, we believe that it is right for them to remain.
UNPROFOR has achieved a great deal; not least the successful containment of a conflict which would threaten a wider Balkans war.
Humanitarian effort has helped to save hundreds of thousands of lives and support continues for more than 3.6 million people throughout the former Yugoslavia, including some 2.7 million people in Bosnia alone.
In central Bosnia, British forces are playing an instrumental part in sustaining the fragile peace which has existed there since the formation of the Bosniac-Croat Federation last year. They are supporting many hundreds of civilian infrastructure projects which are helping the people of Bosnia rebuild their homes and their lives in the most practical way possible.
There should be no doubt in our minds that their mission is worth while and their efforts should be allowed to continue. Her Majesty's Government reiterate their call for all sides to show restraint, to co-operate fully with UNPROFOR and to return to the negotiating table.
Noble Lords will be aware that the UN is forming a Rapid Reaction Force to improve the effectiveness of UNPROFOR and to enable force commanders on the ground to accomplish their mission within the existing mandate.
The UK has reacted swiftly and our significant reinforcement package stands as a testimony to our commitment to the safety of British and United Nations troops, and the importance that we attach to the continuation of UNPROFOR's mission in Bosnia.
In addition to the initial reinforcements which arrived in the region last month, we have also offered 24 Airmobile Brigade to the United Nations.
Some 200 logistic personnel are already in theatre. An advance party of over 400 personnel left today. Further logistic and engineering personnel are following by sea and air to prepare for the arrival of the main body. By the middle of August, it is planned to have completed the deployment of more than 4,000 men.
The Rapid Reaction Force will strengthen UNPROFOR's ability to defend itself. I must make clear, however, that the Rapid Reaction Force is not an offensive or strike force: it will operate under the existing UNPROFOR mandate. The Reaction Force is not an alternative to a political solution.
Before I move on, may I welcome the start Carl Bildt has made. We must take this opportunity to reinvigorate the peace process and strive for a political solution which will bring an end to the suffering of all the people in Bosnia. At the same time, I should like to express our thanks for the unstinting efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Owen.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Earl Howe: My Lords, Bosnia is just one example which demonstrates that the removal of the threat that we used to face during the Cold War has not led to any reduction in the importance to this country of our Armed Forces. They are, and will remain, world-class: the backbone of our security policy. Indeed, in future, we want to see them doing an even better job for Britain. To achieve that, we recognise the need to maintain our investment in them: in our servicemen and women; and in their equipment.
1946
For our Armed Forces, this year's Defence White Paper is unreserved good news. We cannot expect the international setting to remain anything but fluid. But, so far as concerns the Armed Forces, the big decisions have been taken. The Government now intend to inject a period of stability into defence planning and funding; hence our choice of title for this year's Statement, Stable Forces in a Strong Britain.
I am sure that that emphasis will be as welcome to noble Lords on all sides of the House as it is to our Armed Forces. Our commitment to setting a steady course for the future is reflected in the White Paper through three important themes.
The first is stability for the front line. In order to implement our defence and security policies, the fighting strength and capabilities of our front-line forces will be maintained, even if their commitments reduce. The White Paper makes it clear that this assurance applies equally to our forces' commitments in Northern Ireland. Our hopes for a permanent peace there remain high. The ceasefires declared by the terrorist organisations, which have now held for nine months, have allowed us progressively to introduce measures to reduce the profile of the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland. If we are able to reduce the Armed Forces' commitment to operations in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, it will not be matched by cuts in fighting units.
Secondly, there is stability of funding. The 1994 Public Expenditure Settlement underlines the Government's commitment to defence. The stability of funding we have for the future, the changes we are making to the management and organisation of defence, and our determination to bear down hard on costs and drive out waste have allowed us to announce further capability enhancements. This year's White Paper sets out the new equipment projects we have been able to add to the defence programme as a result of these factors. Yesterday, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was able to announce the Government's decision to purchase 67 Apache helicopters for the Army and Tomahawk missiles for the Royal Navy. We want to repeat this success in future: ploughing money saved from increasing efficiency back into enhanced capability.
Thirdly, and equally important, there is stability for our people. It is essential that the services maintain their ability to recruit and retain men and women with the right personal qualities and skills; and I know that our servicemen and women are anxious to see an enduring package of conditions of service for the years ahead. This is what lies at the heart of the recently completed independent review of service career and manpower structures, undertaken by Sir Michael Bett. Sir Michael's proposals merit detailed study and development. This work will require considerable time and effort before decisions can be taken. We hope to make a definitive statement on the way ahead next spring.
Let me end by repeating that our Armed Forces are as important to this country today as they have ever been. We intend to make sure that they remain strong

1947
and effective—properly manned, equipped, trained and supported to cope with the risks and uncertainties of today and tomorrow.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995 (Cm 2800).—(Earl Howe.)
11.22 a.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for introducing this debate. It allows me to congratulate him on his new office. I am sure he will fill that office with the dignity associated with his family name. I also join with him in taking this opportunity to express our appreciation of our Armed Forces and the way they serve our country. This has been particularly true, as the noble Earl said, in Bosnia and in other parts of the former Yugoslavia. They have had, and are having, an exceptionally difficult task, but by general agreement they are discharging it with skill and distinction and we are immensely grateful to them.
We are all the more appreciative, if I may say so, since the problems that have been encountered there in the past three years are not of their, or indeed our, making; and this leads me to wonder, in this, the 50th anniversary year of the United Nations, and particularly in the light of events of the past few days, and indeed the past few hours, whether now might be the time to consider the reform and enhancement of the UN's military capability. I realise the problems involved, but I know your Lordships are reluctant—and quite rightly reluctant—to send British troops into operational areas without a clear mandate and a clear remit to protect themselves as far as is possible under the circumstances prevailing. I have to say that I am far from convinced that this is the case in Bosnia today. The situation changes, as the noble Earl said, from hour to hour and even as we speak the French initiative is being considered. We look forward, perhaps even by the end of this debate, to hearing whether there is any further news on what might be happening.
Having said that, let me turn to some of the broader issues raised by the Statement on the Defence Estimates. With your Lordships' leave I will first address the nuclear problem; I will then comment on the performance of the Ministry of Defence after the Defence Costs Study exercise; I would like to say something about defence industrial policy; and finally I will offer our views on where we should be going, as it were, from here.
The commitment under Article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty has been reasserted, and now for an indefinite period of time. More than that, the programme of action to which the Government put their name in May calls for,
"the determined pursuit … of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons".
There was also a commitment to negotiate a comprehensive test ban treaty "no later than 1996". We now await with interest the practical steps that the Government will
1948
be proposing to meet those two commitments. It seems to me at the moment that the negotiations in Geneva have run into the sand.
I recognise that that is not going to be an easy task. Indeed, the immediate problem seems to be how to prevent nuclear proliferation and what to do when it has occurred. There are, however, two things not to do: the first is for any nuclear weapons state to increase its nuclear firepower; and the second is for nuclear weapons states to resume testing. The consequences of both are obvious. Further strengthening of any nuclear arsenal means deepening suspicions among non-nuclear weapons states, and the consequent heightening of the risk that they themselves will go nuclear, making the task of eliminating all such weapons even more difficult. As for large-scale testing, the commitment to a comprehensive test ban treaty—if that goes on—is totally undermined.
Now, of course, both these things are happening. The Government are proposing, for no obvious reason, to double the number of nuclear warheads deployed on Trident compared to Polaris. China is still testing, and now France, unless there is a last minute change of mind, is going ahead with a renewed testing programme. The British Government, as I understand the position, have not yet ruled out the possibility that, if the Nevada testing ground is open to them, they may also resume testing; and if the Nevada site is open, that means that the United States has started testing again as well. At that point I think we can say the chances of negotiating a comprehensive ban are slim indeed. Furthermore, there is a suspicion that the Ministry of Defence and the Pentagon, and indeed the French, favour a treaty which would still allow small-scale nuclear testing, particularly hydro-nuclear experiments. Again, it does not seem to me that such an attitude is in the realm of practical politics if non-nuclear weapons states are to be persuaded to sign such a treaty.
But it is not only on the nuclear issue that we have doubts about the Government's position. On chemical weapons, for instance, they have yet to ratify the chemical weapons convention. The Government still have not introduced the enabling legislation. Why have they not done so? They refuse to ban the export of anti-personnel land mines despite this September's United Nations' inhumane weapons conference. They are apparently indifferent to laser-blinding weapons. Again, why is that so?
I have heard doubts about the Government's motives in all this and we have further doubts about government performance. We were told, and we have been told again, that the Defence Costs Study had rooted out waste and diseconomy in the Ministry of Defence. Of course, there never was a satisfactory answer to the question of why such waste and diseconomy had survived for so long and under so many Conservative Secretaries of State, but I will let that pass. We were told—the noble Earl has told us again today—that a new slim-line MoD and a new thinned-out back-up for the front line would be put in place. What has happened? Leaving aside the accommodation for senior officers

1949
which we all know about. there is the matter of the nuclear hunker beneath the MoD, to which presumably Ministers will repair while the rest of us fry.
The original estimate of the cost was £50 million, the outturn was £130 million. Then there arc the MoD dog kennels, costing £54,000—expensive kennels! They may provide dogs to allow senior officers to go foxhunting, for which, we now find out, they use Army transport and drivers during duty hours.
Then there arc the cost overruns and delays. The Eurofighter aircraft is running at about £1 billion over budget The Tornado GR1 update is nearly £300 million above budget and nearly five years behind schedule. The Sea Harrier jet is nearly £40 million above budget and is already five years late. So it goes on, much to the dismay of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. In truth, it is a pretty sorry tale.
Are we not now entitled to ask Ministers the simple questions: "When will you get your act together? When will you be able to come to us and say that you are running an efficient shop?" They tried last year, and we nearly believed them. However, since then the evidence has been accumulating that costs arc running out of control.
The same questions can be asked about the defence industries. It cannot be said too often that any country's defence industrial base is crucial not only to defence but also to its high technology manufacturing base. It is therefore of the highest importance that we put in place a policy which actively encourages those companies where the technological spin-off is the greatest. For social reasons we must also help defence-dependent communities to adjust to defence cuts.
All this means an active policy from government. Instead, we have had, and still have, a policy towards the defence industry which, in the words of a recent study of leading industrialists, is,
"perceived as uncertain. fragmentary and inconsistent".
Or, to put it even more bluntly, as the Defence Manufacturers Association did recently:
"it is apparent that the MoD's uncompromising pursuit of competition largely excludes concern for the social and long term economic or political penalties occasioned by an unstructured rundown of the national defence industrial base".
We must ask Ministers: "When will you do better?"
One of the problems of any serious policy towards the defence industry is the long lead times associated with defence procurement. We understand that. It almost seems too obvious to state. However, given that problem, we need to have a reasonably clear idea of where we are heading. It is all very well telling the Armed Forces that they are there to protect our security, but we need to know, and we need to tell them clearly, what our security really means—in other words, what they are there to protect.
In our view, that cannot be achieved without a politically acceptable and militarily sound assessment of the threats the country faces, the interests that it must protect, the alliances it must build on and the resources which are available to meet commitments in an effective manner. We have to recognise not merely that the world is a dangerous place, as the noble Earl reminded us, but
1950
that as a medium-sized power we will need to share the burden of providing a comprehensive and viable defence structure with our European NATO allies. We may still be able to lead, but it will be leading with others rather than leading on our own.
At the moment we do not have that strategic assessment. All we have, despite the noble Earl's assurance that the Government understand our role in the world, is a checklist of military tasks produced by the Ministry of Defence, which is a simple statement of Britain's current commitments. There is no underlying vision of the future security needs of the country, no strategy for the Armed Forces to carry them into the next century. It was, I believe, Sir John Nott, a former Secretary of State for Defence, who described the Ministry of Defence as being like,
"a huge super-tanker, well captained, well engineered, well crewed. its systems continuously updated—but with no-one ever asking where the hell it is going".
There we have it.
Security is not about defence alone. That is only one element. There are economic factors—oil, for example, connected with the rise of nationalism and fundamentalism, or continuing third world poverty which could at any moment break into armed conflict. There are environmental factors—the deterioration of the world's climate, for example, which could lead to mass population movements with consequent instability. All these factors have to be taken into account in the assessment of what constitutes the security of the United Kingdom, and consequently what our Armed Forces will be asked to defend in the next century.
What the results of such a review will be I know not. As the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour, said when he was defence spokesman for the party opposite in the late 1970s,
"a detailed and fully costed defence policy … can be carried out only after full consultation with the Services, with our Allies and with industry".
In other words, to do it properly—and it has to be done properly—you have to be in government.
Your Lordships will be aware from what I have said that the noble Earl and I seem to be talking a completely different language. There is no evidence to suggest that the Government are even starting to think along the same lines as us. There are no signs in the White Paper that they realise that there is a problem. Their policy seems to be to list current commitments, and then accept Treasury inspired cuts until their Back-Benchers cry "Enough is enough". and then they stop. That is no way to face a modern and dangerous world. The way to face it is not to look backwards to imperial grandeur, not to pretend that we are still a great power, not to pretend that we can lead by ourselves, hut to make a rigorous analysis of our strengths and our weaknesses and to construct a defence architecture on that base. That is what we intend to do and, in a few months' time, that is what we shall do.
11.36 a.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, on these Benches we warmly welcome the noble Earl to his new position. He referred to the quick turnover with his predecessor the

1951
noble Lord, Lord Henley. There has been a rapid turnover of government spokesmen on defence in recent years. When the noble Earl spoke with such enthusiasm about the need for a period of stability in the Armed Forces I could not help wondering whether he had his own fate in mind.
The noble Earl's main task will be to try to keep his Secretary of State in line with government policy on matters such as the common European defence policy. It is not an easy task. If I may give an old man's advice to the noble Earl: do not try to satisfy your Secretary of State at the risk of falling foul of the Leader of the House. otherwise the rapid turnover of military spokesmen on the government side may continue.
This morning we all have in mind particularly the events in Srehrenica. However, first I should like to say a few words about the noble Earl's speech and the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
I wish to associate those of us on these Benches with what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said about the Government's attitude to non-proliferation and the comprehensive test ban treaty. It is a tragedy that a few months ago consensus was reached in the discussions on the extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Remarkably—and we praised it from these Benches—consensus was reached between the non-nuclear powers and the nuclear powers on the indefinite extension of the treaty. No inkling was given to the conference that as soon as that consensus had been recorded the nuclear powers would start testing again. If that had been known I do not believe that the consensus would have been reached. The non-nuclear countries would have said, "No, let us revise this treaty from time to time in order to be sure that the nuclear powers keep up the affirmations and the undertakings that they have given us-. Instead, we now have the situation where faith has been lost in the nuclear powers by the non-nuclear countries and the prospects for getting a comprehensive treaty on testing have very much weakened. That is a serious blow to the whole possibility of disarmament.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, made other points which voiced the views on these Benches. There were one or two aspects in the speech of the noble Earl which will have evoked strong feelings on this side. For example, he referred to the announcement yesterday by the Ministry of Defence of, I think, £180 million being spent on cruise missiles for submarines. I was reminded that many years ago, before it was too late to change our nuclear deterrent, the Liberal Party, with its allies the Social Democrats, recommended that while Britain must, of course, maintain a nuclear deterrent, Trident was not the most suitable weapon; and that submarines armed with cruise missiles with nuclear warheads would be a much better option for the future. I wonder sometimes whether the Government regret not taking the advice of my party on that. When one thinks of it, the option would have been more flexible; it would have been less dependent on the Americans; and it would have been many billions of pounds cheaper than the Trident fleet.
As it is, when we consider the Defence Estimates White Paper, we see the strange contrast between conventional arms and nuclear weapons. As the noble
1952
Earl pointed out, on the conventional side the Government adapted our forces—remarkably and sensibly in my view—to the new situation after the Cold War. On these Benches, we did not oppose that approach, or at least not nearly as strongly as noble Lords opposite opposed it at the time of Options for Change, Front First Line, and so on. There is the contrast in the White Paper between the Government bringing up-to-date the conventional weapons and continuing with exactly the same deterrent policy as they have always had. As I say, I believe that they must now regret not having accepted the advice of my party eight, nine or 10 years ago.
Not only that, but regarding the deterrent they maintain again a Cold War approach. It is the same structure—the four submarines, vastly powerful, sophisticated, and able to destroy the anti-missile defences of Moscow, as though that were a credible target at the present time. I believe that the anti-ballistic missiles around Moscow depend for their function on the good will of the Baltic states and the Ukraine. However, we have this massive deterrent—and it is massive—when it would have been much better to have something more flexible, less dependent on the Americans and many billions of pounds cheaper than the Trident project.
The noble Earl also mentioned the Westland contracts, which I am sure will at least please the very able and industrious local Member of Parliament for Yeovil.
The main point, however, that I wish to make today concerns the situation in Bosnia. I endorse every word that the noble Earl said about the wonderful work of our forces there. I agree, too, with what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said.
Last Wednesday the new Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Rifkind, endured for over an hour a massive questioning session on the subject of what needs to be done in Bosnia. I am hound to say that he showed remarkable endurance, articulateness and skill. I do not propose for a moment today to put the same questions to the noble Earl as were put repeatedly to the Secretary of State. We all know the facts. We all know the frustrations, the humiliations and the horror of the present situation. Yet if we think hard, worse seems quite likely to happen. The prospect which should surely command all our attention is the possibility of the final catastrophe of Sarajevo suffering the fate of Srehrcnica, on a much more massive scale.
Those who call for the withdrawal of the United Nations forces are presumably reconciled to the horrors that would follow that. However, do those who are not calling for a withdrawal but for the continuance of the present mandate—to stay as long as we can without excessive risk to our forces, which is government policy—hope that with that policy Sarajevo can be saved? What reasons do they have for that? On the surface it seems, sadly, impossible. Perhaps the noble Earl will try to reply. Do we assume a change of heart by the Bosnian Serbs'? What assumptions do we make that give us confidence that the capital city can be saved?

1953
Desperate needs call for desperate remedies. Should we not at least ask ourselves this question? Granted that we do not have the military capability to impose a settlement, or to defeat the Bosnian Serbs, or to prevent ethnic cleansing by one side or another in many parts of Bosnia, or even to protect the existing outlying safe areas, does it mean that with some redeployment and reinforcement we could not defend the capital city?
I noted the following answers on Thursday from the Secretary of State. He stated:
"In the judgment of Her Majesty's Government and other Governments, that prime responsibility for the aggression—including the present situation facing the people of Srebrenica—lies with the Bosnian Serbs".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/95; col. 959.]
He also said:
"I know that the force commanders have been looking at ways of using the Mount Igman route [to Sarajevo]. If they conclude that that is a realistic way to deliver aid, we shall be happy to support them".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/95; col. 955.]
There was, too, a thoughtful article in The Times yesterday by Mr. Lawrence Freedman which concluded:
"The best response to the Srebrenica fiasco is to expedite the deployment of the rapid reaction force, and to put it to work on the siege of Sarajevo, which remains the critical test. If it fails this test, the UN force will not deserve a future".
There was a time when Berlin was an oasis of civilisation, cut off and blockaded by Stalin's armies. Nothing seemed so absurd, at that time so quixotic, as to think of saving the city by feeding it from the air. I attended the final meeting of Bevin and the chiefs of staff at which it was decided to go ahead with the airlift. Someone gave us a rundown of the difficulties: climatic, the weather, visibility, the time of turnround of aircraft, and so on. It all looked pretty knife-edged. Then someone said, "Of course, Secretary of State, this does not apply to winter conditions". And I remember Bevin saying, "We'll take that 'edge when it comes". The airlift had immense psychological and political consequences and was a turning point in the whole Cold War.
The military commanders in Bosnia today may conclude that the Mount Igman route is not feasible and that the capital cannot be defended. If that is their conclusion, then that is that. But if there is a way—and it is hound to be difficult with the odds against it—then, bearing in mind what is at stake in terms of human suffering and the future of world order, we expect our political leaders to make an attempt. So much is at stake, but this could be a turning point: a vigorous and successful defence of the capital.
Whatever the outcome in Bosnia, there are hard lessons which the United Nations must learn. Some of the many reforms in United Nations peacekeeping, which we have talked about in this House and which have been urged upon the United Nations from many countries and many sources, must now be implemented. But we must not allow the United Nations to give up its responsibility for world peace. Humiliation is not the same as dishonour. There is nothing dishonourable about the United Nations efforts in Bosnia. Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives have been and are being
1954
saved. Despite the humiliations heaped on them, those who are achieving that should feel proud of themselves and they deserve our gratitude and support.
11.51 a.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I begin by joining in the congratulations to the noble Earl, both on his new appointment and on the clear and confident way in which he introduced the White Paper today. As other noble Lords have said, there is a temptation in the light of current events to concentrate on Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia. But we should resist it for a number of reasons. Perhaps the most important is that, if we do not, we may fall into the familiar trap of the "something must be done" school of foreign policy. Once again in the former Yugoslavia we are in danger of allowing media images to set the agenda—instant images without instant understanding. The impact upon public emotions is a powerful and volatile mixture. It can lead political leaders into unwise decisions; into believing that activity is a sufficient substitute for deep thought about problems.
Speaking personally, I can only say that it is a tragic mess in which we should never have become militarily involved. All the principles governing the use of armed force in the pursuit of foreign policy seem to have been ignored. What is happening now in the specific context of British forces ironically seems to take no account of the criteria set out in the White Paper which we are discussing today.
I assume that what is happening to the British forces now in Yugoslavia is happening as part of what is known as "Defence Role Three", mentioned on page 27; that is:
"to contribute to promoting the United Kingdom's wider security interests through the maintenance of international peace and stability".
If that is so, we have only to look two pages further on to find that there are a number of factors which the Government seek to take into account in contributing military forces for the purpose. I wish briefly to quote them (from page 29). The first is:
"The degree to which our national interests are directly engaged".
There must be some doubt there.
"The interests and involvement of those organisations of which we are a member, and of our major partners".
One has only to look at the total disarray in the Western European Union, in the United Nations and in NATO to recognise that it is difficult to find any common interest. The document continues:
"Whether the use of military forces represents the most suitable response to the crisis".
That is dubious, to say the least.
"Whether there are clear and achievable objectives".
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has sufficiently answered that:
"whether there is a political process to which the parties are committed which offers a reasonable hope of resolution of the crisis".
There is no such consensus in Yugoslavia.
"Whether the mandate of the operation is precise and finite".

1955
I say, no. Finally:
"Whether we have confidence in the safety and security of our personnel".
How can we possibly say that we have confidence in their safety and security after what happened to the soldiers of my own regiment only a few weeks ago?
I have said that we should not spend much of this debate on Bosnia, but it is close to the hearts and minds of most of us. It may be a minority opinion but I shall nevertheless express it: I believe that the only intelligent and wise course is now to extricate ourselves militarily, in as orderly and deliberate a manner as we possibly can.
Let me move on to the White Paper itself. The document under discussion raises much deeper, wider arid longer lasting issues even than the issue of the former Yugoslavia. First, I wish to congratulate the Ministry of Defence on an excellent publication. It is clear, informative and, unlike many other White Papers, readable. I have become something of a student over 50 years in the Army, the Foreign Office and the House of Lords. I might even say that I have become a connoisseur of Defence White Papers. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I believe that this is one of the best Defence White Papers in my experience. That is not to say that all of the content is of the best, but as an informative exposition of government policy I believe it to be in a high class. I shall not attempt to cover the whole sweep of the paper.
I still believe, and say again, that the reduction of our capability has gone too far and too fast since the end of the Cold War. The world is a more uncertain and perilous place today than it ever was in the days of the superpower confrontation. But, given that the Government have made their decision, based presumably upon good intelligence and mature thought, it is fair to say that they have begun to implement it in a positive and systematic way. As is evident in the Defence White Paper, we have moved from a threat-based Army, Navy and Air Force—a threat-based defence establishment which reflects our concept and analysis of the threat from the former Soviet Union—to capability-based Armed Forces which are clearly being designed to meet the new threat environment around the world.
Perhaps in order to save too much exegesis of the White Paper I should refer noble Lords to the issue of Jane's Defence Weekly of 15th July. It contains an extremely clear, well informed analysis of current United Kingdom defence policy. Much of it, I have to say, is more upbeat than the somewhat sombre picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
I have said all that I want about such things as overstretch, morale, higher formation training and all the other matters which we have talked about in previous debates in your Lordships' House. In the brief time left at my disposal, I wish to take up the issues raised by the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Mayhew, on a matter with which I was once directly concerned as a Minister in Her Majesty's Government. It is what the Defence White Paper has to say about the nuclear element in our defence arrangements. As I am no longer
1956
responsible for the construction of the Trident submarines in Barrow, perhaps I may now speak without necessarily declaring an interest, except strategic and intellectual.
I begin with the non-proliferation treaty, which in the 1960s I had a considerable part in negotiating. At the outset I should like to correct what is becoming a widely disseminated fallacy. It was not, I have to say, further disseminated by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, or the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, today; nevertheless, it is gaining currency. It is the belief that in some way the non-proliferation treaty commits us as signatories to nuclear disarmament. It does not.
Article VI of the treaty—and I had some part in the long negotiations that went on over the drafting of that article—states that the signatories are required:
"to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under international control".
That is what the article says. That is all that it commits us to. It is my contention that those negotiations have taken place and are taking place in good faith: the strategic arms reduction talks; the strategic arms limitation talks; the comprehensive test ban talks; and the chemical weapons convention have all been undertaken in good faith.
What is much more important is that the non-proliferation strategy, as important as it may be, has manifestly not worked—or at least not worked effectively. As the Defence White Paper very clearly states (on page 25), the:
"current assessment is that some dozen countries … have or are developing … weapons [of mass destruction and] … most also have ballistic missile programmes".
The clear implication is that, whatever may have happened to the superpower confrontation, with that degree of proliferation going on it is vital that the United Kingdom retains its own minimum nuclear deterrent. That is what I believe it is doing. I do not believe that it has any commitment or obligation under any international agreement to do anything less.
I believe also that we should continue to take a lively interest in the development of ballistic missile defences. I know that the famous star wars project of President Reagan is now perhaps only of historical interest, given the disappearance of the superpower confrontation. But ballistic missile defence is a different matter. We should continue to take an interest in it. I am delighted to note that the Defence White Paper takes a robust line on both the maintenance of a deterrent and the pursuit of the ballistic missile defence project.
This leads almost automatically—certainly it leads logically—to the comprehensive test ban treaty. I would counsel against an excess of enthusiasm for this measure. It has become an article of faith that the comprehensive test ban treaty is a good thing. I doubt it. I believe that it is an approach to arms control that is indeed a remnant of Cold War thinking. It needs to be approached with some caution.
It seems to me logical to propose that any nation that includes nuclear deterrence as an element of its defence policy needs to retain the ability to test the weapons that lie at the heart of its nuclear deterrent. Testing in

1957
laboratories and by computers is all very well so far as it goes. But it is not a substitute for the testing of weapons—not just new weapons but the weapons that are already in service—to ensure that their viability remains. The French clearly know this, and have behaved not only in consistency with international law but in full consistency with their view of their national sovereignty and security. A comprehensive test ban treaty, if signed, and if it came into force, would mean that we should be resting one of our central defence elements upon untested weapons systems. I do not believe that that is a responsible position for a government to take.
On the other hand, the argument that a comprehensive test ban treaty would help to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons does not stand up to close examination. Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan and North Korea have all arrived at their present position of nuclear capacity—I do not seek to suggest what that is, but we can all make our estimates—without testing at all. Those countries may be prepared to rest their defence policy upon untested nuclear weapons systems, but that is no reason why we should. Indeed, not only would it be dangerous to this country in terms of its own security, but it would pose a massive danger in the broadest sense. The very thought of people resting their defence or deterrent policy upon an untested weapons system is a recipe for a form of nuclear anarchy.
There are many other aspects on which I should have liked to comment: the cut-off convention, chemical and biological deterrents and so on. But there is clearly no time for that. Therefore, having made those points in reply to the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Mayhew, and having taken what is clearly a very different view from theirs about the nuclear elements of our policy, I conclude with a quotation from the Secretary of State's introduction to the Defence White Paper that we are debating:
"we can set a steady course for the future and inject a period of stability into defence planning and funding".
The noble Earl himself quoted that introduction. I believe this to be a matter of primordial importance. Our Armed Forces have had more than enough of reductions, redundancies, reorganisations and rationalisation. They have borne a long period of uncertainty without any disastrous loss of morale and efficiency. I hope that the Government can now give a firm guarantee that the Armed Forces will be left alone for a while to do the job that they do so well.
12.7 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Earl the Minister on his appointment; and perhaps I may also congratulate the Government on acquiring a Minister of such obvious ability as my noble friend has demonstrated in his speech today. I hope that my noble friend will exercise his influence to persuade those who arrange the business of this House of the importance of defence matters.
Defence is the most important issue of all. If our defence arrangements fail, then it is of very little advantage to us that we have, or have had, a perfectly
1958
good economy, excellent social services and all the other aspects of government. The whole preservation of our country and its way of life depends upon an adequate defence system. Therefore it seems to me very wrong that the opportunity to discuss defence is presented to the House on a Friday at the end of the Session. It is an indication that the usual channels are not very interested in the subject. Therefore I hope that my noble friend the Minister will assert himself, and that next year's debate will be held at some time in the centre of the week, and that the subject will receive a full day's proper discussion in appreciation of its importance. I hope that it will not be pushed off, as it has been pushed off today, into the tail-end of the Session at a time when it is perhaps increasingly difficult for noble Lords to attend.
I also venture to differ from the view of my noble friend the Minister that the situation today is so much safer than it was a few years ago. With very great respect, I doubt that. The dangers are different, but whether the elimination of the Russian Communist threat is offset by the new developments with which we are faced seems to me to be another matter.
I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that in fact we live in a very dangerous world. For that reason I shall express one or two doubts about the adequacy of the defence policy of the Government. The White Paper is rather grandly entitled, Stable Forces in a Strong Britain. No doubt they are stable forces and no doubt it is a strong Britain; but it is a Britain that has reduced and cut back on its defence forces to quite a considerable degree. In the situation with which we are faced today, I wonder whether that is wise.
Twice in my lifetime, once under a Liberal Government and once, I am sorry to say, under a Conservative Government, we allowed our defences to be diminished, to the point that when it came to war we very nearly indeed were defeated. That was in 1914 and in 1939–40. Surely the lesson that we should have learnt from that is that it is extremely dangerous in a dangerous and difficult world to cut back on our defences. When my noble friend comes to reply, I hope that he can give some reassurance that the Government have at least brought to an end their cutting back of defence forces and are perhaps prepared to consider instead some expansion.
There is no need for me to repeat that this is a dangerous world. I shall not say anything about Bosnia. Enough has already been said about it. We know that our troops are now in a position of some danger and the question of whether it was ever right to send them there raises doubt in many people's minds. But there is danger all over the world. Nuclear weapons are now possessed by a very large number of countries. A nuclear weapon can do enormous damage, regardless of the strength of one's own country.
I wonder, too, whether it is realised that we are under pressure from all kinds of directions. The Argentine still nibbles at the Falklands and Spain still nibbles at Gibraltar. The slightest sign of weakness on our part in either of those directions would result in those British territories being taken from us by force. Therefore, the need to maintain the defence forces and strength of this

1959
country is as great as it ever was. As I said, I strongly quarrel with my noble friend's statement that—to use his own words—the situation now is "immeasurably safer" than it was a few years ago. I believe that in some ways it is more dangerous. In many ways it is more complicated and I hope that the Government do not delude themselves into believing that they are looking after this country in a safe world. Their responsibility lies in a very dangerous world. It is in that light that I raise one or two questions about what they have done.
I am somewhat disturbed at the way in which they have cut back on the number of infantry. I see no reason to stand down the second battalion of the first three senior regiments in Her Majesty's Guards. I declare an interest, as I served in one of them. It is interesting to note that the Government have come up against a very real difficulty. Guards regiments have to do two quite separate jobs. They have to be operationally very effective and they must also perform their ceremonial to perfection.
Until quite recently, that was a quite useful system. One battalion would be doing ceremonial work and another would be doing operational training or indeed undertaking operations. Now, there is only one battalion, although the Government have been forced, somewhat surreptitiously, to introduce for ceremonial purposes some composite battalions. Indeed, I should be very interested if my noble friend the Minister, when he comes to reply, would say exactly what has been done in that way. I gather that the Government have had to face the fact that a Guards regiment cannot simultaneously do two things: train for and conduct operations and at the same time conduct the magnificent ceremonial that is carried out. Therefore, I should be interested to know whether the Government have had to go back on what I consider to be their unwise decision to do away with the second battalions.
Also, I should like to hear—I have heard nothing so far—the Government's intentions with respect to the Gurkha regiments. They are magnificent troops. We have had a long connection recruiting in that part of the world and recruiting some of the finest soldiers who are to be found anywhere in the world. I know that we have cut back on the Gurkha regiments. But can I have an assurance from my noble friend not only that there will be no further cutting back of Gurkha regiments but indeed that the Government are seriously considering recruiting more troops? They are excellent troops. They are particularly effective when operating in tropical countries and countries with difficult terrain. They are very fine professional soldiers. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give some reassurance that, by way of economy or reduction, he does not intend to cut back on the Gurkha regiments.
Finally, there is the question of missiles. I had intended to say a good deal about that issue but, frankly, what I was going to say has been said much better than I could say it by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I shall only add that I hope that the Government pay attention to what he said a few minutes ago about the development of missiles. We must maintain an effective missile weapon and we must, of course, be able to test it from time to time. No weapon, particularly a complex
1960
weapon of that kind, is reliable if it is not tested. To allow those who agitate against nuclear testing to cause us possibly to undermine our best and most powerful weapon would be a very great mistake.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I feel that the example of the French—as so often with the French—is one of extremely good sense and certainly extremely good understanding of their own interests. I hope that we shall not allow those who try to raise emotional criticism of nuclear testing to cause us to abandon the necessary preparation of that most effective weapon. Unless we continue to possess effective nuclear weapons, in this very dangerous modern world, we shall be vulnerable. But the knowledge that we possess and, if necessary, are prepared to use those weapons and can use them effectively, will serve to preserve our whole position, preserve our safety and enable us to help preserve the peace of the world.
In a world in which there is so much danger and in which so many powers have acquired nuclear weapons, we require a strong Britain, as the White Paper suggests. But I suggest with humility to my noble friend the Minister that we require a rather stronger Britain than is outlined in that White Paper.
12.20 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I do not doubt that the Government will have felt a certain smug satisfaction that through those catchily-named exercises—Options for Change and Front Line First—they have been able to find all of the money required, nay demanded, by the Treasury, and to do so without undue rumpus in Parliament or in the country. In some ways it is a testimony to the impeccable loyalty of chiefs of staff as public servants.
Now we have another glossy, well-presented White Paper full of righteous and quite unexceptionable aspirations and with enough selected statistics to deter (particularly on a Friday with a rail strike) all but the most avid and determined rooters-out of what would actually happen on the ground if the balloon ever went up. It is all designed, of course, to lull everyone into feeling that somehow sophisticated, supposedly modern management methods and significant cost-cutting invariably equate with efficiency and that, in our changing world, all is still well with the Armed Forces and they can still do everything required of them.
But it is not the contents of the White Paper which provide the cause for concern. Indeed, many noble Lords would welcome the recognition—here I shall be quoting from it exactly—of the uncertain world we face; of our determination as a country which,
"remains…economically and militarily, in the first league";
and, as a member of the Security Council,
"to be a major participant in world affairs…to lead…rather than to follow".
And all that fully justified, so the White Paper says, by the considerable assets that we can bring to bear for the benefit of others as well as ourselves, not least our first-class professional Armed Forces.
It is all rattling good stuff, but the key question is simply this. Have we left ourselves enough of that class and professionalism to carry out those emphatic

1961
responsibilities? In that regard I share some of the misgivings of the noble and very experienced Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. No amount of packaging, nor indeed of generous—yes, generous—recognition that a number of changes have led to genuine improvements, particularly in the field of equipment where the outlook is brightest and where I warmly welcome yesterday's announcement about the much-needed attack helicopter.
But none of that should be allowed to conceal the fact that damage has undoubtedly been done to the ethos and stability of the forces and risks taken over their operational effectiveness in crisis situations; and certainly we have one now in Bosnia of the most serious proportions. But let me be specific and I am sure the noble Earl the Minister, whom I warmly welcome to his new job and congratulate on his clear and impressive opening speech, will correct me if I draw any wrong conclusions.
First, with over 30 per cent. of the Army currently on operations and away from their home bases; with 11,000—virtually a division—already in Bosnia, and still more promised as part of the United Nations Rapid Reaction Force (whatever that may now mean) the Army is still overstretched and undermanned with the norm of 24 months between unaccompanied tours by this year—constantly promised to this House—seeming unlikely to be met, despite the easing of tension in Northern Ireland. So I would hope that the undertaking given in paragraph 507 of the White Paper, to keep manpower under constant review, will be honoured; because clearly, with the present tempo of operations, let alone what the uncertain future may hold, the 104,000—the capacity of Wembley Stadium—mentioned not long ago by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, as a projected manpower ceiling for the Army, is likely to be totally inadequate to cover sustainable operations for the planned contingency forces and an acceptable training organisation which has recently had to suffer considerably. Particularly, and most urgently, the infantry—the primary arm—is significantly under strength, even from a largely inadequate establishment which invariably itself requires reinforcement. The Minister may like to confirm how great that shortfall is and why our truncated recruitment arrangements have not been able to correct it.
Happily, there is at least an immediate palliative, if the Ministry has the will to use it—this connects to what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said. Starting this year a large number (over 1,000) of absolutely first-class Gurkha soldiers, of all ranks, fully trained in many specialist skills, including parachuting, and most eager to serve, are to be made redundant because of the absurd 60 per cent. reduction in the Brigade of Gurkhas—as absurd as the ridiculous 45 per cent. reduction in the Brigade of Guards. That is the Brigade of Gurkhas in which the noble Lord said there was no problem of recruitment. There could be no quicker or more efficient way of keeping British battalions up to strength for operations than by temporarily attaching to them a company, or even a platoon, of Gurkhas until such time as British recruiting can close the gap. It is easily done; it would save money on redundancy and be a thoroughly
1962
cost-effective and militarily-effective solution. I hope the Minister will confirm that that will be looked at urgently inside the Ministry.
The next area of concern is sustainability. The Front Line First exercise sought to give the impression that the front line was both sacrosanct and would be fully preserved. But what is the front line? Surely it must include the extent to which combat units can be sustained for the requisite period of operations; for without the proper engineer, logistic and medical support the planned contingency forces would soon become impotent and have to be withdrawn. Yet in every cost-cutting exercise it has been the so-called "tail" rather than the "teeth" on which the heaviest burden has fallen, so that now the length of time an operational formation can be sustained, let alone reinforced and replaced, has become very limited indeed and the Regular Army is more and more dependent on limited reserves. Even in easier days the Falklands campaign only lasted 14 days once the troops were ashore, and the Gulf War, even more fortuitously, only 100 hours. Had the latter lasted 100 days it might have been a very different story, with neither the regulars nor the reserves adequate for the purpose.
The Army Medical Services are in a particularly parlous state, with no reason to believe that the National Health Service would be able, or prepared, to provide (through the Territorial Army and in all eventualities) all the consultants, surgeons and anaesthetists who would be needed in any conflict because the Royal Army Medical Corps can no longer provide them.
All that has influenced our tentative approach in Bosnia and it is now given additional urgency by the deployment of 24 Air Mobile Brigade. One wonders what that brigade, so slowly and laboriously assembled, is now going to do when the United Nations and others do not seem to know (quite literally) whether they are coming or going. Had it been despatched, together with other European contingencies, in what I might describe as the "hey day" of General Rose, and had he then had freedom of action in its use, it might just have been possible to make the safe havens truly safe and demilitarised and the situation sufficiently stabilised for political talks to have a chance.
Now the situation looks very different. Surely we must by now have learnt the obvious lesson—obvious for ages—that to threaten tough action without the strength and political will to stand our ground if put to the test means absolutely nothing. There is also the downside of not doing this. As the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, Goradze and Sarajevo may be the Rubicon, but if you cannot stand the heat of having to do that, you should stay out of the kitchen! In this case, of course, by "kitchen" I mean at least any areas of contention. Otherwise, we only raise, in those who look for protection, expectations which cannot be realised and that brings disillusionment, contempt and untold consequences for the future. We must avoid making tough noises and then not being prepared to go through with it. And here I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, had an unanswerable point, that if we cannot protect the citizens of a country we had recognised as a sovereign state we should not stand in the way of their

1963
arming themselves to carry out their own protection. So perhaps the Minister will try and tell us, in the light of what he thinks this brigade can still achieve and what I said earlier, how long it could be sustained and whether in due course it could be relieved. For in a situation as uncertain and unpredictable as Bosnia it would surely he irresponsible to deploy it if it could only be sustained for a limited period and could not then be replaced. Indeed, it would put a question mark over the whole of our contingency forces, of which we speak so proudly in the paper.
Finally, may I briefly express a general concern over what is described in the White Paper as the "management" of defence. Great play is made of this as if it were somehow an end in itself! One of the problems is that there is so much mumbo-jumbo written about it and so many ghastly catch phrases that one begins to wonder whether those who write this stuff really understand what the Ministry of Defence should be trying to achieve, other than somehow increasing bureaucratic and Treasury control—a point picked up, I may say, by the Bett Report—and the cutting of costs. Certainly no clear objective shines through, as in the Mountbatten reorganisation of 1963–64. Instead, there are inconsistencies and contradictions emanating from this myriad of recent studies.
For example, while on the one hand there seems an almost obsessional desire to devolve budgets to almost every Tom, Dick and Harry, including a lot of new functional agencies, on the other hand the freedom of action within those budgets is still strictly limited. Certainly up to now there has been far too much centralised control of the budget holders, with the service boards and the professional heads largely sidetracked.
Of course, if the noble Earl the Minister can now tell me that in what the White Paper calls,
"the programme of change underpinned by the new management strategy",
there is somehow an admission that the exclusively civilian "office of management and budget" has, as a focal point of budgetary control, been a disaster, and that that function is now being brought back into the supervisory orbit of the chiefs of staff, then I would recognise this as an important improvement, or rather a welcome correction.
Moreover, if one of the paper's basic assumptions is that all future operations are likely to be on a joint service basis; a premise justifying first a joint staff college, then what noble and gallant Lords in this House, with some experience in these matters, would consider a largely cosmetic, expensive and wholly unnecessary new joint headquarters (we have, after all, run highly successful operations under the existing system and the effectiveness of our intervention is invariably, as must seem obvious, more dependent on political will and the quality of our forces than on thinking up some new command organisation) and a new permanent Rapid Reaction Force, which I shall leave to my noble and gallant friend, surely against that background it makes little sense to send the naval personnel department to Portsmouth, the Army's to
1964
Netheravon, the Air Force's to Bath, and even less with the same thing happening to the logistic staff. That is what I mean by "inconsistency and confusion".
But perhaps the most serious aspect of all is the attitude of mind that so many of these studies and new management cultures may engender in the Armed Forces. If higher headquarters are encouraged to think of themselves as "head offices" and every commander as a "manager", with cost accounting held to be his primary responsibility and whose key to advancement lies just as much in coming in within or below his budget than it does on his ability to stir the hearts and minds of flesh and blood and get that bit extra out of them, in fair weather and in foul, then, I suggest, we are in real trouble. For if you are looking for cost accountants and cautious managers, that is exactly what you are going to get in the officer corps. And then where will be your Nelson touch and from where will come our front line leaders and commanders, who can make all the difference between success and failure when the pressure is on, right up to, in recent memory, the "H" Joneses, the de la Billières and the Roses?
So I do hope that the new Secretary of State, when he is deciding how and where to apply his undoubted talents, will appreciate some of these fundamental truths, will listen to his professional advisers and will realise that with the Prime Minister's assurance that the Armed Forces have had their cuts and will now be left to their devices, he has a real opportunity, by correcting a few things that have been got wrong and by leading from the front, to build up morale and professional effectiveness and ensure that the Armed Forces are always fully able to undertake, with honour and distinction,' all the tasks imposed on them. I wish him well.
12.35 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, no one could follow that act easily! I welcome my noble friend the Minister very warmly and wish him very well. Andrey Kozyrev the Russian Foreign Minister, addressing the federation council on 6th July, said:
"Russian diplomacy considers NATO to be an instrument left over from a different era".
The OSCE, on the other hand, was a pan-European instrument to which all states of Europe belong on an equal footing. President Yeltsin, on 28th June, identified the priority tasks in the sphere of national security as including the completion of the formation of a collective security system in the CIS countries; the recognition that Russia's special geo-strategical position in Eurasia dictates the Asian thrust of Russian foreign policy and the creation of an effective security system in the Asian Pacific region; and, finally, participation in the creation of a comprehensive European security system of which an important component must be constructive co-operation between the Russian Federation and NATO.
Russia had recently joined the Partnership for Peace and was prepared for a deeper dialogue with the alliance on all questions of European policy and security. However, Russia did not yet consent to NATO's eastward expansion, taking in the countries of central and eastern Europe. NATO, he stressed, must transform

1965
itself from the West's military bloc into an instrument of all European security, and, moreover, of a political nature. He went on to say that Russia must have a fundamentally new army and navy and priority must go to the preservation and development of strategic nuclear forces. Now that industrial production was rising and the economy becoming more stable there would be a real possibility of halting the reduction in military spending. The proportion of expenditure on national defence would remain at the 1995 level and there would be military reform. Grachev on the same occasion said that the army now had to deal with peacekeeping not only in the CIS but also beyond its borders.
I am not alone in arguing that defence and foreign policy are two sides of the same coin. Ever since the Russian Federation came into being its objects have been to neutralise NATO, to restore the Soviet Union's position of power in eastern Europe and to reconstitute the Soviet Union in a leaner, meaner version. It has succeeded in the first and third aims and, as NATO continues to bow to the Russian veto on enlargement and communists return to power in central Europe (quite apart from the practical difficulty for central Europe of disengaging from the Soviet defence industry and finding the money to buy Western hardware), it is well on the way to restoring its power and influence in the former satellites.
Meanwhile, Russia is also, having reached agreement with China in areas ranging from military high-tech to ethnic policies, energetically expanding its power in Asia. (I have spoken before of the degree of India's dependence on Russian weaponry and nuclear collaboration and on sales of aircraft to Malaysia and China.) She is also building a nuclear station for Iran and preparing to enter into joint ventures in oil with Iraq as soon as she can persuade the UN to raise the embargo and withdraw it. She is reviewing her links with Libya and selling sophisticated weapons in the Middle East.
It will be said, and with truth, that pay in the Russian armed services is in arrears, that morale is poor and that large sums are owing to defence establishments and the defence industry. There is a degree of chaos and incompetence in the ground forces and for the moment money is short, and so are resources.
It is argued also that the series of military disasters in Chechnya, the inept leadership of the forces engaged there and the quality of the Russian troops demonstrate that for the foreseeable future Russia presents no military threat. It is worth noting, however, that the forces engaged were almost entirely drawn from the Border troops, the infamous OMON formations under MVD command (who were used in the Baltic states) and the internal forces. They were not, with the exception of some raw recruits drafted in at one stage, from the regular armed forces, which did not wish to become policemen. Any external conflict would involve the strategic rocket forces and the other elite formations, but they were not, and never would be, used to suppress internal revolt as the OMON and the other internal troops have been in Tbilisi and Nagorno-Karabakh in the past. But perhaps Grozny was a nasty shock to the
1966
KGB, the MVD and the FSS because, for the first time, the media were there, and for once I can praise the media.
The Russian threat may not be there tomorrow, but what about the day after? Russia now has bases in virtually every former country of the Soviet Union. It is building a single CIS air defence system. It has airfields in Armenia; it has forced Georgia back into the CIS; it is challenging the CFE Treaty on the grounds of troubles on the North Caucasus border. It is looking for new relationships with all the former satellites. It has military agreements now with Bulgaria and Romania; and even the Poles are looking for a new relationship with Russia.
Much more important, there is plenty of evidence that the leadership (and this will not change with a change of president since it is composed of the KGB, the nomenklatura, the defence industry and the army) while it has developed some economic strengths, sees one of its prime tasks as the restoration of Russia as a world military power. This is how they expect to make the Russian people walk tall again. This is why the airborne troops and the strategic missile forces will be supported, why Kokoshin, the deputy Defence Minister, whose chief concern is the military budget, has said that major state and non-governmental investment must be channelled to the development of aviation, missile and space equipment, stressing the importance of ensuring the country's defence capability. The S300 PMU-1 air defence system is no doubt part of that.
On 6th June, Grachev, visiting the Zhukovsky complex, was shown,
"a new, multi-purpose fighter aircraft of the 21st century",
and much work is being done to modernise and modify existing MiG fighters. Russia still has 40,000 tonnes of chemical weapons—the draft law to dispose of them has not gone through—and has repeatedly lied about her continuing biological research, lies which have caused the US Congress to halt the programme of help to dispose of nuclear missiles.
Does all this sound like what the MoD would no doubt call the configuration of a peaceful, unthreatening neighbour in the years ahead? The country whose solution to any internal problem is to send in the OMON troops—which presents itself as a UN peacekeeper in Abkhazsia and Tadzhikistan and in Nagorno-Karabakh, where the OMON had their finest hour of butchery in the 1980s—is of course the same country which told us at the time of the Serb hostage-taking that the bombing of the Serbs' position by NATO aircraft was, "a mistake which had produced retaliatory strikes". "The Serbs were forced to retaliate", said Yeltsin in Halifax, adding truthfully enough that, "historically, we have supported the Serbs".
Russia's relations with the West are a classic case of the Russian military doctrine of Refleksivnoe upravlenie (reflexive control)—Soviet parlance for manipulating your opponent. Thus the Russians are now within G8—the economic doors are open. That is good. But they are also now inside NATO, not merely as Partners for Peace (and incidentally most of the CIS countries, a new Russian defence bloc, are also there and helping us to dissipate our limited resources). But what does Kozyrev have to say about NATO's role? On 1st June, after

1967
signing a partnership programme, he said that the issue of NATO expansion eastwards is no longer on the agenda. Russia had:
"found a formula to normalise the relations with NATO, and as a result NATO expansion to the East becomes no longer as acute or political and is no longer on the agenda".
It would now be a routine issue discussed among many others at the level of expert.
It is interesting that the day before his deputy, Krylov, said in Kaliningrad (where the US Senate is uneasy about the build up of Russian troops):
"in having a considerable military contingent on this territory, Russia is not violating any international treaty".
Sauce for the goose is evidently not sauce for the gander. Perhaps, too, Kozyrev's relaxed approach to a NATO that Russia is on the way to neutralising as a defence force, leaving only a PR exercise, may have been helped by the proposal made by Klaus Kinkel, the German Foreign Minister, on 26th June, that an agreement to hold special consultations and a pledge not to use force could be included in a charter to be signed by NATO and Russia. That would indeed sit well with Russia's plans to neutralise NATO and turn it into a defence eunuch.
Having Russia inside if she will not call the Serbs to heel, as she could well do, seems rather a waste. Russia is a master of double standards. On the one hand, Karasin, Churkin's successor, says virtuously, speaking of the Bosnian conflict, "forcible methods are counter-productive". On the other hand, Kozyrev himself, speaking to the CIS Foreign Ministers, referred to the UN resolution to support Russia's peace efforts in Tadzhikistan and added that,
"it is impossible to resolve the problems of ethnic minorities by diplomatic methods alone".
How true. No doubt he also had Chechnya in mind.
Russia's aim is to phase out NATO and substitute for it that wholly harmless animal, the OSCE—53 nations who will no doubt effortlessly match the UN in its capacity to pass unwinnable resolutions and substitute conferences for action. The OSCE has been "monitoring" in Chechnya and Nagorno-Karabakh for some time now with no effect whatever on what the Russians, the Azerbaijanis and the others wish to do. The latest great proposal from the OSCE, made last year, is for a force of 2,000 to go to Nagorno-Karabakh—presumably 40 people from each country!
I see from the Estimates, however, that we actually wish to strengthen this organisation and credit it with developing a crisis management and peacekeeping role. Heaven help us if our unfortunate and splendid armed forces are to be asked to serve yet another toothless monster.
What I am trying to say, as I do every year, is that we cannot hope to keep the peace in a dangerous world unless we maintain NATO's power and will to deter and we can only do that by maintaining our own Armed Forces at a realistic level to deal with the unexpected, as well as assessing the expected more realistically. We cannot afford to continue universal multi-hatting.
I am sure that much work has gone into the document which we are debating and there are good things in it. My admiration for the forces themselves is unbounded.
1968
I believe, too, that the Bett Report, when it has been fully discussed, will prove useful. But when I read the paper through, I thought of what it does not say about the serious demoralisation of the men and women who serve this country so faithfully and who joined a service and not a business.
Much though I welcome the paper, I cannot help feeling that Stable Forces in a Strong Britain is, with respect, a travesty of the truth as far as the Armed Forces are concerned. Reading it, I thought at times that it was a report from a struggling supermarket chain to its board of directors with its talk of "flattening management structures" and,
"a lack of horizontal transparency in what is primarily a vertical management system",
of customers and budget holders; of project capital—naturally, a Treasury initiative—designed to,
"focus management systems on the delivery of outputs and the lateral links in the organisation through the customer-supplier chain".
I quote again:
"Under the Department's Competing for Quality programme, we exposed some £286 million worth of activities to potential private sector involvement … The work has identified potential annual savings of over £90 million, and will assist us in the task of accommodating planned defence expenditure reductions without reducing our fighting capability".
I ask my noble friend the Minister how that sits with the contracts with Airwork in 1993 which resulted in major damage to 16 Tornado F3s and significant damage to several Hercules aircraft, and which, had the disgracefully botched work on some of the Tornados not been discovered at RAF Leeming by RAF ground crews when they were due to fly to Bosnia, would have led to loss of pilots and crews as well as aircraft?
I raised the question of Airwork and its Tornado and Hercules contracts in our debate on the last Defence Estimates in 1994 and I gave warning to the Minister that I would do so again today. I raise it again today not only to establish that recourse to the private sector and to the lowest bidder on grounds of saving money alone has in this instance (and in how many others?) not only cost more money and resources, given the cost of each Tornado and the fact that most, if not all, of the 16 Tornados have been out of service ever since, but it has put lives and already limited operational capacity at risk. That, I submit, suggests that money, not the defence needs of the country or the morale of the services, drives policy.
It is not good enough to say that the warning time for a credible strategic threat emerging can now be measured in years. If the present policy of ideological privatisation continues, there will be little point in the JIC one fine day announcing that there is now a credible threat discernible on the horizon. By that time I have little doubt that, in the interest of saving money, because it is "business" and because it is the service tradition to say nothing, our Armed Forces will be run by Group 4. It will be too late then to rebuild our Armed Forces—not least our defence industries. Russia understands that. I beg the Minister to convey to the new Secretary of

1969
State our very grave anxiety about the state of morale in the services and about the creeping privatisation that could turn a magnificent fighting regime into a failing business. The men and women of the services joined a service, not a business.
We can still do something. Russia needs us still politically. We should lean on Russia and take the political offensive. It is the only offensive that we now have the resources to carry out. I just hope that the Secretary of State is a good poker player.
12.51 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I feel confident that I speak for all noble Lords on this side of the House in most heartily endorsing the last three or four minutes of the speech just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth—perhaps not her last sentence, but up until then.
There is a potential danger looming over us ever closer since I first spoke about it a year ago. It is concealed in that reassuring-sounding acronym BMD, ballistic missile defence. The time cannot now be far away when the Government will have to take decisions, and if they take the wrong decisions the world may lose any hope of rational and peaceful development for another half century or more.
It is attractive to think that you can defend yourself against incoming missiles without incurring any danger of side-effects, but you cannot. The nutshell is this: the closer you get to 100 per cent. invulnerability, the closer you also get to an invulnerable first-strike capacity. The current BMD programmes in the United States, which are part of the Counter-Proliferation Initiative, are quite open about that. The ability to destroy someone else's missiles and military capacity in general on the ground is an accepted part of the whole programme—that is, naked aggression in peace time. I speak, mark, of ability, not of intention.
As anyone reading official US statements will know, this is a scheme for the global deployment of weaponry capable of the pre-emptive destruction by means of conventional warheads, lasers or otherwise, of all and any weapons of mass destruction together with their launchers, platforms, silos, transporters, stores, factories, etc., including those in underground bunkers. It would do all this when the targets are identified as proliferatory by space-based sensors, and all would be automatically triggered by computers without further human input, whether military or political. The resemblance to Reagan's old Star Wars programme is striking. The only difference is that instead of being aimed against Russia alone, this one is potentially aimed against everybody except Russia. And once again all thought of mutual deterrence is abolished: the deterrence is one way only.
In this programme, we are by now quite heavily committed. The British designer of Chevaline, which was the Polaris modernisation carried out in secret by the government of my noble friend Lord Callaghan in the 1970s, is now working on BMD in the US. That is a commitment; he is there to programme in our 20 year-old attack designs to run against the US defence
1970
designs, since Chevaline stands in very nicely for the technology likely to be used by the third-world aggressors we now fear so much.
Moreover, according to the Director of the US Ballistic Missile Defence Office, General O'Reilly, the British taxpayer has contributed just under half the foreign investment in it. The work is done under the old SDI Memorandum of Understanding, I believe. I have asked Written Questions about the cost to us, and have had wriggly Answers. The expenditure is not all in one place. It is here; it is there; it is everywhere. But we are today debating a Defence White Paper, and I ask the Government again: what have we so far spent on this, the most important military project in the world, and where is it in the Defence Estimates?
Let us suppose that all this might work: that it might actually provide the US and some of its allies with the impenetrable dome that Reagan dreamed of. What would be the effect on the rest of the world? It would for generations divide the countries of the world into three classes: first, the United States, which had the ability to destroy anything it thought fit at any moment anywhere on earth or sea with complete impunity; secondly, its allies, who might or might not "benefit" (if that is the word) from the US controlled system, and thirdly, everyone else, who would just have to lump it. These last would perceive it as a grievous and fearful oppression, and would of course make enormous military efforts to catch up, whether by increasing their own penetration ability or by their own BMD, so as to achieve a new deterrent balance. This is a new arms race, imposed by the rich on the poor. The rest of the world is just beginning to understand this, and the reaction will not be long in coming.
Now who are the countries whose missiles the US so greatly fears? What do we mean by those "unstable regions", as the euphemism has it? We mean Libya and Iran, though they are actually stable enough, and Iraq, and North Korea. Those countries fear the US, and therefore look askance on us too as the henchman. All of them have one or two quite justifiable reasons for fearing the United States. We all know of the hostile acts performed by those countries against the US, and we must continue to condemn them. But we must also remember the other side. The US bombed Tripoli, from British bases, killing Gaddafi's young step-daughter. They did this because he had proclaimed that the Gulf of Syrte was Libyan territorial waters, and sent gunboats out among the American Fleet which was off his shores.
Iraq feared the US long before the second Gulf War because its client state Israel bombed and destroyed the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak in 1981, with US connivance. Reagan is reported to have said, "Boys will be boys".
Iran fears—even hates—the US for a rather less well-known reason: some time after the revolution which deposed the American-backed Shah, the new government discovered that in the north of the country the US was still secretly operating an intelligence gathering station which surveyed the Soviet Union, without their knowledge. This was bad enough: but worse was that the Americans were secretly paying qualified Iranian citizens to operate it, including military

1971
personnel. They were suborning soldiers in the Iranian Army. They also remember their civil airliner which was shot down, and all were killed, by an American warship, and that the American captain was then decorated.
North Korea fears the US for reasons which are also little known in this country. During the Cold War the Soviet Union was North Korea's nuclear guarantor, as the United States was South Korea's. It was because of the active and tangible Soviet guarantee that North Korea signed the NPT. With the loss of its guarantor, North Korea was left alone to face the United States' enormous military build-up in South Korea and its ceaseless succession of nuclear-capable military exercises, which mimic invasion of the north. When the United States stated it had removed its nuclear weapons from within South Korea—not from the area as a whole—there was no question of the north, or even the United Nations, being allowed to verify the claim. The military build-up and the exercises in South Korea continue, and South Korea now believes itself to be the United States' largest weapons customer in the world.
Sooner than join the "Airstrip One" world of American BMD, we should be turning our diplomacy to removing the reasons for which those countries, and many others, fear us and our special relationship with the US, as we proudly used to call it. There are legitimate grievances out there, not blind menace.
Those are the geopolitical reasons for thinking that automated defence against ballistic missiles is a bad idea. And of course it may not work. But even if it were not a bad idea, and even it if worked, it would still be a useless idea. The studies now being carried out for the MoD, and there are quite a lot of them, cover ballistic missiles only. They do not cover cruise missiles. Nor do they cover pedestrians with suitcases carrying small nuclear weapons, or indeed small conventional bombs which if left to go off in nuclear installations, chemical plants or biological labs, would also cause mass destruction. Nor do they cover small tins of sarin, as in the Tokyo subway.
It is a commonplace that people need enemies, and I suppose most people at the end of the Cold War wondered how long it would be before we all found new ones. It has been six years: quite a long time, really. We should have used that long lull to repair damaged understandings. But we, or at least the US, have made bogeymen of the third world instead. Which way will China and Japan go in this new scission? It needs thinking about.
I end with a general point about sovereignty. We are not in danger of losing it to Brussels, because we understand what we are doing, and discuss it daily at the tops of our voices. And nobody wants our sovereignty off us in Brussels. But we are already losing it, and fast, to Washington, because we allow ourselves to be boxed into American weapon systems and the strategies they dictate. A few days ago, when I asked which department in MoD did long-term political forecasting, and assessed the political contexts in which we would operate new equipment, the Answer came: none, because the international political situation is unpredictable and because the MoD wants capabilities
1972
which offer flexibility, mobility and utility across a range of likely military tasks. The answer went on about considered on their merits, the most important being total cost to public funds, operational effectiveness, and such technical aspects as performance, reliability and compatibility with our existing weapons systems. Full stop: nothing whatever about the geopolitical implications of weapons procurements. Nor of course, about the national interest in maintaining a sufficient industrial and technological base.
The Defence Estimates White Paper admits that
"it might take two decades"
to bring a "major system" into service, and then it could
"remain in operation for thirty years".
That is realistic. We all know that. It is a total of 50 years. Are decisions on major weapons systems really being taken without benefit of political thought? All the decisions being taken now, for Apache and Tomahawk today, for the Tornado and Harrier replacement tomorrow, and for space equipment, all tie us to the apron strings of the United States, because apron strings are all the United States offers. British sovereignty drips away: we do what we are told. In Europe, on the other hand, we are sovereign among sovereign equals, and can collaborate in the real geographical and economic interests which we have in common. And that is what we should be doing.
1.5 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to debate the Defence Estimates. At the same time, I congratulate him on his clear speech and on his new appointment at the Ministry of Defence, which I am sure he will enjoy.
I shall not speak on Bosnia for I have nothing to add to what your Lordships have already said. I should like to address my remarks to aspects of the Defence White Paper. The title of Stable Forces in a Strong Britain given to this year's Statement on the Defence Estimates is, I believe, a somewhat misleading one. Stability is required in our organisations and in planning times, and it can be achieved only by preventing the imposition of further changes on already exhausted Armed Forces organisations which are reeling and overwhelmed by so much recent change.
On the other side of the coin, the fighting units—the actual armed forces in each of the services—need their swords to be finely honed, razor sharp and wielded frequently. They do not wish for the sort of stability which is so essential for command organisations and structures. No proper sailor, soldier or airman in fighting units joins his service to sit in a tied-up ship, remain in a barracks without training or operational commitment, or stay on an airfield with grounded aeroplanes.
The statement,
"We believe we can now inject a period of stability"
—provided it does not interfere with the operational capabilities of fighting units—is broadly welcomed. However, the statement that,
"we have stability of funding"

1973
is rather more suspect. How can stability of funding be achieved when competing for quality in all three services continues? For it is well known that competing for quality is destabilising.
I do not agree that when the restructuring of our Armed Services is completed our front line forces will be configured correctly for today's uncertain world. For instance, cuts in the Army have been too deep, and to reduce tank regiment establishments from 54 tanks to 38 tanks is a matter of serious concern and questions whether a 38-tank regiment, reduced from four sabre squadrons to only three, will still be a viable force and able to manoeuvre with sound tactics for the future. A similar situation exists with infantry battalions which, some years ago, were reduced from four rifle companies to three, making them unsuited for operational deployment.
Those problems could be overcome easily by an immediate increase in manpower, giving the Army considerably greater flexibility and meaning less separation for families. The current strength of the Army, as at 1st April this year, less 16,000 trainees, was about 118,000 personnel. An increase of 10,000 troops would achieve a better configured Army. I ask the Government to expand the Army by at least those 10,000 troops.
The statements in the Estimates that,
"There will be no cuts to our front line, even if our commitments reduce",
and
"for our Servicemen and Women it will mean more time for their families, more time for training and more time to apply their expertise and professional skills on the global stage"
are most warmly welcomed.
The Statement on the Defence Estimates sets out clearly the three defence roles of the UK. To my mind it covers future threats from fundamentalism and any resurgence from Russia, among other threats. A full explanation of the 50 military tasks is included.
The Defence Costs Study identified the requirement for a permanent joint headquarters. That is again included in the Estimates, giving a justification for that new headquarters. I ask my noble friend to look at this project again. I have not heard very much support for this permanent joint headquarters. Our recent operational commitments in the Falklands, the Gulf and Bosnia have been, and are being, conducted by a single service headquarters with tri-service personnel attached. Is it not morally wrong to be seen to be spending large sums of money in refurbishing parts of an existing headquarters and manning it with an additional 400 or so personnel when for so many years all three services have been instructed to make large financial savings? Can my noble friend confirm that the Chief of the Defence Staff and the three single service chiefs of staff are content with the proposal for a new permanent joint headquarters?
I should like to make a few observations on the Bett Report, which is a fairly complex document and is another report which is causing concern and uncertainty to our servicemen and women. Reading the report, one is left with the impression that the Armed Forces have
1974
been regarded as a mere additional business organisation. Our military services are not mere businesses but highly professional Armed Forces of the Crown and very skilled at their specific duties. I believe that there is no justification whatever to recommend that age-old systems, such as the rank structure in the services, should be changed and some ranks abolished. Why tamper with a system that has worked well for a very long period? Secondly, I do not agree that the entire report should be taken as a package; but rather those recommendations that are good for the Armed Forces should be implemented and those that are bad ruthlessly thrown out.
I now turn to training in the Army and once again bring to your Lordships' attention the concern about the lack of all-arms training and joint service training. It would seem that these types of training are glossed over with no significant emphasis apart from the permanent joint headquarters, which I have already mentioned, and the joint rapid deployment force, which I believe will be covered by other speakers. According to Figure 7 in the White Paper, which shows major NATO exercises, the majority of exercises conducted have been based on command post exercises with the exception of an airborne forces exercise, an amphibious exercise and some partnership for peace exercises.
Likewise, Figure 8 shows exercises outside Europe and, apart from battle group training in Canada, the majority of battalion and company level exercises would appear to have been outside an all-arms concept and not on a joint service basis. Emphasis has been placed on the retention of the Army's ability to mount or contribute to high intensity operations and on all three services working together in a cohesive joint force.
Unless all-arms high intensity training is conducted and carried out on suitable training areas, preferably at brigade level, low intensity operations in which this country is involved to a great degree in Bosnia and Northern Ireland may be carried out less effectively and efficiently in the future. Battle simulation and tactical trainers, although helpful with aspects of training, cannot replace the reality of all-arms field training at brigade level. Will my noble friend inform your Lordships of where the armoured brigades within the 1st Armoured Division in the Allied Rapid Reaction Force can train realistically in Germany or reasonably close to it? For instance, are there any large training areas available to the Army in France?
I now turn to the defence medical services. In 1993 a report estimated the need for 1,500 beds and in a more recent report this was halved to 800. This reduction is of immediate concern because a loss of beds of this magnitude leads to a reduction in the number of surgeons, specialists and nursing staff who can practise their skills in peacetime and so be available for localised conflicts or all-out war.
I have covered the closure of military hospitals in the United Kingdom in a previous debate but consultants have been reduced from 169 to 112 and it has now been proposed that the four Army field hospitals should be reduced from four to three with the fourth retained at cadre strength. The number of surgical teams, the vital element of any field hospital, will be reduced from

1975
42 to 24, allowing only eight per field hospital. Army field hospitals are the front line of the medical services and in view of the policy that front line units should receive no further cuts, will my noble friend agree to re-examine this front line reduction?
I cannot summarise better the situation regarding the defence medical services than by quoting the conclusions reached by the Select Committee on Defence in another place. It stated:
"The reductions in the defence medical services are on a relatively dramatic scale. Numbers are to be virtually halved from their 1990 levels. There is to be just one core service hospital, at Haslar. The cuts in the level of front-line medical support are at least as great as, if not greater than, the reductions in the fighting arms.
"In common with our apprehensions that those reductions may have gone too far and too fast, we fear that the major reduction in the Defence Medical Services will reduce the ability of the United Kingdom to generate military medical support for the front line in the event of serious hostilities short of all-out war, as well as reducing to a bare minimum the training and skills base for all the military medical disciplines. We are not confident that the proposed medical establishment allows properly for medical casualties in time of war. Peacetime opportunities for command, administration and logistical support of medical services have been severely pruned. They could be further reduced were there to be changes in the pattern of secondary medical care in Germany or Cyprus, which would also leave medical personnel required for military purposes without the opportunity for peacetime medical experience. Recent deployments in Bosnia and elsewhere have underlined the importance of having military medical manpower and resources readily to hand in peacetime, to support a number of scattered deployments in potentially threatening circumstances".
I now turn to equipment. Highly capable equipment and weapon systems have been designed and are being produced to give the Armed Forces the fighting capability they require. The Royal Navy's Sea Harriers should be being updated; progress continues to provide an amphibious helicopter carrier and the two new assault ships; further orders should be issued for the Type 23 frigates; and studies on a collaborative basis with the French and Italian Governments continue for the production of a common new generation frigate to replace the Type 42 destroyers. Their helicopter fleet is now being enhanced by the introduction of the EH101.
The Army is being issued with a further 259 new Challenger 2 tanks, and if there has been a delay in delivery dates will my noble friend explain what has caused that delay and when regiments will receive their new Challenger 2s? The delivery of the AS90 gun has enhanced the capability of the Royal Artillery. The decision made to purchase the Apache attack helicopter will enhance the Army's anti-armour capability and the high velocity missile will enhance the Army's air defence capability.
The Royal Air Force will benefit in the future from the introduction of the Eurofighter 2000; the update of the Tornado GRI fleet; the refurbishment of the Chinook helicopters, which should be nearing completion; the procurement of additional support helicopters; the purchase of some C130J Hercules, and the introduction of improved weaponry will enhance the fighting capability of the Royal Air Force.
In conclusion, the United Kingdom is fortunate to have the finest Armed Forces in the world; Armed Forces that are very professional, highly skilled and well trained. They are carrying out an exceptionally difficult
1976
task in Bosnia and it is very much hoped that Her Majesty's Government are not interfering with the commanders on the ground whose views and decisions should be respected. Once committed to tasks, the Armed Forces implement their plans to the highest standards, setting examples of fine leadership. We have become accustomed to these traditional hallmarks from the Armed Forces of the Crown. However, their skills and professionalism may fade if we do not allow them to exist with sufficient personnel; if we prevent them from training properly and realistically; and if we deny them the weapons and communication systems they require. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that we owe our Armed Forces a large debt of gratitude.
1.19 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, perhaps I may add my welcome to the noble Earl in his new appointment and in dealing with the issues of external threats to national security, which for him is no doubt a change from dealing with the internal dangers of organophosphates.
The Government, the noble Earl tells us, are now proposing a period of stability. But even more explicitly the White Paper in Chapter 2 says that the Government intend,
"to maintain a global outlook and to play an active role in international affairs … Living up to this sense of responsibility is a deliberate act, explicitly recognised in our defence and security polices".
Those are important policy statements. They indicate that the Government still want to punch their weight and more in the international arena. But for that to be credible, we need to be seen to have the ability to do so, not only to reinforce our political and diplomatic skills, but to give us the status and the strength to remain a full and accepted member of the Security Council.
While seeking to support the United Nations, the Government are right to stress that action in the security and defence field should be inter-governmental, based on co-operation between nation states. Commitment of our Armed Forces to battle must remain with our elected Government who alone must accept the ultimate responsibility for their use in action.
Against that policy background, how are we measuring up? Clearly the Government recognise the importance of a period of stability which has been strongly urged on them by the Chiefs of Staff. But it is still more of a promise than reality. For example, for the Royal Air Force, reorganisation and redundancy programmes will be major preoccupations for the rest of this decade. When I left the post of Chief of the Air Staff, the Royal Air Force had over 90,000 regulars. By the end of the decade the number will be little over 50,000. RAF uniformed manpower will have been almost halved. The RAF frontline forces have also been subject to many major cuts, in some areas by between one-third and even one-half. The Royal Air Force will soon be shedding completely its nuclear capability. In no way are they ingredients of stability.
Nevertheless, stability is clearly a sensible concept after upheaval and turbulence. But it will take determination and follow through by the Government

1977
for a number of years if it is to be anything other than a semantic trick. Stability of funding, to which several noble Lords have referred, has, as we all know—sometimes from bitter experience—never been easy to deliver no matter how well intentioned are the promises. Meanwhile the calls on our forces could well increase dramatically if Bosnia really flares up or Her Majesty's Government want to put their finger in the dyke of some new UN disaster.
To support our security interests, the Government claim that they intend to strengthen our existing capability to project power quickly with a new joint rapid deployment force. That is a sound concept if we are to be able to fulfil the roles envisaged by the Government. But much remains to be done to give our three services the wherewithal to respond as a joint rapid deployment force and, in the words of the White Paper, to be capable of answering growing calls upon the United Kingdom to respond to a range of crises, potentially world wide.
It is worth dwelling for a moment on those three key words: rapid, deployment and force. I turn, first, to the word "rapid". The three services have long had, in some measure, a capability to respond very quickly; for example, the Spearhead battalion and some RAF squadrons at notice to move in a matter of hours. All such units must be fully manned and trained for the intended operation. There may be no time to undertake special work-up training before they move to theatre and into action. There is no room for caderisation, for only partly manned units, if the response is to be rapid. If the Government want to be able to commit well-found joint forces rapidly in future, will the cost and other implications of that proposed stance be provided for?
Secondly, I shall deal with "deployment". The global reach envisaged and the heavy logistic support needed for joint forces which may be operationally engaged, call for readily available air and ship transport. Support of rapidly deployed "teeth" and other arms cannot always be met by taking up ships or aircraft from trade to augment our existing ship and air transport lift. Are we doing enough (quickly) to prepare ourselves for high speed deployment of sizable forces?
Thirdly, I turn to the word "force". Gunboat diplomacy, and air policing like the RAF practised so successfully between the two world wars in the Middle East, have had their day. Today, even unsophisticated opponents have access to modern lethal anti-armour and anti-aircraft weapons. Worldwide exposure by the media to every twist and turn in a confrontation often serves to diminish the deterrent value of a small, uncommitted force. If such deterrence fails and force must be committed, it must be employed overwhelmingly, with overwhelming speed and/or overwhelming weight. The evident will to order in full military superiority, signals a very important political message from a democracy. It says in effect: judge us not just by our words, but by the strength of our actions too.
Recent experience in Bosnia has yet again taught that tit-for-tat and gesture operations no longer achieve sensible, political, let alone military, objectives. Rather they leave the way open to, "I dare you" challenges, to
1978
acts of escalation and to the surrender of the initiative to the opposition. We can all understand the public and political worries about being seen to use more than a minimum proportionate force; about co-lateral damage, if large-scale force is employed; and the possible cost in men and matériel on our own side. But the use of Armed Forces has always carried with it those heavy obligations. Smart weapons and advanced technologies do nothing to lessen or obliterate the consequences of shooting, and of shooting to kill. Indeed, it is the show of strong political conviction, which commitment of large-scale force implies, that gives the best gearing for the use of armed force where that is judged to be essential to contribute to the overall political objectives.
If force cannot contribute to those objectives, is it right to expose our forces to the risk of frequent attack, of hostage taking and of fatalities; or to commit them to ill-defined operations in a half-hearted way? We have allowed the political heart to rule the head for too long in Bosnia, with almost weekly, and now daily, the awesome consequences of that misjudgment of reality coming home to haunt and shame us and the United Nations. What foolishness has gripped the Security Council during the past few hours to ask the Secretary-General to do in Srebrenica that which he clearly and patently cannot have any hope of achieving?
While initially widely welcomed, if not by the Bosnian Government themselves, the move of the UK rapid deployment force to the former Yugoslavia has yet to demonstrate that the Government have provided the necessary resources to have fully manned and trained operationally ready units, with the mobility resources immediately to hand, to get them and their essential logistics support into theatre. If we are to match the fine words of the defence White Paper, we have to be able to get our highly professional soldiers, sailors and airmen into theatre, backed for offensive action with the full logistic support that they will need. If we cannot afford to do so, let us for heaven's sake cut our foreign policy to the size and shape of our remaining much reduced forces and what they can support effectively.
No doubt when the Minister winds up he will be able to explain why the move to Bosnia of the so-called rapid reaction force is taking so long. Preparation has taken over two months and there have been other delays. Indeed I doubt that all the delays can be laid at the door of diplomatic negotiations to clear the way for our forces' arrival and basing in theatre. I heard a rumour the other day that the Croatians wish to charge an import tax for every single member of the rapid deployment force who is to pass through their hands. I wonder whether we have also negotiated what the export tax might be.
The command arrangements too, should our forces be committed to fight, still seem to me to be untidy. Will these enable the Government to take full responsibility for our forces' actions? Is the United Nations' authority committed to the use of strong and overwhelming force, if force is necessary to secure objectives? Newspaper reports and indeed recent events give a different impression about United Nations' resolve. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us

1979
on these points when he replies. Our Armed Forces are the best in the world. They deserve the very best political support that the country can muster.
1.32 p.m.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, first of all I should like to congratulate my noble friend on taking up his new post. He is fortunate in that he arrives with Apaches and Tomahawks flying, so he has made a good start. I wish him luck. Commentators will no doubt judge the Statement on how well it is written and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has already given his seal of approval to this effect. However, I believe we should judge it on the outcomes, based on the Government's intention to maintain world class Armed Forces on which we can draw in building security in the uncertain world we live in.
The low risk of global warfare has been replaced by greater risk of small scale conflict, but what matters in the long run is the maintenance of international peace and stability and, by keeping in the first league militarily speaking, we can influence world affairs and stay in the first league economically speaking. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, wonders whether we are doing enough militarily to be confident of saying anything about this and shouting the odds. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has spoken of the weaknesses and possible lack of preparedness. We are conscious of what happened in the 1930s. However, I believe that the Government have the military balance right in quality for certain, but of course quantity needs constant review. The balance is between deterrence and rapid reaction as well as between forces structured and trained for high intensity conflict and forces equipped for effective response to peacetime crises.
I see that great care must be taken to demonstrate the military value of filling gaps in defence capability and to assess the impact that the chosen solution will have on the defence industrial base, and through life support structures. I congratulate the Government on keeping up a substantial forward equipment programme while the structures and characteristics of the Armed Forces are changing. There are some difficult decisions to take when the benefits to trade and industry of operational advantage and of other practicalities have to be threshed out. Do we custom build? Do we collaborate or do we buy off the shelf? If we have time to look ahead, we can plan to our advantage, but, when the replacement cycle is out of step with the development cycle—the CJ130 Lockheed Transport is a good case, the Future Large Aircraft development not having come forward—we are often faced with the commercial expedient of buying other nations' products. When this happens we must remember that the offset fallback is now worth much more to the giver, who wants to keep his market position and lead, than to the receiver, who has to accept a sub-contracting role which has rather doubtful value, particularly in marketing terms.
I hope therefore the Government will heed the advice of the CBI and make more powerful use of offset leverage. I would encourage the Comptroller and Auditor General to look at how effective offset has been over the years and at ways in which it can be made to work better. In the order book now is the Attack helicopter, and the Cruise missile
1980
is in the pipeline. We have been through many decision gates with CJ130, Challenger 2, AS90, Bridging for the Nineties, the Sandown mine counter-measure vessels and Tornado, as well as the helicopter carrier and the assault vessels. Some choices are easier to make than others. I have been briefed by all the contenders for the Attack helicopter and by the Army Chief of the General Staff and by 24 Airmobile Brigade, now in Bosnia. I of course wish they had the Apache with them now.
However, the Army must take credit for having made a convincing case to meet operational need, and this has been substantiated in the combined operational and investment appraisal, with the result that a robust decision has been made to go for a platform and weapons system which, first, meets the operational requirement, while then putting the supply base into the hands of our one and only helicopter company, Westland. Government policy to reduce bidding frequency and the number of bidders, and to have longer contracts to reduce procurement costs, does, I believe, produce better value for money, but it is a natural outcome of loading more risk on to contractors, who see the trade off for this being longer term contracts.
Criticism has been levelled against the Government from the Opposition for some time now for being unwilling to set up a diversification agency and to follow the US lead with dual use technology initiatives. However, I welcome the lead now taken by government in setting up the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, which brings the minds of MoD researchers closer to industry, and which I believe goes the right way about making the best use of civil research and reaching out into industry with defence technology.
There was at one time a craze for spin-off from defence, but most big technical steps forward, such as transistors and chips, were spun into defence from civil research. I am glad to see the "spin-along together" effect which is now being generated by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. If diversification funds are needed, surely the European Union KONVER programme is the right source for getting these funds. The defence technology enterprises body was a brave attempt to exploit MoD research. However, my experience is that, if a development is a winner—and the MoD has produced carbon fibres, for example—it spins naturally. If not, it is a loser and cannot be made to spin however hard one tries. Besides, I do not think that the bankers working with the DTE at the time really understood the risk factors.
The Trident programme has considerably enhanced the underwater warfare capability of the Royal Navy. Ten years from start to in-service date for the "Vanguard", despite all the safety contingencies which were imposed on the project from the Sizewell inquiry and the mid-term management changes, is a noteworthy achievement.
I welcome the Government's declared intention to preserve the nuclear deterrent, which is the ultimate safeguard against the CIS strategic arsenal and the strategic and sub-strategic derivatives which are under Russian control. It is also a safeguard against the development of new ballistic missiles to which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred. It would be folly for NATO to drop its guard in this respect.

1981
Following on from that, we must be clear about how Defence Role 2 develops for us after Maastricht, giving the Western European Union the dual role of being the defence component of the European Union while it is also the European pillar of NATO. Rolling up the WEU into the common foreign and security policy of the European Union will be seen only as another loss of sovereign influence. I am sure that the Government are right to keep the WEU out of the tentacles of the European Union, where the Commission has no expertise. Nor does the European Parliament, unless one includes security and disarmament in that category.
Already the Bertelsmann Foundation in Germany is calling for majority voting on the common foreign and security policy while it makes it clear that it wants to see Germany as of right take 11.5 per cent. more voting power on the Council of Ministers than France or ourselves. At present the voting power is 10 votes for Germany, 10 for ourselves and 10 for France. The foundation wants to see that increased in the future after 1996 to 28 for Germany, 24 for ourselves and 24 for France. The moment for springing that proposal on the European Union would no doubt be at the Inter-Governmental Conference review. I do not believe that my noble friend and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State should be surprised that amber lights are now flashing strongly not only in this Chamber but in many other places in this country.
I hope that the Government stick to their proposal for keeping the WEU as a distinct entity which can deal with the Petersburg tasks through inter-government arrangements with or without the American leg.
Finally, I should like to say something about the home scene. The Procurement Executive move to Abbeywood near Bristol is justified. The Joint Staff College decision to home in on Camberley is, I believe, the right choice. Despite the fact that I was born there, I can assure the House that I have no prejudice in this matter.
I believe that the report of Sir Michael Bett, on which we are now told we can expect a decision in the spring, must be carefully studied to ensure that the change is for the better conduct of the Armed Services and not a market testing exercise breaking down the high standards and ethos of service life. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, my noble friend Lady Park and my noble friend Lord Vivian drew attention to the fact that there are dangers in Michael Bett having too much of his own way. It is worth noting that two out of the eight Field Marshals are serving on full pay. The case for removing the mythical baton from the knapsack has not been convincingly made. We owe a great deal to our Armed Forces and I hope that they will have a career structure and a future which will inspire them.
1.45 p.m.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend on his recent appointment and wish him well. I do not propose to mention the situation in Bosnia, which has already been widely debated today.
1982
I welcome the statement by my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Defence in another place and reaffirmed by my noble friend today, and also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that we can set a steady course for the future and inject a period of stability into defence planning and funding. All our Armed Forces have gone through a prolonged period of change and uncertainty since the end of the Cold War, and a period of stability in defence planning is now essential, not least for reasons of morale throughout the services.
I also welcome the assurance from the Government that if in the light of recent positive developments in Northern Ireland we are able to reduce the Armed Forces' commitment to operations in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, that will not be matched by cuts in fighting units and there will be no reductions to our front line.
The confirmation in the Statement that,
"a credible military capacity will often be a crucial underpinning to diplomatic or economic action, and remains an insurance against the re-emergence of a strategic threat",
needed to be said. I regard this as being as essential to this country now, and likely to remain so, as a household insurance policy is for any household.
It is reassuring to know that the Government consider that NATO is now and will remain the bedrock of our defence. While I understand the need for Europe to have the capability and organisational structure to mount European-led missions, the number and geographical spread of the various international organisations gives me some cause for concern. While it makes sense for us to establish links and for our forces to train with countries throughout Europe with the aim of improving security within Europe, I wonder how that would work in practice with a spread of organisations over and above NATO, the European Union and the Western European Union, which includes the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Partnership for Peace and the North Atlantic Co-operation Council.
I note that the role of our reserve forces is likely to increase in the future. Can my noble friend the Minister give an indication of what measures, if any, are going to be taken to assist Territorial Army volunteers as regards their civilian employment prospects in the light of these changes? If reservists are likely to be on a higher state of readiness and are more likely to be called out to undertake new tasks, what compensation is there likely to be for their employers? The loss of a reservist from a specialised civilian job in a large or especially a small business could make life very difficult for the employer. The net result might be that TA volunteers are considered a risky bet by employers, particularly if they are on the Higher Readiness Reserve. Perhaps my noble friend can explain how many units or personnel within units it is proposed should be in the Higher Readiness Reserve. Does he agree that there is a good case for some members of all four fire support battalions to be added to the Higher Readiness Reserve?
With the withdrawal of troops from Germany there will be, if there is not already, increased pressure on the defence estate and in particular on the Army field training centres, not to mention the areas where fast jet

1983
low-flying training takes place. Apart from the development proposals at Catterick, Salisbury Plain and Otterburn, will my noble friend give an indication whether there are any plans to open new training areas in this country and, if so, is he able to say where?
While we are living at a time of increasing environmental awareness, it is worth making the point that the Ministry of Defence retains the stewardship of probably the finest estate for wildlife in a single ownership in the United Kingdom. This would not have been the case to anything like the same extent if the landholding had not been used for MoD training purposes over the years, something which is sometimes forgotten.
In the past few months I have been fortunate to have visited RAF Cranwell and two other RAF stations, the Royal Marines Training Centre and the MoD Police Headquarters. Without exception, the standards of training which I and other noble Lords saw on our visits were impressive and brought home to me once again that our three armed services are this country's greatest national asset.
Last, but by no means least, I refer to Her Majesty's Yacht "Britannia", which may not appear relevant to the Statement on the Defence Estimates but does in fact appear in it. Several noble Lords made a visit to Her Majesty's Yacht "Britannia" shortly before her departure for South Africa for the recent historic royal visit to that country. Can the Minister say whether the Government are any nearer making a decision about a replacement for the Royal Yacht, bearing in mind that "Britannia" is due to be decommissioned in 1997? Does my noble friend agree how important it is for this country that there should be a replacement? The revenue which the Royal Yacht brings in for us through the Seadays held on board around the world makes the running costs of the yacht pale into insignificance, and the commercial spin-offs would simply not arise if it were not the Royal Yacht.
An important point is that all efforts should be made to avoid the dispersement of the experienced Royal Yacht crew, many of whom have sacrificed seniority in the mainstream Navy by choosing to remain as part of the crew, where there is justifiably great pride. The loss of expertise and experience in this special role will occur in the event that there is no replacement ready before Her Majesty's Yacht "Britannia" is decommissioned.
1.52 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the debate gives us the opportunity to pay tribute to our Armed Forces, to look at the Statement on the Defence Estimates and to make some comments. I join with others in paying tribute to the professionalism of our Armed Forces. I would say that the Clegg case raises serious issues, but I do not believe that this is the right occasion on which to debate those since they affect various different departments as well as the Ministry of Defence.
1984
There are some interesting points in the Statement on the Defence Estimates. Some are worth highlighting. Others raise questions to which we must ask the Minister to address himself. The first point I pick up relates to paragraph 213 on page 14. It states:
"The major challenge we face is that of completing the construction of a wider Europe".
The paragraph continues:
"Our vision must encompass the Europe of nation states stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals and from the Arctic Sea to the Mediterranean".
That raises a question as to whether the Secretary of State for Defence will accept the direction of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in that endeavour.
On page 32 in paragraph 271 we have a rather curious phrase. The paragraph states:
"Our National Contingency Forces, and within them the Joint Rapid Deployment Force, are thus intended to provide a 'golf bag' of forces".
That reminded me of the situation a year or so ago when the leader of our party, John Smith, highlighted the problems of the Government's economic policies as being a "one club" situation. I must admit that I found the phrase "a golf bag of forces" rather curious.
There is a reference on page 72 to projects in study phase. It appears that we are investing in a CALF—that is a Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter. One of the questions that we must ask is: how much are we investing in this CALF? It is worth pointing out that if one feeds a calf it turns into a rather larger beast than was originally intended.
On page 82 our defence expenditure is expressed as a percentage of GDP. According to the figures, we are spending 3.3 per cent. of GDP on defence. I did a quick calculation recently and the European average is 2.7 per cent.; it is a rough calculation. But I am pleased to note that a later section of the White Paper reports that by the year 1997–98 we shall be approaching a figure of 2.8 per cent. of GDP on defence. Bearing in mind my party's commitment to expenditure on defence as the average of our European colleagues, I think that the Government are working creditably to achieve our policies; and I thank them for that.
On page 100 there is reference to private finance initiative. I wondered whether that was a reference to buying a private army; and whether the reference to the Citizen's Charter in the following paragraph referred to the right to carry a gun. But on reading the paragraphs I find that that is not the suggestion.
However, is the introduction of private finance as a risk-bearing element an issue that we should seriously consider in terms of our defence establishments? It is useful to read in the Citizen's Charter paragraph that the time taken by headquarters in London to answer the telephone is within an average of 15 seconds.
But on a more serious note, on page 103 we note only two small paragraphs relating to merchant shipping. It has been a constant refrain, virtually throughout the period of this Government in office, for the past 15 or so years that we have witnessed the decline in the size of our merchant fleet. We have continually raised our concerns about the effect on our defence capability as a

1985
result of that. To have that matter referred to in only two small paragraphs of the Defence Estimates does not lend weight to the seriousness of the problem with which we are faced.
It is interesting to note on page 113 that we station a Gurkha battalion in Brunei, the full costs of which are met by the Sultan. That is very good of him. However, on page 135 we note that in the cash plans there is a figure of £1,525 million as a contribution to the costs of the Gulf conflict. But there is no reference to a figure advising us as to what the Sultan of Brunei pays us for the mercenary forces that we supply to him.
These Defence Estimates raise a number of questions, as I have highlighted. Other noble Lords have raised other matters. I suspect that the Minister will not be able to answer them all this afternoon; and I suspect that we all should become rather bored if he tried to do so. If he cares to write to us later, I am sure that we shall accept that.
I now turn to the more general comments which we are all entitled to make in the debate. I must pick up something highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and it is a central feature of government policy which gives us a major problem with defence. The Government's presumption is that this country is a major player in the world and that we are one of the top nations. We must realise that for many years we have been a medium-sized nation, a medium player in the world. Unless and until we accept that and shape the policies that we adopt to that reality, whether it be in defence or other fields, inevitably we shall make mistakes. I am talking about us as a nation.
Let me give a few examples. One is the adherence to nuclear status. It has the unfortunate effect not only of requiring significant expenditure but also of shaping our defence posture. We think of it in terms of that being the final solution. One unfortunate thing which militates against the policy of building a Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals is that, having got the nuclear weapons capability, we then have to find a use for it. The only use is to direct it towards the Russians. We have had a number of contributions this afternoon suggesting that there is a continuing Russian threat. It seems logical that if we are to build that Europe of nations from the Atlantic to the Urals, rather than having within our defence scenario a weapon specifically directed at one of our colleague nations within the European dimension, we should seek to build a sensible relationship.
I made a joking reference to the CALF, the common affordable light fighter, which we are studying in conjunction with the United States of America. Surely it would make much more sense for us to think in terms of collaborative projects of that nature, if there is a need for them, with the Russian Federation. The federation has a strong capability in modern aircraft, and it may be useful not only militarily to build common structures but also it would benefit both our economy and the federation's. It is the economic stability that will provide us with the peaceful future that we need. That is one of our problems. We spend money over and above what we can afford comparatively. What do we get back for
1986
it? We hire ourselves out as a mercenary force, whether it is in the Gulf or Brunei. Do we not sell ourselves a little cheaply?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but are we to understand that it is now Labour Party policy to get rid of the nuclear deterrent weapon and to collaborate with the Russians rather than the Americans? Is that Labour Party policy?
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in these debates from the Back Benches on both sides ideas are floated and suggestions made which I suspect would not necessarily find the full backing of the Front Benches on either side. I suggest a view which may be sensible and which we should consider.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the situation to the noble Baroness and to my noble friend. No, it is not Labour Party policy to disarm. We wish to keep Trident in its present form with a limited number of warheads, as I have explained, until such time as there is global nuclear disarmament and until such time as we can conveniently get rid of it.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for clarifying the position. I suggest that one of the reasons why it may be sensible for us to maintain Trident until we see global nuclear disarmament is the very reason over which the Falklands conflict erupted in the 1980s. At that time a significant unilateral action was taken by the British Government which gave a false message to the Government of Argentina. We must recognise that, when we consider changing defence posture and reducing defence commitments, we must do it through negotiation with our allies. We must be clear that it does not demonstrate a sign of weakness on our part but a sign of strength.
I have spoken for 13 minutes this afternoon, which is probably too long, although my contribution has been a little shorter than others. With those remarks I finish.
2.6 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall not attempt to follow the wide-ranging speech of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I welcome my noble friend to his new position and apologise to him and other Members of your Lordships' House for moving to a position nearer my Front Bench. I thought that we were practising for Arctic warfare, so cold was it on the Back Benches!
Perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, in glancing at the estimates before us today in what I would call the "Lyell shopping tour", picking out the paragraphs that might be of relevance to my noble friend and which attracted my attention.
In paragraph 417, the attack helicopter is mentioned. That demonstrates notable prescience because yesterday a choice was made. It is important that the Armed Forces have equipment that works, is available and, above all, is of good value. That point was particularly well made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. He, of all people, would have more knowledge almost than anyone else in your Lordships' House as to what is needed for one major aspect of the aircraft. It is quite clear that all the contestants had particularly good

1987
products for what might be needed for our Armed Forces. Perhaps my noble friend can brief me in a few words as to why the choice was made to buy only 67 helicopters. I read something this morning to the effect that Longbow radar would provide such good value for money—as is the popular cry—to Scottish accounts. Even so, reducing the number from 81 to 67 was curious. No doubt my noble friend will be able to help us on that point.
In paragraph 419 of the Defence Estimates, mention is made of the AS90. The noble Lords, Lord Vivian and Lord Ironside, will remember that Members of your Lordships' defence study group made a visit to the Third Royal Horse Artillery Regiment and saw on Salisbury Plain this effective, first-class equipment. What impressed me, and it would I believe impress all noble Lords, were the particularly well trained gunners and team. Indeed, I had the privilege of meeting the champion gunner. They were flying the championship pennant for Sergeant Browne and his highly competent young crew. I hope that my noble friend will be able to confirm that training areas for the AS90 will continue to be available on Salisbury Plain (I believe they are at Larkhill), together with those at Otterburn.
My noble friend Lord Annaly mentioned Otterburn earlier. I hope that that area can be improved for training—if need be, in use of AS90, but above all for all infantry and combined forces. There is mention of training in paragraph 585. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, mentioned that. The noble Lord will no doubt see the fascinations (page 106) of the stone curlew. That is just one indication of the care that is taken by the Ministry of Defence in its stewardship of what is known as the defence estate. I should like to compliment the Ministry, as I believe would other noble Lords. Certainly, on my very brief visits to the Otterburn area of Northumberland (not necessarily in connection with defence) I found Ministry of Defence personnel to be enormously popular for their competence and, above all, for their attachment to the general conservation of the wildlife of the area and their concern for everybody who lives there.
In the course of the past year, your Lordships' defence study group made a second visit, during which we received a very valuable briefing on a project called Horizon. I thought that it might have something to do with radar. I did a little background reading and found, once again, that there is a little more to it than that. There is something called the common new generation frigate. It is a joint venture. It seems that it will be fruitful and very helpful. I hope that my noble friend is satisfied with progress so far. This is a prime example of European co-operation which is working and which will continue to be more and more successful in terms of equipment, management and, above all, training.
I was somewhat curious when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who is alas not in his place, but who I am sure will read this in the Official Report—mentioned dogs. I do not know whether the matter of dogs is clearly elucidated in the Defence Estimates, whether it be in relation to the cost of dogfood, keeping them or whatever. The noble Lord will know, as will my noble friend Lord Annaly, that we paid visits to the Ministry
1988
of Defence police force training depot at Weddersfield. I was immensely impressed with the professional training and attitude of that body of men and women. As noble Lords will appreciate, they are often the unsung heroes. They look after defence establishments and act as the first layer between civilians who may have a genuine point of view to make, and looking after the interests of all who are in those establishments. For these heroes, certainly dogs are necessary—and not just for security. Such dogs must have particularly good noses. Just before lunch every day noble Lords can see examples of such canine helpers in this House and this Chamber.
Finally, I should like to follow the notable, typically robust speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and many of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as regards the battalions of the Footguards. My noble friend mentioned their training and made a succinct point. I hope that it is reasonable that all of us—politicians, members of the public and the Ministry—ask so much of well-motivated, competent and articulate young men and women.
I hope that today my noble friend will be able to give us an assurance that there will be no further cuts or adjustments in training. I recall my own infantry training. I see that my noble friend Lord Kinnoull understands, as does my noble friend Lord Birdwood. For many of us who did our national service, it is rather frightening. The training that we undertook over 30 years ago has had to be updated for the immensely more demanding tasks that are needed now. I believe that the enormous success in Bosnia, Northern Ireland and elsewhere is due to the consistent, professional and improving training—particularly in the Army, but for all members of the Armed Forces. To them we owe our thanks and compliments today. We owe our thanks to my noble friend, and we congratulate him on taking up his appointment.
2.14 p.m.
Lord Birdwood: My Lords, I should like to think that these Defence Estimates articulate the irreducible minimum below which this or any future government will never position the country's military capabilities. But my confidence is not high. Strapped for cash, there is plenty of historic precedent for a future Chancellor to look at some of that year's equipment invoices and murmur about "reduced threat" and "European co-partnership". The peace dividend can look all too like a piggy bank.
Today, I want to introduce the possibility that our accepted thinking about weapons systems is rapidly being overtaken by developments in key areas of non-military science. To a large extent, I put myself in the position of Devil's advocate because I believe that certain assumptions in the Defence Estimates need to be challenged and tested in open argument. A reader of that document will go away with one firm conclusion about our philosophy of weapon procurement; namely, that future systems will be infinitely refined versions of present systems. It is like the French armourers before

1989
Agincourt, sure in their faith that all future battles would belong to the ever more ingeniously protected cavalry horse.
Of course, the process is inevitable. Just to commit to a particular system is a huge decision and gathers a monstrous momentum of its own. Every country does it. I remember a crazy American project which became too big and too embarrassing to close down. It was described as like having a dead sea-lion in the sitting room and no member of the family wanting to be the first to mention the fact.
We need to be aware, when we examine the Defence Estimates today, that the most profound revolutions are taking place, under, over, around and through the strategies which gave birth to those decisions. I said "revolutions" in the plural, because in my opinion there are two, but they are closely linked. The first is the genesis of total information as a commanding technology in all future conflict. In one sense, it would be extraordinary if the military were not swept up in the flood of information science. The changes in IT are faster than in any other branch of science and more pervasive.
In the context of large-scale war, we are moving toward the concept of the digital battlefield. That means that every component of one's friendly forces will be sharing information with every other component. The theatre of conflict and beyond will be a single resonating web of data, updating itself without human intervention, and even, where necessary, making mission decisions based on machine assessments of threat.
In the case of air combat that is already here. Within the mission envelope of a sortie, events and threat evaluation are now outside many human capabilities. Much of an aircraft's reflexes must be handed over to the systems. But we are in very strange territory when the information for conducting a whole battle overwhelms the human command structures; and, of course, the game theorists are addressing this feature with extreme urgency. Just like the world of global financial markets, individually gifted tacticians will be able to sense priorities and to predict intentions in ways which still, just, defeat information systems.
I see directions for those ideas which put in question the fundamental need to develop more and more sophisticated platforms, such as tanks and carriers. A platform has the advantage that it packs together a number of weapon features in one deployable asset: deadliness, movement, logistics and a source of intelligence. But platforms must themselves be defended. The more expensive in itself, the more it uses up collateral assets in the shielding process. What has changed—and it has changed forever—is that the devices designed to take out platforms are orders of magnitude more intelligent than their predecessors. The consequences can be that battle-theatre technology will be a fine-grained mesh of sensors and communications rippling in response to events through offensive devices in overwhelming numbers, but individually small scale. The civilian world is now a creature of distributed computing and communications; so too will be the military.
1990
What that revolution means for a bit player like Britain, paradoxically, is opportunity. What is happening for the first time in the history of weapon system development is that an area of civil technology has streaked ahead of its military counterpart just when it became absolutely critical to combat capability. And that observation leads me on to the second revolution of the two that I specified. What we are seeing today is a matrix where civil technology has a critical role in military conflict; where the concept of non-military conflict has become part of the destiny of nations; where military technology is looking for a role in civil problems and even in investment. It has all become muddled up together.
These issues imply degrees of civil and military co-operation in the near future which would be quite disturbing to people less flexible than the men and women who command our forces today. Traditional procurement procedures will probably need to be overhauled so that this blurring of boundaries between civil and military science can respect the conventions of each other. But for now, and so as to give my noble friend a couple of real-life questions to which I would appreciate answers in due course, I would very much like to know where we stand in a programme called the Medium Extended Area Defence System (MEADS). At this time it has the participation of the USA, France, Germany and Italy. I happen to believe that our absence has not been helpful to our technology base, nor to our political leverage.
I would welcome a solid policy on ballistic missile defence, noticing what I considered to be—unlike the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who referred to it as "robust"—the rather ambiguous and tentative wording on BMD in the Defence Estimates document. Lastly, in the arena of threat assessment, my unease about North Korea is scarcely pacified by the presence of the Taepo Dong missile which has a verifiable range of 3,000 kilometres. Nor do I feel that we can sweep under the carpet of possible flashpoints the future of the Spratly Islands. I shall be interested in any observations, not necessarily today, which the Minister feels able to make.
2.24 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, we have had an excellent debate, as one normally does on these defence occasions. I certainly join with everyone who welcomed the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to the Dispatch Box. If I may say so, I thought his opening speech was one of great clarity and encouraged us in the belief that he is a Minister who will listen to what we say and who will represent the views of your Lordships' House in the inner circles of government. If I am right about that, this is a good day for him to start that exercise. This debate, if I can sum it up in one sentence, has been one where the realities of international and military necessity have confronted the damage of Treasury ideology. That is the message that needs to be taken back to the Government.
We have had striking speeches of concern, particularly from the two noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Craig of Radley, which the Minister would be well advised to report to the Secretary of State

1991
and his colleagues since they carried Members on all sides of the House with them in the arguments they were making.
Rarely, if ever, has a defence debate in this House taken place against a backcloth of such dramatic events. Year upon year there have been demands, not exclusively from the Opposition, for a strategic defence review so that our commitments world-wide can be matched by the size of the resources we make available to our Armed Forces. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Monkswell, whose speech I regret to say I did not hear but has been reported to me, that he should understand that the Labour Party policy on defence is that we should provide adequate resources capable of matching the commitments which we undertake. That is common sense. That is why it is Labour Party policy. And that is why I commend it to my noble friend.
I said on one occasion when winding up one of these defence debates and speaking for myself that I thought that the suggestion that there could be a peace dividend in the world we live in today is an illusion. That remains my view. If we promise to cut defence expenditure without realising the undertakings we are committed to—for example, in Bosnia—we are deluding ourselves and the country. That is not a policy for the Labour Party or for anyone else.
This year three major policy issues dominate our consideration. Some of them have enormous military consequences yet it is impossible to escape the conclusion, after a study of the estimates and after listening to noble Lords, that a political and strategic vacuum exists in respect of each of the three issues with which I wish to deal. The first is the changing role and membership of NATO and its relationship with the United Nations. The second is the commitment to a comprehensive test-ban treaty. The third is the catastrophic situation confronting the world in Bosnia.
In his speech my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel raised the question of NATO and the United Nations' military capacity. As he said, the two are inextricably linked. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said—and I agree with him very much—that NATO is the bedrock of our security. On the operational side, the United Nations has no other means available to it to enforce and police its resolutions than to pass the task over to other agencies, which in fact means NATO. In practice these days NATO has to operate every military decision by reference back to a detailed policy mandate created in New York by nations like the United States, which has been quick to criticise recently but which sits on the Security Council, is responsible for these policies and provides no troops on the ground with which to implement them. That is a very serious situation, which goes to the heart of what the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was saying in his opening remarks. The Gulf War taught us how such situations can be successfully handled and the United States is entitled to great credit for that. Governments, including the British Government, are denying themselves a similar approach and a similar authority in Bosnia to that which was successful in the Gulf.
1992
It is of the greatest importance that politicians controlling NATO policy cease to speak with a forked tongue when they themselves are members of the Security Council. The other day the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, made great play of the new resolution which was framed on Tuesday. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who spoke in this House recently. What is the point of that resolution unless someone can tell us how it is to be implemented? How is it going to be applied? That must be a matter for the Government to address with some urgency.
People operating in the Security Council in New York must not make it impossible for its mandate to be carried out in the field in Bosnia, because that is what is happening now. Both the United Nations and NATO have to face a new reality, which is the changing political situation in Washington. The hesitancy of the United States to provide troops while urging the use of air strikes and taking a lead in demanding the enforcement of mandates, makes for a degree of cynicism which we have to guard against.
We also need to give more attention to the need to extend NATO membership eastwards. The Czech and Slovak republics, Hungary and Poland, should be admitted to NATO under the current conditions of membership, including the Article 5 guarantee. It is of course a great tribute to NATO that it has brought about stability in the world. We have to recognise that nations now released from Soviet bondage—the noble Baroness, Lady Park, may not agree entirely with me about this—have to be brought within the scope of NATO. I am pleased that they seek such membership.
Undoubtedly, that would raise some difficulties with Russia and there I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. We can consider President Clinton's "partnership for peace" as holding out prospects in this direction. The Russians support it, and the State Department has described it as,
"the model of security for the 21st century".
It is due to be strengthened in December of this year. So by expanding NATO on the one hand, and developing the partnership for peace philosophy on the other, it will be possible for us to move forward as regards the development of NATO and its role in the world.
The spontaneous outburst of disbelief that followed the French announcement of resumed nuclear testing in the South Pacific is a very healthy sign. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who spoke about these matters. It exposes a degree of hypocrisy by governments which does them no credit and may have the most dangerous repercussions as regards non-nuclear countries. The comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, due to be implemented in 1996, has been seen throughout the world as a message of hope and that is encouraging.
The North Atlantic Assembly, on which I have the privilege to represent this House, along with the noble Lord, Lord Lyell,—we both sit on the scientific technical committee—has done a great deal of work in that area. Every nation in the North Atlantic Assembly and every member, including Conservative Members of both Houses, as well as some of my friends and myself,

1993
have subscribed to the resolutions of support. Indeed, I can tell the House that the resolution of November last year, which unanimously supported the nuclear test ban treaty and opposed the resumption of tests by any nation, was drafted by a Conservative Member of Parliament. It was none the worse for that. It gained a great deal of support.
The scientific technical committee, to which I referred a moment ago and on which the noble Lord and I both serve, conducted an analysis region by region, nation by nation, of the consequences of not having a nuclear test ban treaty. They are very serious. We cannot allow the treaty to be undermined. We only have to look around to realise that China and Korea would have every incentive to conduct tests if the French, British and United States resumed testing, as would India, Pakistan and nations throughout the Middle East. Therefore, we have to ask what the French are up to in presuming to resume the tests. They would destroy the test ban treaty. It is impossible to ask other nations which have not tested their nuclear weapons (as far as we know but which possess them) not to do so if we, who say that we support the nuclear test ban treaty, are prepared to resume testing.
Furthermore, I do not believe that there is any need to resume testing. It is now possible to carry out experiments in laboratories to provide the information that is wanted. As far as the allies are concerned—that is, the United States, France and ourselves—surely it is possible to have an exchange of the information (which is certainly available in Washington) so that the French could use it in their programme.
Having said that, I should like to make it quite clear, as did my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, that I agree with one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said. It is impossible in this world, in which nuclear weapons are now available to such diverse nations as I have mentioned, to believe that there is any sense in thinking that you can have a unilateral policy. You cannot. We have to maintain a multilateral approach to disarmament so that we can safeguard the safety of this world and of this country.
I turn now to the situation in Bosnia, which has been in everybody's mind today. It defies any intelligent analysis. One can only denounce the evils being perpetrated, especially the ethnic cleansing, the forced movement of innocent people from their homes and the separation of families. Those are criminal acts under any known criminal code either in peacetime or in time of war and they must be dealt with as such. The United Nations and the Government must make it crystal clear now, while the acts are being perpetrated, that the leaders, both political and military, who are involved in such evil policies will be tried and dealt with as war criminals. The criminality continues because the perpetrators believe that no such action will be taken against them. They must be disabused of that view.
I believe that the United Nations has to be left to take responsibility for the humanitarian policies which are essential in Bosnia. If food is to be delivered and if medical and mercy supplies are threatened, the United Nations forces must be told to deliver them even if they
1994
have to do so by means of force. I agree very much with the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, on that point. It is vital that we make it clear that we intend to fulfil our mandate. These days it seems to be becoming impossible in Bosnia to maintain our present posture. I very much hope that the rapid reaction force will enable us to do that more effectively.
Another policy which I personally find grotesque is to ask British and other servicemen, when challenged by the Serbs, to give themselves up, to surrender peacefully and to hand over their weapons, arms and equipment. That is a nonsense. Abject surrender is no part of any serviceman's role and we are not justified in asking British servicemen to do any such thing. If one wants to understand the ludicrous nature of the present relationship between creating mandates in the UN and operating them on the ground in Bosnia we have only to look at such matters.
I understand the Minister's difficulty in responding in detail to initiatives which change between lunchtime and dinner and again by breakfast time, but we should know what the Government think of the new French initiative. How do the Government regard it? Have they discussed with the French and our United States allies how it should be processed? I notice, too, that President Clinton has been in conversation overnight with President Chirac and Chancellor Kohl. We are told that he is having discussions with our Prime Minister. I regard that as a hopeful sign of realism. If it is not, disillusionment will be widespread. I trust that the Minister will be able to give us some information about those matters.
Perhaps I may say a word in support of the Government. It would be wrong if we did not acknowledge what the British Government have done in Bosnia in trying to support the UN mandate. We may criticise the detail, but the British Government have done more than most effectively to carry out the mandate. As has been said many times in the debate, British servicemen have, as always, operated superbly under difficult circumstances.
It may well be that an even greater catastrophe would follow if we were to withdraw from Bosnia, were that decision to be taken eventually. But if we are to stay there, the rules of engagement must be changed at once to allow UNPROFOR forces to perform their tasks with honour and realism. If the Government seek to achieve that, as I believe they hope to do, they justify our support in the impossible circumstances with which they have to deal in Bosnia.
I conclude by saying that I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, but I do not necessarily agree with him when he complains about having this debate on a Friday. Friday has given us a whole day to ourselves. We may all complain that debates in this House receive little coverage in the national press. I do not believe an improvement in the nation's education, which listening to debates in your Lordships' House would undoubtedly bring about, would necessarily follow if we moved this debate to midweek. It has been a good debate. It has raised challenging issues. As I have said, I hope that the Minister will convey to his colleagues the concerns

1995
expressed in all parts of the House about the state of our Services so that another look can be taken to ensure that realism is the paramount consideration in the equipment of British forces.
2.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, in my opening remarks I said that I expected the quality of today's debate to be high. I have not been disappointed. Your Lordships' House is universally admired as a repository of expertise and good sense but there are perhaps few areas where that is more true than on the subject of our deliberations today, the defence of the realm.
I am grateful for the kind remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and other noble Lords on my appointment at the Ministry of Defence. In winding up I shall endeavour to do justice to noble Lords' contributions and questions. To the extent that I fail to do so, I hope that your Lordships will feel able to make due allowance for the steepness of the learning curve on which I find myself and for the conventions of the House, which call for closing speakers to avoid excessive length. I willingly undertake to write to those noble Lords whose questions I do not have time to answer.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, questioned the Government's sense of vision. I am sorry that one of the principal messages of the White Paper seems to have escaped his usually careful scrutiny. Chapter Two contains a full description of the United Kingdom's defence and security policies. We have a clear and coherent view of our place in the world and the means to underpin our influence in it. I have to say to the noble Lord that we see no need for a defence review. The speed with which the strategic situation is changing means that such a review could be out of date before it was ever published. And how would a review reduce uncertainty for our Armed Forces?
No, my Lords. I suggest rather than we need a more flexible approach to cope with the fluid strategic setting that we face. The force structures that emerged from Options for Change were derived from a comprehensive assessment of the changing risks of war and the likely evolution of NATO in response to these changes. The strategic setting has developed in ways broadly consistent with the judgments that underpin Options for Change. To reflect developments in the past three years, however, we have announced increases in the size of the Army; further force structure changes, including plans for a Joint Rapid Deployment Force; and investment in new and improved capabilities. We will of course continue to keep our plans under review. What we aim for is to achieve within available resources a balanced defence programme which is appropriate to the demands placed on the services by our commitments both at home and overseas.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, was also, I thought, a trifle ungenerous about the Government's efforts to bear down on costs. As many noble Lords will be aware, today is the first anniversary of the announcement of the results of the Defence Costs Study, Front Line First. The emphasis of this radical and rigorous look at the support area was not only on savings but also on better
1996
processes for delivering command, training and support functions. I am extremely pleased to announce that we are on track for both the implementation dates and the postulated savings. There is still some work to be done during this financial year to refine both savings and the organisational side. However, we estimate that DCS-related savings in 1996–97 will be some £720 million, which is not far short of the £750 million a year set out in Front Line First. These savings will rise to more than £1 billion a year by the end of the decade.
This is a considerable achievement which reflects highly on all concerned, particularly at a time when the Options for Change drawdown and consequent reorganisation were not yet complete. Inevitably, there has been a human dimension to this exercise. But I can assure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and, in particular, my noble friend Lord Ironside, that we take very seriously our duty to consult staff over proposals that significantly affect them. We have been particularly careful to help the civilian staff affected, while the service personnel affected can use the improved resettlement arrangements that we introduced under Options for Change. The whole aim of this exercise has been to ensure that every pound spent on defence contributes directly or indirectly to our fighting capability. These savings have enabled us to make a number of enhancements in our front line strength.
This year's White Paper contains a special section on two important initiatives—both launched after the Defence Costs Study—to improve the way we carry out joint operations in future. Both were mentioned today: the permanent Joint Headquarters and the Joint Rapid Deployment Force.
The White Paper also sets out the major orders placed since July last year for Hercules C-130J aircraft, for a mixed fleet of additional medium support helicopters (EH101 and Chinook), for Spearfish torpedoes and for amphibious bridging, as well as the invitations to tender for the construction of a further batch of Type 23 frigates, for a replacement maritime patrol aircraft and for supply of a conventionally-armed stand-off missile and an advanced air-launched anti-armour weapon.
My noble friends Lord Ironside and Lord Lyell referred to our decision to buy Apache helicopters. That decision is very good news for the Armed Forces. Indeed, Apache has already proved its worth in service with the US army. As my noble friend Lord Lyell pointed out, our Apaches will be equipped with the latest technology—Longbow radar (a key component for its effectiveness)—and will provide the Army with a potent anti-armour capability. Our analysis shows that a fleet of 67 Apache Longbow will provide the capability required by the Army Air Corps. Apache is also very good news for Westland Helicopters and for the 180 companies across the country which will benefit from involvement in the programme. We estimate that Apache will sustain approximately 3,000 much-needed jobs per year in the defence industry.
There is more. I take careful note of the words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, as I am sure will my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I believe that I can go some way towards reassuring him on the questions of security and stability. As I said in

1997
my opening remarks, the stability of funding that we have for the future, the changes that we are making to the management and organisation of defence, and our determination to continue to bear down hard on costs and drive out waste, has allowed us to make further capability enhancements.
The White Paper sets out the new equipment projects that we have been able to add to the defence programme as a result of those factors. They include our proposal to extend our participation in the US Joint Affordable Strike Technology programme to investigate options for the replacement of the Sea Harrier; a substantial upgrade to the communications systems of our submarine fleet; modernisation of the Army's armoured engineer fleet; the provision of towed array decoys for more aircraft types; and plans to procure a new advanced sonobuoy.
Perhaps I may devote the remainder of my time to addressing what I believe are the other main concerns that have emerged today. First, I turn to our nuclear deterrent. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, spoke of the strengthening of our nuclear arsenal. Perhaps I may correct the noble Lord. The United Kingdom maintains the minimum deterrent required to guarantee our security, and that, as emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is the Government's proper duty. We have never planned to make full use of the capability of the Trident system. We have made it clear that each Trident submarine will deploy with no more than 96 warheads and may carry significantly fewer. On current plans, the total explosive power of each Trident boat will not be much changed from Polaris. When Trident fully takes over the sub-strategic nuclear role and the WE177 bomb is withdrawn by the end of 1998, the UK will have 21 per cent. fewer nuclear warheads than it had in the 1970s. The total explosive power of those warheads will be 59 per cent. lower than the 1970s figure. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am much obliged. Will the noble Earl take this opportunity to surpass all his many predecessors in recent years and answer the question that was put to all of them but which never received an answer? What exactly is a minimum deterrent? It is quite simple. Everyone agrees that a minimum deterrent is a capability of inflicting unacceptable damage on any possible adversary. To any common sense, 50 warheads is more than enough to inflict unacceptable damage on any possible adversary, and yet once again he has said that we need four times 96 warheads. Why should one need 10 times more than the minimum? What is meant by a minimum deterrent which carries 10 times more missiles than necessary?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, will not need me to tell him—indeed this has been mentioned often this afternoon—that we live in a rapidly changing world and the risks and dangers associated with the international scene change month by month. The circumstances and configurations which determine our assessment of a minimum deterrent also change. What we have to do is to ensure that the deterrent that we have takes account of the worst case.
1998
I believe that within the realms of prudence we now have a deterrent that is credible and also one that will see us through any possible threat to our national security.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is it not also true that the calculation of a minimum deterrent is nothing like as crude as that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, when he picks a number out of the air? It is a function of a number of calculations such as the reliability of the missiles and the warheads, the number of delivery systems that can be on patrol or on deployment at any one time, and the efficacy of the possible defences of an enemy. It is only when all those functions and calculations have been made that we know what a nuclear deterrent is. I hope that the noble Earl will not seek to answer a simple question with a simple answer.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I entirely associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I believe he has rightly drawn the House's attention to the complex nature of the assumptions which underpin our assessment of the nuclear deterrent. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, devoted some emphasis to the Government's nuclear policy and the question in particular of non-proliferation. The unanimous decision to extend the non-proliferation treaty indefinitely is of great importance and will make the world a safer place. It sends a clear signal to all proliferators, or would-be proliferators, and to the tiny minority of countries that have not yet signed the treaty.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, mentioned Article 6. The United Kingdom is committed to nuclear disarmament and complete and general disarmament under Article 6 of the NPT. However, it is perfectly clear that that is not a realistic short or medium-term aim. It is perhaps a truism, though nevertheless worth mentioning, that nuclear weapons technology cannot be disinvented. In a nuclear-free world there would always be a risk of a new confrontation generating a destabilising nuclear arms race. The potential for proliferation would always be present. The international community would need robust solutions to such problems before complete nuclear disarmament could be a reality.
However, we have made clear that a world in which the US and Russian nuclear forces were measured in hundreds rather than thousands would be one in which the UK would respond to the challenge of multilateral talks on the global reduction of nuclear weapons. A number of noble Lords have referred to nuclear testing. We are playing a positive and constructive part in negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty. We note the target set at the NPT conference to complete negotiations by the end of 1996. We are working energetically towards that aim. Let me say that the United Kingdom has no current plans to resume testing. However, I can reassure my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that, in common with the other nuclear weapons states, we are considering how best to fulfil our requirement to ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons under a comprehensive test ban treaty.

1999
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, questioned the motives and the rationale of the French in their announcement that they intend to resume testing. The French decision to resume testing is a matter for the French Government. The important step is to conclude a comprehensive test ban treaty. We welcome President Chirac's commitment to that goal by the NPT target of 1996.
The second major theme which emerged from this debate was the size and composition of the Army following restructuring. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and others dwelt on that important theme. The restructuring of the Army which began in 1991 is now complete, with the exception of changes in the Brigade of Gurkhas to which I shall refer in a moment. The size of the Army is currently around 116,000. It is expected to rise to 117,000 by April 1996 and will reduce to about 114,000 by the end of the decade after implementation of the Defence Costs Study and our withdrawal from Hong Kong.
Neither my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter nor, I trust, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, can expect us to maintain the Army at the same size as was necessary during the Cold War. However. I say to both noble Lords and to my noble friend Lord Vivian, that the size of the Army should not be regarded as being subject to a manpower ceiling or as being immutably fixed. Its size will vary according to circumstances and the judgment of senior commanders.
Furthermore, the numerical strength of the Army should not be regarded as the primary measure of front-line strength. The infantry currently has a small shortfall, together with the Royal Armoured Corps and the Royal Artillery, but overall the Army is not undermanned. We are addressing the shortfalls with a vigorous recruitment campaign and efforts to improve retention.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter picked me up on my statement that we are immeasurably safer than we were during the Cold War. That was not meant in any way to sound complacent. It was simply a suggestion that, as I expect my noble friend will agree, the risks and uncertainties that we face today are on an entirely different scale from the massive threat that we and our allies faced from the Warsaw Pact. He will recognise that the Government had to restructure our Armed Forces to match the reduced threat. In doing so we have taken full account of the increased instability that followed the end of the Cold War. The strength of our forces reflects the risks that we face. In that context I should like to pick up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. Our expenditure on defence is based on our needs and not on a predetermined level of gross domestic product.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, raised concerns about the Gurkhas. On 16th June my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Sultan of Brunei together signed an agreement extending the stationing of Gurkhas in the sultanate for a further five years from 1998. That is very welcome news. The early signature of the agreement will allow us to make longer term plans. The retention of the garrison will mean that there
2000
will always be at least one battalion that is acclimatised and jungle trained. I pay tribute to the loyalty of the Gurkhas and their tradition of service in the British Army, which is so ably demonstrated by their service in Croatia and Bosnia and in other UN operations in addition to their duties in Hong Kong and Brunei. The Gurkhas continue to be an integral part of the British Army.
My noble friend Lord Annaly praised the role of our reserve forces. There is an Oral Question on the Order Paper down for next week on this subject, but suffice it to say for the present that it is appropriate to flag up the prospect of a new reserve forces Bill which we intend to introduce into Parliament at the earliest opportunity. We need such a Bill to bring the law on reserves up to date. The draft Bill was published for comment on 30th March. The consultation period lasted until 15th June. The proposals we have made include a new power of call out for peace-keeping, humanitarian and disaster relief operations.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene. He said that a draft Bill had been published. Would it be possible for the Opposition to have a copy of the draft Bill so that we can make our comments?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am extremely concerned to hear that the noble Lord has not received a copy. I shall certainly send one to him at the earliest opportunity for his comments.
As I was indicating, the proposals in the Bill include a new power of call-out for peace-keeping, humanitarian and disaster relief operations, new categories of reserve and a range of safeguards for reservists and their employers. We had over 500 written responses from employers, reservists and other interested parties. We are now taking stock of the responses, which are generally supportive of the proposals.
My noble friend Lord Vivian expressed worries about the reorganisation of defence medical services. The Defence Costs Study recommendations are being implemented to schedule. We aim to complete all phases by April 1996. As the noble Lord will know, the selection of Haslar as the tri-service corps hospital was based on the overall defence interest. Haslar is the most cost-effective choice of the sites available to us.
The costs of expansion at Haslar are estimated at about £12 million, with possibly some further limited expenditure on extra accommodation. Those costs should be seen in the context of the anticipated savings of at least £55 million resulting from the full implementation of the DCS reorganisation of defence medical services.
I cannot share my noble friend's fear that this is too far too fast. The new DMS structure meets the Armed Forces operational needs in full. The requirement for regular medical personnel in the three services to support the front line has changed little from previous plans. Most of those reductions have been found from the support area.

2001
I believe that the future defence medical services will continue to provide a worthwhile and varied career. The new peacetime secondary care structure will provide a suitable training base for all service medical personnel.
Under this broad theme, it is perhaps appropriate to refer to the concerns raised by my noble friends Lord Vivian and Lord Ironside about the Bett review. The Government made clear in publishing Sir Michael's report on 5th April that they were doing so in advance of taking decisions on the report's contents. As noble Lords will know, it was a wide-ranging review which made 150 recommendations covering the whole field of service career and manpower structures and terms and conditions of service. We need to study them carefully, individually and collectively, before reaching decisions. That process is in train and the Armed Forces themselves are fully involved.
However, the studies will take time and will need to be developed into an overall strategy. As I have indicated, our aim is to have completed the work in time to make a definitive statement in spring of next year.
My noble friend Lord Lyell rightly emphasised the importance of effective training. Army training land continues to occupy about 60 per cent. of the defence estate. Major training areas are located at Salisbury Plain, Otterburn, Sennybridge, Stanford, Catterick and Dartmoor. In order to meet its changing needs, the Army has embarked on a £70 million programme to develop the infrastructure within existing ranges. That should go some way to meet over the coming years the shortfall in training capacity brought about largely as a result of the drawing-down of forces in Germany and the introduction of new and larger weapons systems.
The next theme to which I turn is the wider international one of Britain's role in NATO, a subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. The noble Lord also raised issues about Russia. My noble friend Lady Park spoke with her customary grasp of detail about the policy of Russia and its relationship with the UK and NATO. I shall not comment on all that has been said, but I can comment on the broad picture on NATO and the prospects for its enlargement.
At an extended meeting of NATO's North Atlantic Council on 31st May, the Russian Foreign Minister, Kozyrev, signified Russian acceptance of her individual partnership for peace programme and of a document on wider consultation arrangements. The UK welcomes those positive steps towards greater NATO-Russia understanding and agreement. NATO must maintain a united, constructive approach to Russia and explain how and why NATO has been changing since the end of the Cold War. We wish to build a robust means of consultation to ensure that Russia's legitimate security concerns are taken properly into account. The NATO/Russia relationship will take time to define. It is more important to focus on substance rather than form. We can decide the latter—whether to have a treaty or a charter, for example—at a later date.
2002
My noble friend Lady Park also referred to the role of the OSCE. We believe that the OSCE, with its 52 participating states, has an important role to play in the promotion of peace and stability in Europe. We seek to build on the success of the OSCE in setting standards in many areas of security, particularly human rights.
My noble friend Lord Ironside raised pertinent concerns about Britain's defence identity. Britain is at the heart of European defence. Our proposals for the future, which were launched by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 1st March, have been welcomed by our European partners and NATO allies. NATO has been the most successful defensive alliance in history. It must remain the bedrock of Europe's security and its capabilities should not be duplicated. But we also need a stronger Western European Union so that European countries can take on their proper share of the burden and act effectively in situations where the US may not wish to be involved.
There is no need for Euro-armies. A separate European force would be wasteful and might diminish NATO. Let me say to my noble friend that there is no question of the Western European Union being integrated within Community competence and no place in defence for the European Commission and Parliament. Decisions on possible deployment of armed forces across Europe must be taken by national governments.
Before I address the third major theme, let me turn to some detailed issues. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, devoted much of his speech to the subject of ballistic missile defence. He will wish to know that the UK pre-feasibility study is proceeding according to programme and the contractor's report is expected in May 1996. The study will tell us about options, performance criteria, timescales, costs and technical risks. Separate work is in hand internally to assess the threat posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles and how the emerging risks that that presents are likely to impinge on UK interests, not only at home but in the context of our obligations to NATO and wider security interests. This will help us to determine our priorities. Let me stress that we recognise the concerns raised by noble Lords on the issue.
My noble friend Lord Vivian raised doubts about the permanent joint HQ. The permanent joint HQ will improve the way in which joint operations are commanded and conducted. In addition, the creation of a permanent joint HQ offers real manpower and monetary savings in the medium to long term.
My noble friend Lady Park asked about the cost to the MoD of the difficulties experienced by Airwork Limited in its contracts to modify Tornado F3 and Hercules aircraft. I hope she will allow me to write to her on the point.
The final theme to which I return is the abiding and natural preoccupation of your Lordships this week; that is, Bosnia. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for the tributes that he paid. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, spoke of the dangers to the eastern enclaves, particularly Sarajevo. The immediate

2003
priority for the United Nations is to stabilise the situation and make plans to assist the 20,000 refugees who are now massed around the Dutch base at Potocari, north of the town.
I found much with which to agree in the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. The Government maintain that there can be no military solution. What we have to do is to intensify efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement. As I have indicated, we want UNPROFOR to stay. It has achieved a tremendous amount, but it can only operate with the consent of all parties. I say in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that if conditions continue to deteriorate and troops are placed in grave danger we may be faced with no alternative but to withdraw. But if we reach that point, let us be in no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, that this could have disastrous consequences for the region.
UNPROFOR will not be drawn into taking sides. It is a peace-keeping and humanitarian mission. UNPROFOR is not taking sides, and it is not fighting a war. The United Nations force is neither equipped not configured for peace enforcement. We will maintain our contribution to UNPROFOR for as long as the force can continue to carry out its mandate at an acceptable level of risk.
I can confirm that there has been a short delay to our deployment plans for the Rapid Reaction Force, to answer the question raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. This has been because of complications involved in finalising the logistical arrangements for the deployment of 24 Brigade. The Ploce port authorities have agreed that the advance party can deploy. There are still some outstanding issues yet to be resolved, and discussions continue. But these will not delay deployment.
The noble and gallant Lord also asked about command arrangements. The command arrangements for the Rapid Reaction Force are quite clear. The force is part of UNPROFOR and under UN control. Overall command is held by the UN protection force commander, General Janvier. Lieutenant-General Sir Rupert Smith, as Commander UNPROFOR, is the immediate commander of the Rapid Reaction Force. The decisions on what tasks and missions the Rapid Reaction Force undertakes are a matter for the UN commanders on the ground.
Let me conclude where I started. In my opening remarks I paid tribute to our Armed Forces, as have many noble Lords. In this year of all years, we have occasion to remember with gratitude their past achievement in the cause of freedom and peace. Today, the excellence of our servicemen and women is recognised worldwide. In this country they are a focus for national pride. The 1995 Defence White Paper sets out this Government's commitment to them. Our Armed Forces can now look forward with confidence to a period of stability of policy and resources, allowing them to do an even better job for Britain during the closing years of this century and beyond.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill [H.L.]
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill renders unlawful certain kinds of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation; extends the functions and powers of the Equal Opportunities Commission to discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and for connected purposes.
There is little doubt that people who are homosexual, whether they are gay or lesbian, suffer discrimination. There is a substantial body of evidence now available to that effect. Not only Stonewall, the organisation that exists to publicise the concerns of homosexual and bisexual people, has produced evidence following a great deal of research—I shall deal with a great deal of that later—but the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (NACAB) also has evidence of widespread discrimination.
The United Kingdom, however, does not have any legislation designed specifically to tackle discrimination against lesbians and gay men. Under existing employment legislation, there is nothing illegal about rejecting a job applicant on grounds of his or her sexuality. This has serious implications for lesbians and gay men in that it clearly gives some employers the freedom to exercise their prejudice.
Prejudice certainly exists. In 1993, Stonewall published a report entitled, Less Equal than Others, based on a survey of 2,000 homosexuals and their experience of discrimination at work. Of that group, 16 per cent. of the respondents had faced discrimination at work because of their sexuality; another 21 per cent. suspected that they had been discriminated against on similar grounds; and 48 per cent. had suffered harassment at work. Experiences included ostracism, threats of being "outed", blackmail, malicious jokes, threats, and sometimes actual physical violence. Forty-nine per cent. concealed their sexuality from some people at work.
A study by an independent research organisation, the Social Community Planning Research, indicated a similar pattern of discrimination. The SCPR also surveyed a representative sample of 600 heterosexuals. One in three said that they would be less likely to hire a gay or lesbian job applicant.
Perhaps I may quote a few cases from the research that I have seen. This is some of the research from NACAB. A respondent occupied a relatively senior position in local government. He has been "out"—i.e. known as "gay" for about a year, but he has been openly told that he would not have been appointed to his previous job had it been known at the time that he was gay. He gained promotion because he had earned respect during the time that he was closeted; that is to say, when it was not known that he was homosexual.
In the second case, the CAB reported a client who had left a job which he had held for six years because he could not put up with the reaction of his employers

2005
when they discovered that he was gay. He was offered another job but was dismissed two weeks later when his new employer received his references. The employment agency also removed him from its register.
The CAB evidence also contains instances of harassment at work. There are many cases but I shall quote just one. A CAB in Yorkshire reported a client who had experienced systematic abuse and other harassment from colleagues because he was gay. He was subjected to extreme verbal abuse and several instances of intimidation which threatened his personal safety. The client did not want to discuss the issue with his supervisor for fear of causing further ill feeling. Many more case histories feature in the excellent report produced by the independent research organisation to which I referred. About two-thirds of the homosexual respondents to that survey thought that there was a great deal of discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Almost all thought that there are employers who refuse jobs to homosexual applicants or sack homosexual employees and that there are landlords who refuse to rent accommodation to homosexual couples. Being refused a job or accommodation was thought to be more common than actually being dismissed.
As the law stands at present employers are perfectly entitled to reject a job applicant because he is gay, or even to have a policy of not employing lesbians or gay men. A lesbian or gay man refused a job on that basis has no redress. By contrast, employers are not allowed to refuse to employ people simply because of their race or their sex or, in Northern Ireland, their religion.
Unfair treatment is not illegal. An employer can treat a lesbian or gay employee unfairly by, for example, refusing promotion, and the employee concerned has no redress.
Unfair dismissal is not illegal. Lesbians and gay men who are dismissed have no redress unless they have been with the employer for two years and then they may not succeed in a claim for unfair dismissal since the EAT has held that employers may dismiss gay people on the grounds of potential client prejudice, even where that prejudice has no basis in reality.
Harassment is not illegal. Employers can be held vicariously liable for sex discrimination if they do not take steps to deal with sexual harassment. The same applies to racial harassment. But it does not apply to the harassment of lesbians and gay men.
Clearly there is a need for something to be done. NACAB believes that there should be legislation against discrimination. However, when Stonewall wrote to the then junior Minister at the Department of Employment to draw attention to the results of its research, the response was that the Government did not condone discrimination but had no plans to do anything about it.
I understand that the Government further claim that, although they condemn all forms of discrimination, there is no need to legislate further because of the protection offered by the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. However, that only gives protection against unfair dismissal after two years' continuous employment. Legislation on sex and race discrimination gives truly comprehensive protection
2006
against discrimination, starting at the recruitment stage. It also establishes the principle that sexism and racism are not acceptable.
The Government have argued that persuasion is better than legislation. Of course, persuasion is important. But, as the campaign on behalf of the disabled has shown, it is often not enough. Legislation plays a very important role in changing public perceptions. That is demonstrably true in the case of gender discrimination and, to a lesser extent, perhaps, in regard to race. I believe that the time has come to put legislation on the statute book that would give protection to that relatively small minority of people.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene and ask her a question. How does the noble Baroness define a gay person. Is it someone who says that he (or she) is gay or who is thought to be gay? How does she define such a person?
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I would define someone who called themselves gay, as I understand the term, as someone who has a sexual preference for a member of his or her own sex. Sexual orientation is a widely understood term and one which appears in a number of agreements that I have seen in relation to non-discrimination in employment which have been signed between unions and employers. It is widely understood to cover the sort of situation to which my Bill refers.
The Bill seeks to give a role to the Equal Opportunities Commission. I understand that the EOC sympathises with the objectives of the Bill because, very often, it has been approached by individuals who claim that they are being discriminated against on those grounds. Many of our EU partners already have legislation of a similar kind.
Perhaps I may explain briefly what the Bill seeks to do. The preamble to the Bill will make it unlawful to discriminate on grounds of sexuality within employment and extends the functions of the Equal Opportunities Commission to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation. Clause 1(1) applies the provisions of direct and indirect discrimination in the Sex Discrimination Act to include sexual orientation. Examples of direct discrimination would be the refusal to employ a man or woman on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Indirect discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation may include discrimination on grounds of HIV status if it is not justifiable or refusing to give promotion to a single person.
The term "sexual orientation" is not defined because it already appears, without definition, in the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. It refers solely to a person's sexual preference. Sexual orientation, as I have already indicated, is widely used by many employers in their equal opportunity policies and has not given rise to any problems of definition.
Clause 1(2) provides that discriminations defined will be referred to in the Act as,
"discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation".

2007
Clause 1(3) incorporates the provision in the Sexual Discrimination Act which allows a person who has been victimised for taking action under the Act to bring a claim for discrimination. Clause 2(1) refers to the schedule which sets out those sections of the Sexual Discrimination Act which will include, if the Bill is passed, sexual orientation. The Bill extends the employment provisions of the Sexual Discrimination Act and not those parts of the Act which relate to education or to goods, facilities and services. It is essentially an employment Bill.
Clause 2(2) provides that the Secretary of State may, by statutory instrument, apply or disapply any specified provision of the Sex Discrimination Act. That provision would allow, for instance, that part of the Act that deals with goods or services to be covered for sexual orientation provisions should the Secretary of State so determine.
Clause 3 provides that,
"The Equal Opportunities Commission shall have the same functions and powers in relation to discrimination … [on grounds of] sexual orientation as it has in relation to discrimination … between men and women".
Clause 4 provides that the Act shall come into force six months after the Bill has been passed. So it really is a simple Bill. I hope that your Lordships will regard it as a reasonable and, indeed, timely measure.
It is a little over 100 years since Oscar Wilde stood handcuffed and in prison uniform on Clapham Junction, to be jeered at and spat upon by the crowd, with his warders conniving in his humiliation. Unfortunately, some of that ignorance and prejudice still remains and that is why we need legislation; to protect the minority of those among us who suffer from it.
Yesterday I received a letter addressed to me at the House from a lady writing from Deal in Kent. She says:
"I am writing to you as a gay woman who has suffered discrimination as a direct result of my sexual orientation. I was sacked from my job, but have now found alternative employment. I wish the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill to be voted through on Friday—I will be holding a vigil in my church. With my best wishes for a favourable outcome".
I too hope for a favourable outcome and therefore commend the Bill to your Lordships and ask that it be given a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Turner of Camden.)
3.29 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for bringing before the House this Bill, the subject of which produces a great variety of strong reactions in both Church and society. But surely it is for that reason that we are considering it today.
In a recent report produced by the Board for Social Responsibility of the General Synod of the Church of England it is said quite clearly that homophobia is a pervasive evil in society. It is of that evil that I wish to speak. But before doing so I must make two important points. The first is with regard to the definition of sexual orientation. The Bill as we have it does not attempt any definition but, I would suggest, treats all orientations
2008
alike. While there may be a feeling in society that those who are homosexual need the force of the law to protect their rights, I do not think that the same can be said of those whose orientation leads them to seek and engage in sexual activity with children. If the Bill is to pass on to the statute book I believe that Parliament must be quite clear as to the specific categories of sexual orientation which are included.
Secondly, your Lordships will know that at present the Church is involved in debate, soul searching and much prayer with regard to the whole question of homosexuality. In 1991 the House of Bishops of the Church of England issued a statement entitled Issues in Human Sexuality, which sought to encourage a full and frank discussion within the Church into the whole area of sexuality, but especially homosexuality. The position which the Church seeks to maintain at present is the traditional one; namely, that full sexual relations are to be seen as the expression of love within the lifelong commitment of marriage. A homosexual lifestyle falls short of that ideal and, as we demand a particularly high standard of the clergy, such a lifestyle is seen to be inconsistent with ordination. The Church may be accused of discrimination, the very thing that this Bill seeks to outlaw. Yet I would wish to emphasise an important distinction made by the Church. Being of homosexual orientation is neither a sin nor a bar to ordination in the Church of God. It is when that orientation is worked out in explicit sexual activity that the Church asks whether that is truly consistent with the teaching of scripture and the tradition that we have received.
I believe that the distinction we draw is an important one. It is no sin to have a homosexual orientation. Indeed, in their statement, the Bishops say quite clearly:
"Homosexual people are in every way as valuable to, and as valued by, God as heterosexual people".
Yet there are many who will not accept those of homosexual orientation but who actively and openly, verbally and sometimes physically, seek to discriminate against and punish those whom they know or presume to be homosexual. The newspapers often carry reports which tell of the abuse and discrimination that many gay and lesbian people have to face solely because of their sexual orientation. The noble Baroness has already given us evidence of that this afternoon. We hear of it happening both in the community and in the workplace.
As a society we have accepted that discrimination should not take place on the grounds of gender or race. We accept that people should not face discrimination on the grounds of their disability. It took us a great deal of time to reach our present position and not without having to counter many arguments from a variety of quarters which suggested that to legislate against discrimination, to legislate for equal opportunities, was not necessary. Yet there are some who continue to face unreasonable and unwarranted discrimination, and among them I would want to include those of homosexual orientation.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, in a spirit of enquiry, I asked the noble Baroness who were to be counted as gay people in this connection. She said that it was well understood. The right reverend Prelate has

2009
just explained that it is by no means so clear because, in the eyes of the Church of England as indeed mine, for what that is worth, to have that orientation is one thing, but to practise homosexual sex is another. Will the right reverend Prelate ignore that distinction when we come to consider this Bill?
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I simply accept what the noble Baroness said about their particular sexual preferences, which is why I added the caveat about the relationship with children.
The House of Bishops has said that it is a clear, simple and fundamental responsibility of Christians to reject and resist all forms of homophobia. That includes homophobia which exists within some parts of the Christian community as well as the pervasive and sometimes violent forms of homophobia that can make life a nightmare for many gay and lesbian people in our society.
I believe that there is a problem of discrimination against those who are, or who are believed to be, homosexual. It may be that legislation is required to control that. If that is the case, then the Church is sympathetic to the broad intention of opposing homophobia, although I recognise that the practicalities and effectiveness of achieving that by legislation require very careful consideration.
If, however, the mind of the House is such that this Bill finds little support, I urge the Government nevertheless to take seriously the evil of homophobia and the devastating effects that it can have on the lives of our brothers and sisters at home, at work and in the community, and seriously to address ways in which this wickedness can be defeated.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I would like to express my warm appreciation of the initiative of the noble Baroness in bringing forward this Bill. I endorse very strongly what the right reverend Prelate has said so eloquently about the sin and danger of homophobia. That in fact is precisely what the Bill is dealing with. He said that it may become clear—I forget his exact words—that a Bill is necessary. After further consideration by the Church, I hope that it will come to accept that it is not a case of legislation perhaps being necessary, but that it is really necessary to prevent victimisation.
We are dealing with a matter of justice and not of morals. The right reverend Prelate began by emphasising what he thought might be a particular difficulty and danger in relation to paedophilia. I am sure that there is no Member of your Lordships' House who would not wish to do everything possible to stamp out that horrible abuse. My understanding is that it is a misconception to bracket paedophilia with homosexuality. I understand that probably most cases of that horrible vice are exemplified by heterosexuals, so we do not want to be confused by this particular and obviously very headline-making detail.
2010
As the noble Baroness has shown, there is evidence of very widespread discrimination in employment and of the harassment of homosexuals involving, in some cases, serious assault. There seems to be clear evidence that legal steps are needed to deter such abuse. We cannot continue to place our reliance on education. This has been going on long enough and the abuse and victimisation persist. As the noble Baroness said, six other European countries have now acknowledged the need for legislative steps and for statutory action to prevent and deter such discrimination. I understand that a seventh, Spain, is proposing to legislate. That itself is fairly strong evidence of the case for legislation.
Those of us who have enjoyed fulfilled lives and who have known especially the joy of bringing up children should have nothing but sympathy for those who are inhibited from such fulfilment. Public opinion has advanced a great deal in recent years, but needs reinforcement to counter negative prejudice. There has been considerable clarification over the past 30 years of the nature and causes of different forms of sexual orientation, including bisexuality and homosexuality. It used to be fairly generally supposed that such orientation was mainly a matter of choice in puberty and development. It is now, I think, scientifically established that it is a physiological matter in the genetic make-up of the individual. It is manifestly unjust, therefore, that a section of society should be victimised on account of a genetic situation beyond their control.
As the right reverend Prelate implied, there are social grounds for requiring modesty and restraint in the public behaviour of homosexuals for various reasons but, in particular, to avoid undesirable influences on the young such as, for instance, bisexuals developing in their youth their patterns and role models. However, that is another issue and should not be confused with the problem of preventing injustice.
As the noble Baroness told us, Ministers have claimed that there is no need to legislate and have said that we should rely on education. However, as I said earlier, that seems to be invalidated by evidence of the persistence of the mischief. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading and that the Government will give it careful and positive consideration and support.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I apologise, as I have already, I hope, to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for being unable to be here at the end of the debate. I have been in a quandary all day, in that this morning I had to address a conference on an academic subject at Queen Mary College and thought that I would never make the debate. I found that I could, but unfortunately I have another engagement at half past four which I cannot get out of.
That having been said, and my apologies having been made to the House as well, I recall that it is nearly 30 years since I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House in support of Lord Arran's Bill for the legalisation of homosexual conduct between consenting adults. All I can say is that the noble Baroness, Lady

2011
Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, have put the case for the Bill better than I ever could. I appreciate what they have said and confirm the line that they took.
I want to do something different, which is to make some modifications on ethical matters. I believe discrimination sometimes occurs not because people imagine the acts which disgust them but because of the way of life of homosexuals. In days gone by, homosexuals were discreet in public and in their workplaces, but nowadays the minority has a tendency to appear wearing what one might describe as full warpaint. I am bound to say that in that my sympathies lie much more with Sir Ian McKellen than with Mr. Peter Tatchell.
One has to ask oneself whether camp behaviour in the workplace is grounds for dismissal. It may be said that mere dislike of eccentric behaviour is not a cause for discrimination and disapproval. Many of us dislike the behaviour of certain groups in our society. I am not all that keen on the behaviour of some of the followers of rugger who imagine that it is a good joke to urinate upon the public below them at the end of a match. I am not all that keen on the behaviour of some pop group fans, but this is a free society. We have to accept that there are many things in the behaviour of others that we do not like. We have to tolerate it. That is what a free society is about: the toleration of deviant behaviour.
Deviant behaviour is one of the things which is, in some ways, most valuable in a community, but there is a problem when one comes to the workplace. For instance: lawyers, doctors. It is reasonable, up to a point, that lawyers and doctors should wear clothes which are appropriate to their calling. I am of course unutterably opposed to the wearing of wigs, but the wearing of gowns and the wearing of subfusc clothes to indicate that degree of dignity and intellect which the law naturally demands of all its practitioners, is reasonable. It is not reasonable for people, merely because of their sexual orientation, to say, "I am not going to wear that sort of thing. I am going to flout tradition".
Again, I believe that is true in the case of doctors, but to say that anyone who has to deal with the public—merely by virtue of their having to deal with the public—must always suppress any conceivable sign of his or her sexual orientation is going too far. I do not believe, for instance, that the ladies at the pay-out tills in supermarkets should be debarred from wearing some of the insignia of their sexual orientation. Nor do I believe that bus conductors should be so debarred merely because they have dealings with the public.
I wish to mention a particular profession because I believe that it would be very wrong to discriminate against homosexuals in that profession. It is the profession of school teachers. I owe an enormous debt to the school teachers in my schools and to the dons in the University of Cambridge who were undoubtedly of homosexual orientation although they never laid a finger upon any of their pupils. Those people were the saving of my life in the sense that they opened doors and windows not on the question of sexuality but on the brilliance of their teaching and their devotion to their pupils. Do not let us have discrimination against those men and women who do so much for the young.
2012
The right reverend Prelate was correct to make the distinction between homophobia and the actual condemnation by the Church of certain sexual acts. That is the whole point—it is the religious outlook. The religious outlook is that Christians, if they are Christians, have to cope with that and ask, "Am I being true to my faith?". If they are not Christians, of course, that is another matter.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. He made his apologies to the House for not having his name down to speak and also for having to leave. Perhaps I may remind him that speaking in the gap is governed by the Companion to the Standing Orders, which states that when speeches are made in the gap they should be brief.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I am sorry and I apologise to the House. Perhaps I may finish simply by saying that we are dealing with the question of behaviour and provocative behaviour. All I am saying is, please let those of a different sexual orientation remember that provocative behaviour does their cause no good at all.
3.52 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I rise to speak on a subject which I have addressed on a number of occasions. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for her introduction of the Bill. It is an important Bill and the noble Baroness has explained it in some detail. It is worthy of the consideration not only of your Lordships and the Minister but also of the wide public outside who will read it.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who has had to leave to attend another engagement. His speech was a fine mixture of erudition and entertainment, which makes him such a valuable member of your Lordships' House. I shall not follow him down some of the philosophical pathways that he indicated to us.
Perhaps I may be forgiven by the House for not going strictly through the Bill, as did the noble Baroness. I shall take a more personal line and follow the path of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, which was interesting and sensitive. It reflected a good deal of my own approach to the subject.
I claim to be a human being like everyone else. I am capable of bad temper, prejudice and insufferable behaviour, as my wife will confirm. Since I have been aware of sexual orientation—and perhaps it took longer for me to reach the age at which one can differentiate between these complicated matters than it takes today—I have never understood this particular kind of prejudice or discrimination.
Again, if I understand correctly the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, it seems to me that one should be conscious of one's own sexuality from a very early age. In my case, it has been uniquely heterosexual. I went through a difficult adolescence as do most adolescents in that I was extremely shy and an only child. It took me a long time to settle into putting sexuality into the right context in my life. I always felt that the difficulties which face those who have a tendency to another sexual orientation—in other words,

2013
homosexuality—were 10 times greater than they would otherwise be. Therefore, I have always had enormous sympathy for the difficulties which such people face in our society.
I stuck my neck out earlier in your Lordships' House in 1985 when we discussed what I still think was one of the most deplorable pieces of legislation which the Government of that time introduced; namely, Clause 28 of the Local Government Bill. With some vehemence, and supported by others in your Lordships' House, some of whom are in the Chamber today, we attacked it without mercy. I believe that we were extremely effective. In support of the Government, I have to say that, in the interim period, their attitude towards the problems of gays and lesbians in our society has softened a good deal. Indeed, they have become a good deal more understanding. I believe that a certain amount of credit must be given to the Prime Minister in that respect because in no way has he shown himself during his tenure of office to be in any way that I can identify as homophobic. Nevertheless, there is a great deal to be done.
I do not accept that governments do not think it necessary to legislate in an area where there is such clear discrimination. It is the Government's job not to feed or encourage prejudice in whatever area. It is their responsibility to give a lead in that respect and not follow public opinion if it is slow to come round to changes in culture which, I suggest, are taking place rather more rapidly in other countries some of which are not too far away from us across the English Channel.
The lobbying groups which are now working in the field and which have advised all of us were mentioned by the noble Baroness. Principally, Stonewall, which arose out of the campaign for the arts against Clause 28 (of which I was a part), has proved itself to be the most moderate and most intelligent of lobbying groups when compared with the rather more flamboyant—to use the phrase used by the noble Lord who has just spoken—full war-paint approach to the problem. I have met Mr. Peter Tatchell. I like him as a person, but I believe that his approach is unproductive in the area. Indeed, I much prefer the approach of Stonewall because it is moderate and recognises the changes of culture in our society and the pace at which they are taking place.
However, it is quite unacceptable at this time that we should not seek to accelerate in our country the movement towards toleration of homosexuals in the workplace. Of course, part of the problem, as suggested by other speakers, is that people at large, who do not address themselves in any detail as to the complexities of the problem, confuse a number of factors. For example, they imagine that what happens in schools, sometimes unfortunately, and what happens in the Church, sometimes unfortunately, where young people are victims of behaviour which can only be described as paedophilia, is in some way inseparably linked to homosexuality. It is not. Paedophiles are not the same at all.
I have had a number of jobs in my life. I have worked alongside homosexuals of all kinds, of all levels of intelligence and with all levels of ability. But very rarely
2014
have I come across one, either male or female, who acted in a way that was detrimental to the performance of the company.
I am opposed to the Government's attitude towards homosexuality in the Army because it has been recognised in most other countries that if homosexuality manifests itself in an extreme way which is prejudicial to good Army order and discipline, it is up to commanding officers to deal with that in exactly the same way as they deal with such behaviour on the part of heterosexuals. I did my two years in the Army more years ago than I care to remember, and even at my tender young age then as a young officer I knew who the homosexuals in the regiment were. It was quite clear that if there was any problem something would be done about it, but I was not aware that there was any problem that had to be dealt with. It is outrageous that the Government should continue to support some buffoonish opinions which are put to them not only from those within the Armed Forces but also from outside. They will only have to change their attitude in time and the more they resist efforts to bring our practices alongside those of countries which have a better record of understanding these things, the more buffoonish they will appear in the long run.
I shall not go on about this. My speech is a personal one. I believe that the main problem is that most people do not understand what is involved in homosexuality. As I say, they confuse it with many things and fear arises out of ignorance and the lack of understanding. The Government in resisting the attempts to bring us into a more enlightened age—such as the Bill of the noble Baroness—are only feeding that prejudice and ignorance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, gave, I believe, an example of a homosexual, either declared or discovered, who had been removed from the employment register. I have not been present in your Lordships' Chamber to any great extent while the proposed jobseekers legislation was discussed but I understand that a person who is removed from the employment register does not qualify for jobseeker's allowance.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I interrupt for just a moment to say that the man was removed from the records of an employment agency. That is a bit different.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness as I misunderstood what she said. I am glad that she has enlightened me on that subject. However, it seems to me that to be removed from the records of an employment agency could constitute an extraordinary disadvantage. I hope that that is not general practice among employment agencies.
I know that the Minister is fair minded and sympathetic and I know that she will do her best to meet our concerns within the constraints of her brief. I look forward to hearing her remarks. I am sure that she can do a great deal to assist progress in this area by her reaction to the speeches made in your Lordships' House today. I accept that the position as regards education is frustrating. The changes we would like to see have not

2015
been achieved. I often wonder whether teachers in schools should undertake sex education. In this regard, as with drug and alcohol problems, I believe it is better for all kinds of reasons to summon an expert from outside to offer advice on these matters. I know from my own three children who have been subjected to talks about alcohol, sex and other matters from their teachers, that they pay much more attention to people from outside the school who speak with a great deal of expertise on the subject. If we want to make strides forward in this regard we should stop teachers banging on about their own personal experiences. We can do that in your Lordships' House, but I suggest that teachers get on with their other work.
This has been an interesting debate and I hope that we shall make progress in this area. After all, there are some six or seven countries in Europe which have already recognised the need to legislate in this area. We cannot go on as we are. It would be the best possible help to encourage a better understanding among the public at large if the Government take a lead now and do not pay lip service to the lobbying, official or unofficial, of people whose attitude is only, I am afraid, ignorant and often vicious.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, from these Benches we fully endorse the principle behind my noble friend's Bill which she has, in her usual way, outlined so clearly.
Whether the Bill would be introduced by a Labour government in precisely this form is uncertain. Should this Bill fail to be passed in both Houses, which at this stage of the parliamentary year is likely, the principle of making discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation an offence might well be incorporated by a future Labour government into a wider Bill on citizen's rights and duties.
However, raising a matter of public concern such as this in the form of a Private Member's Bill, even if it is unlikely to become legislation is, as noble Lords know, a legitimate and useful route to take. Opinion from all points of view can be voiced. We have already heard many opinions and views, perhaps rather more in favour of the Bill than I expected and rather fewer against it. However, it is a Friday afternoon. Nevertheless, if that is the case it shows that those who oppose the Bill are not taking the matter as seriously as they might.
We also hope that the Government's position can be heard as a result of this Private Member's Bill and subsequently critically examined. That is what we hope the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who is to reply, will enable us to do.
As my noble friend said, quite apart from the overt statutory discrimination against homosexuals in the Armed Forces, which incidentally Judge Simon Brown recently said in the High Court cannot be retained for long against the tide of history, there is firm evidence of widespread discrimination at all levels and in many different occupations on grounds of sexual orientation. My noble friend outlined some of the evidence, both from the survey of 2,000 lesbians, gay men and bisexuals by the Stonewall group, and the study by Social and Community Planning Research.
2016
An interesting finding of that independent study was that the more open people were about their sexuality the more discrimination they suffered. SCPR also surveyed 600 heterosexuals, as my noble friend mentioned. One in three of those said that they would be less likely to hire a gay or lesbian job applicant. However, two-thirds of the same group of heterosexuals said that they were in favour of legislation to prohibit discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Presumably those were the other two-thirds of the sample, but perhaps not necessarily.
There are no occupations which those with unconventional sexual preferences cannot do as well as those of a heterosexual inclination, from the most basic manual work to the most highly intellectual and creative careers and occupations. Of course I accept the caveat of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark that those who are known to seek sexual relationships with children are a different group and should be made an exception and should certainly not be employed in jobs in which they have responsibility for children. However, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made quite clear that that is a different group, which does not refer to the main body of people who have homosexual orientations.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity to say that when Hansard is published your Lordships will note that I did not imply that position either. I spoke about a sexual orientation, not a homosexual orientation. That attitude can be applied to heterosexuals, too. I intervene to make that position quite clear. I was grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. But I certainly did not wish to convey that homosexuals automatically were involved in that kind of paedophilic activity. That is not the case.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I was about to say that the majority of people who commit sexual offences with children are heterosexual and not homosexual.
We are interested to hear what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark says. We shall be interested to hear what the noble Baroness says. The Government will probably say that education, persuasion and open discussion is the way forward. As we have all predicted what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, may say, perhaps we should not push the point until she so states.
However, there is no evidence that the Government have assisted in that aim, although, as the noble Viscount said, they have a rather softer position on the topic than in the days of Clause 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.
As in other areas of discrimination, we believe that legislation in some form, however regrettable, as my noble friend explained, is the only way to proceed. First, women (who represent the majority of the population) and men (who represent the other large minority of the population) have benefited by legislation prohibiting discrimination on the ground of gender. Ethnic minorities, representing about 5 per cent. of the population, also achieved anti-discrimination legislation. Now the disabled—possibly representing another 5 per

2017
cent. or more of the population; it depends on whether one takes the working population or the whole population as one's denominator—are beginning to have their case addressed.
It is time that those of unconventional sexual orientation who make a highly significant contribution to the whole of society, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, pointed out so ably, through their work, good humour, and creativity, should receive the justice that is due to them. I thoroughly support the Motion that the Bill be given a Second Reading.
4.13 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate on the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and it has been valuable to listen to the views expressed. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the courteous way in which she introduced the debate, and indeed to everyone who has contributed to it. It was interesting that some noble Lords have spoken previously on the subject and I believe that they speak with knowledge.
There can be little doubt that society in general has adopted in recent years a more relaxed and tolerant attitude towards homosexuality. Acceptance of the Wolfenden Committee's recommendation which ultimately led to the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967 was of great assistance in that respect. Although the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is not in his place, I was pleased to hear that he made his maiden speech on the subject.
But there are genuine differences of view on this difficult and sensitive subject. As examples, one need only recall the recent "outing" campaign against individuals in prominent positions and the debate which took place on Clause 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. I note the concern of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, over the whole of that period but I was pleased that he thought that the Government's attitude had softened since then. However, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rea, did not quite agree.
The Government's position is clear. We oppose unjustified discrimination against any person on grounds of their sex, race, colour, ethnic origin or for any other reason, irrespective of where that discrimination occurs, be it in a work context or otherwise. Unjustified discrimination is offensive to decent people everywhere and it is to be condemned. Everyone is entitled to equal treatment and, at work, to be assessed on merit against objective criteria, not on the basis of prejudice and stereotyping. The Government's objective is to promote a fair and safe environment by making it clear that unjustified discrimination is morally unacceptable and economically inefficient. We will continue to propound that message.
The noble Baroness's speech may have left your Lordships with the impression that homosexuals do not have any employment rights. It may be helpful to remind the House that the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 offers a comprehensive set of individual employment rights, regardless of sexual orientation, including the right not to be unfairly
2018
dismissed and the right to a redundancy payment. Anyone who feels that their rights under this Act have been infringed can, subject to the two-year qualifying period, take their case to an industrial tribunal. That applies to all employees across the board. It is substantial protection. Compensation up to a maximum of £11,000 is available for those unfairly dismissed. The length of the qualifying period for these employment rights is a matter of judgment, but the Government believe that two years strikes the right balance between guaranteeing the necessary rights of employees over the burdens on businesses. Excessive regulation damages job competitiveness and growth in employment opportunities. In addition, the Sex Discrimination Act does not single out homosexuals as a group who are prohibited from bringing complaints. Complaints of sex discrimination can be made by any person.
Perhaps it would also be helpful to draw your Lordships' attention to the recently enacted Section 154 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which makes it a criminal offence to cause intentional harassment. That was specifically introduced to penalise those who cause others alarm or distress through using threatening, abusive or insulting words, behaviour or displays, in particular when the behaviour is persistent in nature. We see no reason in principle why anyone who suffers intentional harassment in any of those ways cannot bring themselves within the protection of Section 154. An offence of intentional harassment can attract a custodial sentence and/or a level 5 fine. Complaints are a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, but we hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, will recognise the potential value of this new offence. She mentioned a particular case of harassment, I believe it was the one in Yorkshire. It is possible that it could be covered by that provision.
The key question is how to promote the message that unjustified discrimination is unacceptable. The noble Baroness argues for the intervention of the law by extending the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act to cover discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and, in support, she cites evidence from Stonewall and one other research organisation. We have read the evidence, but are not persuaded by it.
Stonewall's questionnaire survey was particularly targeted at homosexuals. Fewer than 10 per cent. of the 20,000 people to whom those questionnaires were sent actually replied. Stonewall's report does not explain why so few replied, and while a 90 per cent. non-response rate does not necessarily invalidate their finding, nevertheless one would be entitled to treat them with some caution. It is certainly the case that if the response rate were only 10 per cent. for the Government's New Earnings or Labour Force Surveys, the results would not be published. A third of respondents knew or suspected that they had faced discrimination at work. More than half said that they had never been harassed, and less than a quarter said they had avoided certain jobs to avoid discrimination.
There is additional research by an organisation called Social and Community Planning Research. Its findings, drawn from in-depth research of 735 people, is that two-thirds of respondents thought that there should be

2019
laws to protect homosexuals but some respondents expressed moral objections to homosexuality and to the behaviour of some homosexuals in public places.
Both organisations believe that their findings provide evidence of the need for legislation. I acknowledge that there are some cases where the treatment received by some individuals left much to be desired in terms of good personnel practice, but I do not think the evidence leads to the conclusion that there is widespread discrimination on the scale necessary to justify primary legislation. Rather than making the case for a change in discrimination law, the results could be said to show that discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation exists but is not the widespread problem that the noble Baroness suggests. In fact, one might conclude that the results highlight a diversity of opinion towards homosexuals.
The noble Baroness also invites the House to accept the proposition that specific legislation is necessary to protect the interests of this group who follow a particular sexual orientation and lifestyle. Were one to accept this principle, then one sends s signal to every group, however small and however narrow or partisan their cause, that they, too, could be candidates for specific legal protection. We urge your Lordships to reject that approach as neither practical nor sensible.
Even if the Government were to support this Bill—and I hope that I have made clear that the Government do not—I have to say that it is unacceptable purely on the method of its drafting. We believe that there is a fundamental flaw which no amount of amending could put right, even if noble Lords had the time to do so. Obviously I am most reluctant to criticise on grounds of style, as every draftsman has his own methods. I absolutely understand the reasons why it was thought desirable to keep this Bill short by incorporating references to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. However, what is really before the House is a cherry-picking pastiche of extracts from the 1975 Act, with words and phrases being amended here and there. It would be absolutely impossible for a layman to understand his rights under this Bill without reference to another lengthy Act, which would need to be edited to cover the matters to be provided for. In the case of employment legislation, as long ago as the Workmen's Compensation Act 1925, the philosophy was that an employee should understand his or her rights without the assistance of a lawyer.
The Bill is also defective in that it fails to define sexual orientation. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark that any definition would have to protect the interests of children. Rather than go down that path, we suggest for moral and business efficiency reasons it is more important to raise awareness of the unacceptability of unjustified discrimination. Wherever prejudice supplants common sense and good judgment, no one benefits. That is the message we must get across. All of us individually share a responsibility to treat others as we would wish to be treated and to speak out against discrimination wherever and whenever it appears. There has been a welcome rise
2020
in the level of tolerance towards homosexuals in the past 25 years. We need to build on that, but not by trying to make people think differently through force of law.
The noble Baroness suggests that in the Government's eyes homosexuals are somehow a less deserving group compared with women, ethnic minorities and disabled people because we are unwilling to legislate to protect them. That is not the case. The Government condemn all forms of harassment and unjustified discrimination in the workplace. They hope that neither prospective nor existing employees would be treated unfairly for reasons which have nothing to do with their competence to perform their work. The Government's aim, as I said, is to promote a fair and safe environment for work and to ensure equality of opportunity in the workplace. They also aim to impress upon employers the need to adopt employment practices which are non-discriminatory and flexible and which will be in their own and their employees' interests.
The noble Baroness, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, also mentioned a number of other countries where homosexuals have protection against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The noble Baroness's contention is that the UK is out of step with standards applied elsewhere and that as a result the United Kingdom is less civilised in its approach than our EU partners and the approach advocated by the European Commission. If I understand correctly, the argument is that standardisation of treatment between countries of different social backgrounds and traditions is a sensible policy objective.
The Government do not find that argument convincing. Just because people drive on the right on the Continent does not mean that United Kingdom drivers should do so here. We believe that we should respect one another's traditions and not necessarily follow them slavishly. If other countries wish to give homosexuals protection against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, that is their business. The Government believe that, subject only to our various international obligations, the United Kingdom should decide whether there should be legislation in this area. There is certainly no Community law about discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Even when Monsieur Jacques Delors was President of the Commission he said that the Community has no powers to intervene in respect of possible discrimination against sexual minorities.
I believe that today we have done justice to the debate on discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The Government's position is that they deplore unjustified discrimination and will continue to send out the message that it is morally unacceptable, uneconomic and inefficient. There will be change in the way that homosexuals are treated only when each individual overcomes his or her prejudices and treats others with proper, due and correct respect. The Government take the view that specific legislation to outlaw such discrimination would not command the degree of public support that is necessary for it to be acceptable, given the wide difference of views held in society. I know that

2021
the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, will not agree with that view because he feels that legislation is necessary. But the Government do not.
Neither is legislation the most effective way to overcome entrenched prejudice. It amounts to a form of coercion to conform. It would add another piece of legislation to an already over-regulated society. The Government believe that the burden of proving the need for legislation rests on those making the case. Strong and compelling evidence is necessary to demonstrate that there is a substantial problem which has to be dealt with. We believe that that case has not been made. The Government prefer instead to persuade, by explaining that we all have a duty and a responsibility to examine our consciences and ensure that in our everyday dealings with one another we act fairly and put to one side the race, sex or sexual orientation of our fellow citizens. I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that the Government will continue to encourage greater tolerance; but we do not believe that it would be right to legislate in that regard.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this short debate this afternoon. It has been interesting and I am pleased that so many of the contributions were in support of legislation and of my Bill. Perhaps I can deal with one or two of the points raised.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark referred to paedophilia. Obviously we are all opposed to paedophilia. My information is that the term "sexual orientation" does not cover paedophilia. It was included in the Bill deliberately because it means protection for homosexuals and so forth. It is an appropriate term. It already appears in a number of equal opportunity agreements signed between unions and employers and everybody seems to understand it.
The Bill proposes a sensible approach. We are limiting it to employment because discrimination exists in employment. Though the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to the Stonewall evidence and was critical of it, there is other evidence from the SCPR and NACAB. When I was in communication with the Equal Opportunities Commission it said that it had been approached by people who believed that they were being discriminated against on grounds of their sexual orientation. It is therefore more widespread than the noble Baroness indicated.
2022
I was grateful for the Minister's assurance that the Government believe in a policy of tolerance; they believe that discrimination cannot be condoned. Our differences are that we believe that there should be legislation and the Government do not. We believe that there is a case for legislation because discrimination is widespread and because it is not possible, unfortunately, to rely simply on persuasion.
As I said earlier, for a long while it was felt that the disabled could rely on persuasion, but it became clear over the years that some form of legislation was necessary. For many years there was extreme prejudice against women in employment. Arguments were advanced that we did not need legislation; that it would simply entrench prejudice and so forth. But we now know, because we have had equality legislation for well over 20 years, that that legislation was necessary. It had the effect of changing public perceptions as well as bringing about differences in treatment for women in the workplace, though everybody—particularly women—would probably agree that it has not gone far enough. Nevertheless, there has been a major change as a result of the legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, was not able to stay; he gave me a note of apology. His contribution was extremely entertaining. On the other hand, it seemed to rely on a kind of stereotyping which is not helpful in the present argument. I was assisted in the preparation of the Bill by Stonewall; I am a member of the Stonewall parliamentary group. It is a moderate Bill and not in line with the Peter Tatchell campaign for "outing" and so forth. It follows what I might call a moderate and mainstream attitude to the whole question. In fact, we felt that the Bill was so moderate that it would conceivably attract government support. But I gather that even if the Government supported the Bill, they do not think much of the drafting. All the more reason, I would have thought, to give the right of passage to Committee because, in Committee, amendments can be framed with a view to improving the wording of the Bill.
I wish to press the Motion today and ensure that the Bill has a Second Reading. I strongly hold to the view that legislation is necessary. I believe that the contributions to the debate in general supported that view and the view that discrimination must be dealt with and that this is the way to do it. I commend the Bill to the House.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may ask whether there is a quorum in the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before five o'clock.

  Mr. Harry Wu
  Mr. Harry Wu
  Non-Proliferation: US/Russia Working Group
  Non-Proliferation: US/Russia Working Group
  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Principals and Objectives
  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Principals and Objectives
  Non-Proliferation Treaty Extension
  Non-Proliferation Treaty Extension
  Rwanda: Arms Embargo
  Rwanda: Arms Embargo
  County Education Budgets
  County Education Budgets
  Building Research Establishment: Key Targets
  Building Research Establishment: Key Targets
  Nursing Home Fees and Income Support
  Nursing Home Fees and Income Support
  Parliament: Rising Times of the Two Houses
  Parliament: Rising Times of the Two Houses
  Armed Forces: Serious Accident Procedures
  Armed Forces: Serious Accident Procedures
  Parachute Regiment: Costs
  Parachute Regiment: Costs