Sitting of 4 May 1995

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

  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered on Thursday 11 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Agricultural Surpluses
    Mr. Davidson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps to make common agricultural policy surpluses available for distribution throughout the United Kingdom by the intervention board in the same manner as existing surplus beef stocks are distributed. [20809]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): The level of intervention stocks both in the United Kingdom and in the European Union as a whole has fallen dramatically and the introduction of additional disposal measures would not be justified.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that 160,000 tins of EC surplus beef are being delivered to my constituency tomorrow for distribution to my constituents? Will he join me in welcoming the actions of volunteers who are prepared to distribute that beef to my constituents? Does he further agree that it would be far better if the surplus butter and cheese currently held in stocks was distributed to my constituents, many of whom are also willing to help the Government reduce the EC wine lake by being prepared to dispose of some of the stocks personally?
    Mr. Jack: I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in thanking all the voluntary organisations which give so freely of their time, energy and effort to ensure that the stocks can reach those eligible to receive them. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that we are spending the full allocation of £26 million on the distribution of beef. He may also not be aware that butter is not included because, since the changes in the common agricultural policy, we no longer have enough stocks to justify national distribution. At present there are only three days' equivalent stock in store in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Can my hon. Friend confirm that intervention stocks of beef, cereals and butter have been reduced dramatically since 1993? Will he give the
    422
    percentage reductions and confirm that that is very good news for the taxpayer as it has reduced expenditure on intervention stocks under the common agricultural policy?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend, who takes a keen interest in these matters, is absolutely right in his line of questioning. Compared with the peak in 1993, total expenditure on this budget head has dropped by 44 per cent. in terms of Community money for the disposal of surpluses. With regard to the specific areas that my hon. Friend requested, the answer is that there has been a 73 per cent. drop in cereals, a 95 per cent. drop in beef stocks and an 84 per cent. drop in butter stocks since 1993. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, if we carry on like that there will be no beef in intervention at the end of the year, which clearly brings the future of this type of disposal into question.

    Fur Farming
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about fur farming. [20933]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): Welfare conditions are monitored regularly by the State Veterinary Service on the basis of recommendations adopted by the Council of Europe. The Ministry is responsible for the issue of licences to keep mink in secure conditions.
    Mrs. Roche: Does the Minister accept that there is great concern among many people, including my constituents who are concerned about animal welfare, about keeping arctic foxes in cages? Should not that practice be banned immediately?
    Mrs. Browning: The hon. Lady will know that the Golding report of 1994, as considered by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, covered the question of arctic foxes. We have consulted on the matter and are currently considering whether further action is needed.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend confirm that every fur farm is visited by the State Veterinary Service to ensure that the very highest standards are maintained?
    Mrs. Browning: Yes, I can confirm that. In addition, they receive visits from the Agricultural Development Advisory Service in respect of their licensing conditions.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister knows that I took evidence to one of her predecessors showing many clear examples of mink farms not following any acceptable standards. Why on earth do we allow fur farming in this country? It is a barbaric practice and we should stop it.
    Mrs. Browning: There are two key points. First, if the hon. Gentleman has evidence, I shall be happy to look at it again as I did not deal with the matter when he originally made his complaints. If he will furnish me with the evidence that he gave to my predecessor, I will look at the individual cases again.
    Secondly, the hon. Gentleman will know that although the FAWC report disapproved of fur farms, it did not recommend that they should be banned. He will also be aware that there has been quite a significant drop, particularly in the number of mink farms.

    Environmentally Sensitive Areas
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to take forward the environmentally sensitive area scheme. [20934]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): The scheme has been an outstanding success as I saw on recent visits to Halvergate marshes in Norfolk and the mountains of Mourne in Newry and Mourne.
    Mr. Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know that the environmentally sensitive areas in my constituency, and the farmers who care for them, are thankful for the grants that are being made and that not only is that good for farmers and the environment, but it is good for tourism. Will he look at the effects that the Agricultural Tenancies Bill will have on the way in which environmentally sensitive area levies and grants are paid to tenant farmers or to landlords or to a combination of the two, as that matter is causing some concern to many farmers locally?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend and many other people that the environmentally sensitive areas scheme has been an outstanding success. What started all those years ago in the Halvergate marshes became a European movement and was the beginning of the greening of agricultural policy more widely in Europe. We in this country, through individual campaigners such as Andrew Lees, academics such as Professor O'Riordan and even the Ministers who were involved at the time, take genuine pride in that.
    On my hon. Friend's point about the Agricultural Tenancies Bill, I think that the new farm business tenancies will help as we know that quite a lot of farmers have been having to take tenancies on short lets because that is all that is available. In those situations, there has to be a complicated negotiation with the landlord because the scheme has to be joined for five years at a time. Once it becomes easier for farmers to get tenancies of rather longer duration, that will simplify the system and benefit the farmers concerned.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Should a farmer be able to make a profit out of an environmentally sensitive area?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The object of the payments is to ensure that enough people join the scheme to make it work, so there has be to be an incentive element in it. The previous schemes were all based on compulsion, so yes, there should be an incentive to enable people to join voluntarily. Up and down the country, we have found that those who join voluntarily put far more into the schemes than those who are compelled.

    Live Animal Exports
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest estimate of the number of live animals exported from the United Kingdom each year. [20939]
    Mrs. Browning: Export trends vary by species. The latest figures from the Meat and Livestock Commission showed that exports of calves fell in the last quarter of last year compared with the same period of 1993 and the figures for sheep indicate a sharper drop.
    Mr. Townsend: First, I deplore the outrageous letter bomb attacks on my right hon. Friend the Minister of
    424
    Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). Does my hon. Friend agree that a possible result of port-side mobs will be longer journeys for animals, and thus greater suffering, as well as the destruction of a legitimate livelihood for many farmers?
    Mrs. Browning: I am sure that my hon. Friend reflects the feelings of the whole House in deploring violence and terrorism in making a political point when in a democracy we have other, more suitable methods. With regard to the effect of demonstrations on animal welfare, my hon. Friend will know that officials from the Ministry and from trading standards departments would always ensure that if the welfare of animals at the point of departure had been so disrupted that it was felt necessary that they should not continue the journey, the necessary steps would be taken to ensure that the welfare of those animals was protected. My hon. Friend is quite right that windscreens being broken and lots of noise from thumping on the lorries cannot be in the interests of animal welfare.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to seek changes in the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement. [20940]
    Mr. Waldegrave: I will continue to press for improvements to the common agricultural policy at every suitable opportunity.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister agree with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the common agricultural policy costs the average family in this country £28 per week? Is it not about time the Government took firmer action to scrap that policy, which is costing the taxpayer billions of pounds a year and leading to mountains of food going to waste and, last year alone, to more than £300 million being lost in fraud?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Figures of that kind are extremely difficult to be precise about. Subsequent calculations undertaken by my Department with the full agreement of the Treasury suggest that the sum is much lower—something like £4 a week. The whole basis of the figures is guesstimates about what will happen to world prices because of the dumping of agricultural products, and they are not a very satisfactory way to examine what will happen in future. I am not disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman—we want a far cheaper policy which is much nearer to the market. British farming is quite efficient enough nowadays to compete on the world market, and many aspects of the CAP are now inhibiting the gains in efficiency and proper farming practices. We should like people to be freer and freer to compete.
    Mr. Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that on average the United Kingdom has much larger farms than many of our European Community partners, which sometimes means that we have different interests? Will he consider that aspect when he fights for British agriculture?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. The history of British food production is entirely different from that in most of continental Europe. We have had a long tradition, going right back to the repeal of the corn laws,

    425
    of fundamentally free trade in food, and the 1840s, 1850s and 1860s saw the departure from the land of a large number of people who had worked it. In many countries in Europe, that process has yet to be undertaken and there is a completely different land-holding structure as a result. My hon. Friend is right to say that we often find ourselves defending somewhat different interests from the rest of Europe.
    Mr. Enright: Is the Minister aware of the fact that during a recent visit of the Select Committee on European Legislation the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) announced to a bemused Brussels audience that he did not want the CAP to be changed because it did too well for British farmers? Does the Minister share that view?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's important comments, the Government's position is that we want a policy which is cheaper for the consumer, which allows greater freedom to farmers not to have their business dictated by quotas and controls and which is cheaper for the taxpayer, too. I also believe that in such a world, if we can bring down agricultural subsidies in north America at the same time, British farming will do very well.

    Environmental Programmes
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made with his Department's environmental programmes. [20942]
    Mr. Waldegrave: My Department is making excellent progress on a number of environmental initiatives. We have recently added a new moorland scheme to the existing range of agri-environment schemes. We have also made significant progress in attaching environmental conditions to the common agricultural policy and in linking agri-environment and forestry schemes with set-aside.
    Mr. Greenway: My right hon. Friend will appreciate that, with no environmentally sensitive area in the North York Moors national park, the introduction of the moorland scheme will greatly help farmers and landowners there to conserve the much-valued heather and grouse moorland. Does not this initiative show that, while others talk of fancy ideas for conservation, it is the Government who are doing something practical? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that environmental schemes continue to be based on good science and proper and adequate compensation for loss of farm income?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. It is perfectly true that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, for example, and others have been, are and will remain strong supporters of these schemes. After all, the moorlands and uplands of England contain the only bird species that is entirely unique to the United Kingdom—the grouse—so it is a good idea to conserve them.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is not the Minister's policy on the environment undermined by the privatised electricity companies retaining compulsory powers that they had when they were publicly owned, enabling them to string pylons across the countryside, which is cheaper than undergrounding, and to pay farmers peanuts in compensation for putting those unsightly pylons on their land?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I well remember the last great wave of pylon building, which happened during a period of Labour government. Very few of those great cables were put underground because of the expense involved. Nevertheless, individual schemes—I know that there is a controversial one, to which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is referring—will be looked at extremely carefully.
    Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to tell the House a little more about his plans for putting trees on set-aside land? It is an excellent idea, on which he was active in European forums, and it is a much more constructive use of agricultural land than leaving it fallow.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I have made it one of my objectives, and we are making progress with it. The specialist committee examining the proposals has ironed out all the technical problems which remained. We now have to get the proposals through the Council of Ministers, and I have every confidence that we shall. It is a far better use of set-aside land than simply growing weeds.

    Drinks (Dental Health Warnings)
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to place dental health warnings on drinks with a high sugar content. [20943]
    Mrs. Browning: We have no plans to introduce labelling requirements of the type mentioned by the hon. Lady. If sugar is added, it must be mentioned in the ingredients list. Total sugar content may also be mentioned in the nutrition labelling panel.
    Mrs. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that a typical carton of fruit juice aimed at children as young as four months contains the equivalent of 18 teaspoonfuls of sugar? Does she agree that that is contributing considerably to the deterioration in children's dental health? Does she not think that parents should be warned?
    Mrs. Browning: I certainly think that parents should be made aware of the dangers of any constituent in food which could have a dangerous effect on the health of anybody, whether young children or adults, if that is accurate. We seek to ensure that labelling is as comprehensive as possible, to inform people and to let them make informed decisions themselves.
    If one follows the logic of the hon. Lady's suggestion, what sort of label would one use? Would it say, "Don't feed this to babies"? Would she have a label on dairy products, for instance, saying, "Don't eat this for a certain reason"? Where would one stop? It seems much more sensible to give comprehensive information, to make sure that people make informed choices, and to put warning labels on foods only when that is appropriate—for example, on products containing nuts, to which certain people are allergic. These may have serious health consequences, but people may not notice the nut content mentioned on the label. We therefore ask manufacturers to flag on the label the fact that a product contains nuts.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is sufficient information on labels at present? On the sugar content of drinks and other foodstuffs and the link with dental caries, does she agree that the best way

    427
    forward is to have more parental discipline, with children cleaning their teeth thoroughly morning, noon and night, and less interference by the nanny state? [Interruption.]
    Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The new nanny state sits opposite us. Opposition Members jeer at the idea of parents giving their young children sensible advice and help in looking after their dental health. The cleaning of young children's teeth and gums with fluoride toothpaste is part of the programme that the Department of Health has initiated to make sure that we protect young children in a practical and sensible way.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Is the Minister aware that in Germany there are dental health warnings on all drinks that are marketed for children, including formula milk feeds? Why cannot we have similar warning labels to prevent the increasing scourge of infant tooth decay in this country?
    Mrs. Browning: Because this is not Germany. I admire the hon. Gentleman's last-ditch attempt to debate with me the rights and wrongs of infant formulae. He has had a full debate on the matter, and he has participated in an Adjournment debate, but he has not convinced me yet.
    Mr. Jenkin: I assure my hon. Friend that the vast majority of parents in this country are probably already aware that sugar has a detrimental effect on teeth, and do not need a dental health label imposed by a regulating Labour Government to tell them so. My hon. Friend's reference to nuts was entirely appropriate in the context of that proposal, which shows that, for all the ditching of clause IV, the Labour party has lost none of its interfering, nannying attitudes.
    Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend has summed up not only the Opposition's approach to the common sense of the British public but their indictment of the food industry in general. I agree that this is not a nanny state, and that so long as people receive the right information and can access it they are quite able to make the right decisions for themselves.

    Renewable Energy Crops
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies his Department has carried out on crops that can be grown for renewable energy purposes. [20944]
    Mr. Jack: The Department is currently funding research on short rotation coppice, miscanthus and bio-diesel.
    Mr. Soley: Perhaps the Minister could begin by taking the 50 per cent. tax off bio-diesel, thus getting a good headline on tax, for a change. Even more importantly, will the Ministry try to liaise better with the Department of Trade and Industry on coppicing so that renewable energy sources, which dramatically reduce levels of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide, can be produced?
    Mr. Jack: As no product called bio-diesel, as such, is commercially available, it would be difficult to take a tax off it. It is typical of the Labour party's approach to invent a tax and then challenge the Government about what they intend to do about it. We are working closely with the DTI on coppicing, and the hon. Gentleman will know that we, with Sweden, are leaders within Europe in that
    428
    respect. As for the so-called non-fossil fuel obligation—NFFO 3—three projects on short rotational coppice have now been approved. We are pleased about that because if the projects prove viable they will require the use of 9,000 hectares of land to produce the wood.
    Sir David Steel: With reference to the earlier question about growing trees on set-aside land, have the Government been following the Swedish experience of growing short-life willow trees and using them to fuel power stations? Have the Government yet reached any conclusion about the viability of that?
    Mr. Jack: I hope that I do not do the right hon. Gentleman an injustice, but when I was talking about short rotational coppice, I meant willow trees. As I said, 9,000 hectares of land would need to be farmed if the three projects technically approved under the NFFO 3 tranche of alternative energy sources come to fruition. If the promoters achieve financial viability, the opportunity to unlock the potential of the land using willow will be there.

    Medical Aspects of Food Policy
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new policies his Department has adopted following the last report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy. [20945]
    Mrs. Browning: The report does not require any major adaptations to existing policies, but we shall take account of it as necessary.
    Mr. Cohen: Are not the Government treating that important committee report like an old limp chip—left in the wrapping, thrown in the bin and forgotten about—when the dietary health problems remain? Britain has one of the highest levels of heart disease among comparable western nations, and we also have a higher rate of premature death in both men and women. Dietary causes are among the reasons. Should not the Government take real action by giving a much higher profile to dietary health education and forcing food producers to put less fat and salt in their products?
    Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman is such a dear old-fashioned thing. If he kept up to date with what is going on, he could not help noticing that the Government have produced "The Health of the Nation" White Paper, which not only comprehensively analyses what has happened, especially with regard to heart disease and fat intake in diet, but has set measurable targets. The food industry has been most helpful in trying to meet the targets. I do not know why all that has bypassed the hon. Gentleman, but that is what has actually been happening.
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: In view of my hon. Friend the Minister's robust reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin)—in which she rightly let us know that the Government are not seeking to interfere with the dietary requirements of individuals—would it not be better to consign the report to the bin, since mass caterers unfortunately tend to read it, unlike the rest of the population who carry on regardless?
    Mrs. Browning: Any member of the Government or the Opposition telling individuals what they should and should not eat is not the best way to influence them. We welcome the committee's report on nutritional aspects of cardiovascular disease as it provides a useful review of

    429
    the science, and also suggests guidelines for dietary advice. People who are providing food for their families and themselves must take those decisions for themselves.

    Live Animal Exports
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to the second report of the Welsh Affairs Committee on the export of live animals; and if he will make a statement. [20946]
    Mrs. Browning: I welcome the Committee's thoughtful report, which rightly reflects the importance of a Community-wide agreement on animal welfare issues.
    Mr. Luff: Does my hon. Friend recall the informative and persuasive evidence that she gave to the Committee on 8 March? Does she agree that the report clearly demonstrates the folly of giving in to anti-democratic forces, banning a legal trade, prejudicing the livelihoods of Welsh and other British farmers and—by destroying our influence in the debate in Europe—reducing, if not halting, progress towards an overall improvement in animal welfare standards?
    Mrs. Browning: I hope that my hon. Friend will understand when I say that it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail today on that excellent report as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will wish to comment in the usual way. We appreciate not only the Committee's report, but the support of others in recognising the need for a Europe-wide agreement on animal welfare, and on transport in particular. My right hon. Friend the Minister has worked tirelessly in seeking such an agreement. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish him well in his further negotiations at European Council meetings. This is the way forward in the protection of animals as we attempt to ensure that animal transport is of the highest possible quality.
    Dr. Strang: Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the Welsh Affairs Committee did not have the opportunity to see the recently published legal opinion from Gerald Barling QC, which was commissioned by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the International Fund for Animal Welfare? Since that opinion makes it clear that the Government can legally halt the export of calves to the continent, will Ministers stop using the European Union as an alibi and act to end the trade? How can it be right to export our calves into a system on the continent which is banned in this country on the ground of cruelty?
    Mrs. Browning: My right hon. Friend the Minister has gone to great pains to study the legal advice in the Barling recommendations. We shall, of course, give our official response to that when lawyers have had a chance to look at it in more detail, and they are doing that at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman is telling the House today that the Labour party has accepted the Barling report, we would be interested to know how he has arrived at that assessment. It suggests that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept legal advice from a third party. If he had the responsibility, however, he would know only too well that that legal advice does not stand up.

    Fruit and Vegetable Regime
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what efforts he is making to seek a wholesale review of the current European Union fruit and vegetable regime. [20947]
    Mr. Jack: The Agriculture Council discussed the Commission's "reflections" documents last October and we are pressing for firm proposals to be submitted quickly.
    Sir Michael Neubert: What action is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that the outcome of any such review will improve the competitive position of United Kingdom fruit and vegetable growers in Europe, particularly the growers of that peerless fruit the English apple, who are threatened by structural over-supply in Europe?
    Mr. Jack: We have argued effectively for the complete dismantling of the so-called withdrawals mechanism, which is a waste of £500 million in Europe and causes over-production of apples, cauliflowers, tomatoes and other products where there is no clear market. For our part, we have assisted through various grants under the marketing development scheme. We also fought for the grubbing-up scheme to allow our apple industry to be restructured into a more competitive fighting force, to enable our apples to triumph on the supermarket shelves of this country.

    Milk Quotas
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that European Community milk quota rules are changed to allow trading in quotas across member states' frontiers. [20948]
    Mr. Waldegrave: We proposed the transferability of milk quotas between member states during the debate on common agricultural policy simplification, in last year's CAP price-fixing negotiations and in Council earlier this year, when I advocated transnational quota leasing. The European Court of Auditors made a similar recommendation two years ago, but there is, at present, no support for our ideas in the Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend keep on trying—it is essential for British dairy farmers and the dairy industry that he does so? Does he agree that it is wrong that farmers in member states who cannot use their quota should keep them, while farmers in this country are crying out for more?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly agree with the implication behind my hon. Friend's question. It would make an inherently unsatisfactory system slightly better if areas within the European Community where it is natural to produce milk were able to obtain quota from other areas. Many other countries, however—especially the remaining countries with socialist Governments—administer their quota because they like the centralised power that it gives their governmental organisation.
    Dr. Strang: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that milk quotas, combined with the deregulation of the milk industry that the Government brought into operation on 1 November, are giving us the worst of all worlds, with milk being poured down the drain when we do not

    431
    produce enough to meet our own needs, with hundreds of jobs being lost in our dairy plants and with the doorstep delivery system under threat? When will the Minister address those issues?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is plainly pulling the House's leg. He understands these issues and he knows well enough that the doorstep delivery service has been in decline for 30 years or more. Furthermore, he will remember that when he was an Agriculture Minister the Treasury would not let him devalue the green pound at home, as a result of which British dairy farmers' prices were lower than anywhere else in the European Community. When 1981 was taken as the base year for quotas, we were systemically worse off than other countries in Europe. His party, although not the hon. Gentleman as I am sure he argued against the Treasury, bears a considerable share of the responsibility for the level of our quotas.

    Fishing Offences
    Mr. Harris: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many successful prosecutions for fishing offences have been sustained in the past three years; and how many of these were against (a) Spanish and (b) Anglo-Spanish vessels. [20949]
    Mr. Jack: In the last three years, 171, 182 and 135 vessels have been prosecuted, of which three, four and five respectively were Spanish registered and 16, 11 and 10 were United Kingdom registered landing into Spain.
    Mr. Harris: I thank my hon. Friend for those figures. How on earth will we ensure effective policing from 1 January next year, when 40 Spanish vessels will be allowed into the waters of the Irish box? Will he give this House and, more particularly, the fishermen of the south-west of England an absolute assurance that we shall do everything in our power to ensure proper enforcement and that the Spanish do not get away with breaking all the rules in the book, which is what they have been doing until now?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend, who represents the fishing interests in his constituency with distinction, is right to make those points. Once the June Fisheries Council has agreed the final terms of the enforcement regime associated with the changed arrangements in western waters, we will carefully ensure that our resources are adequate for the job. As a result of keeping the Spanish out of the Irish sea and the Bristol channel, only one tenth of the portion of the Irish box that remains will be British territorial waters for the purposes of fishery protection. The remaining nine tenths will be policed by the Irish Republic and I can assure my hon. Friend that I will be in close contact with my opposite number in the Republic about joint arrangements to ensure full and effective enforcement.
    Mrs. Ewing: I listened with interest to the statistics that the Minister gave, but will he tell us by whom the prosecutions were brought?
    Mr. Jack: The prosecutions, when the coastal state involved was the United Kingdom, were brought by the United Kingdom Government.
    Mr. John Townend: What influence does the Foreign Office have on the enthusiasm and the frequency with which we enforce fishing regulations on the Spanish fleet? Does the Minister understand why British fishermen are
    432
    perturbed—they will be even more perturbed when they read in Hansard the figures that he gave today—that we have arrested many fewer Spanish vessels than the Irish? Even if we accept that their waters are greater, it shows that we have not been as enthusiastic as we should have been.
    Mr. Jack: I assure my hon. Friend that I have received no representations from my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to take it easy on enforcement. My hon. Friend may not have noticed that, during the Easter recess, the Spanish-registered vessel Chimbote was the subject of vigorous prosecution and its master had to pay some £34,000 in fines. My hon. Friend may have gained the impression that we are less enthusiastic than the Irish Republic on enforcement, but the bulk of the Spanish fleet fishes to the west of Ireland in Irish territorial waters, which restricts our opportunity to inspect. I assure him, however, that we make 5,000 inspections a year and, wherever we find vessels of any European Union member state breaking the rules, we unstintingly prosecute.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will be aware that fishermen claim that they have not been properly policed. How far does the Minister expect the new satellite system to help, and where will it work in the first instance?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the trials that are now taking place throughout the European Union in the use of satellites to monitor the location of fishing vessels. If proven technically correct, satellite systems can deal with the location of fishing vessels but cannot identify what vessels are doing or their minimum fish or net sizes. Those matters still require the intervention of the coastal state to make on-board inspections. As I said a moment ago to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) in the context of western waters, we shall ensure that our resources are man enough for the job.
    Following is the information:

    The numbers of fishing vessels successfully prosecuted in the United Kingdom in the last three years were:

    1992

    1993

    1994

    All vessels

    171

    182

    135

    Spanish registered vessels

    3

    4

    5

    UK registered vessels landing into Spain

    16

    11

    10

    Bramley Apples
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contributions he has made to the efforts being made to boost the prospects for increased sales of Bramley apples. [20950]
    Mr. Jack: I was delighted to help launch the Bramley apple campaign last season. My right hon. Friend and my ministerial colleagues and I take every opportunity to promote Bramleys and all home-grown produce.
    Mr. Thompson: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is nothing more delicious than a baked Bramley apple covered in cream? Will he undertake a tour of the apple orchards—indeed, the gardens—of East Anglia, where he will find many excellent Bramley apple trees? Is not the British apple the best, and is not the Bramley the best

    433
    British apple? Is he doing all that he can to encourage research and marketing opportunities to ensure that we sell as many, if not more, Bramley apples abroad as we do at home?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend gives me an irresistible invitation to canter through the orchards of East Anglia to see the Bramley apples and I should be happy to undertake such a visit with him at the start of the season. I assure him that we shall continue to do all that we can to promote the Bramley apple. Under the marketing and development scheme, we have already given some £150,000 to enable a significant marriage between east Kent packers and home-grown fruits. That newly consummated enterprise will enable our Bramley apples to be even better marketed in the forthcoming season.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: As one of the main production areas of Bramley apples in the United Kingdom is County Armagh in Northern Ireland—I declare a personal interest in that respect—will the Minister confirm that any scheme to promote the sale and enjoyment of the Bramley apple will extend to the entire United Kingdom?
    Mr. Jack: The right hon Gentleman is right. We try hard to ensure that all sections of the United Kingdom's apple-producing industry receive help with marketing. In that respect, I assure him that we are in apple pie order.

    Veal Crates
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in getting the Commission to bring forward its review of the use of veal crates. [20952]
    Mrs. Browning: My right hon. Friend the Minister has secured the Commission's agreement to bring forward this year, instead of in 1997, its report, which will trigger the Council's review of the directive on the welfare of calves.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that a new victory in Europe is needed in the form of a total and final ban on veal crates? Will she accept my congratulations on the fact that the Government have achieved a partial victory in bringing forward the date for consideration of the future of the veal crate from 1997 to this year? Will she go all out for a total ban on that disgraceful and unacceptable form of veal production?
    Mrs. Browning: Yes, indeed, that is why we are seeking a total ban throughout the European Community on calves raised in crates, which are deprived of roughage and iron. We want calves to be raised in a much more welfare-friendly way, as indeed they are in this country. Yet again Britain leads the way in Europe and as soon as the rest bring their standards up to ours, the better.

    Live Animal Exports
    Mr. Fishburn: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that the legal trade in live animal exports is able to continue when the specified welfare standards are met. [20953]
    Mrs. Browning: The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sets statutory requirements to protect the welfare of animals in transit, which provide a framework within which livestock hauliers may lawfully carry out their trade.
    Mr. Fishburn: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the history of Britain, those who have inveighed against free trade have invariably allied themselves with the illiberal and the intolerant? Is not that true of those who call for a unilateral ban on the free trade of livestock?
    Mrs. Browning: Indeed. Anyone who is seriously concerned about the welfare of animals will recognise the greater prize of improving standards of animal welfare throughout the Community and will not just pull up the drawbridge, saying, "We are all right; never mind about the welfare of animals on the other side of the channel."

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May. [20962]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of renewed speculation that the Thatcher dynasty might emulate the Churchill dynasty by winning the lottery jackpot, will the Prime Minister set an example by ensuring free access to all his prime ministerial papers before they, along with him, are very soon consigned to the dustbin of history?
    The Prime Minister: I agreed in 1991 that I shall remove from my office, in due course, only papers of a truly personal nature and no official material, other than that which, like speeches, is already in the public domain. I hope that my successors will follow that convention.
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May. [20963]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his visit yesterday to meet the victims of the IRA's continued brutality will be widely welcomed? Does he agree that Sinn Fein's protestations to be a democratic, political party ring hollow while it continues to orchestrate and to defend vicious attacks on the police and civilians?
    The Prime Minister: Sinn Fein's mask slipped yesterday and it reminded us vividly of its character. As a result, I shall consider over the weekend whether the exploratory dialogue can go ahead. I shall probably decide that it should do so, because I wish Sinn Fein to become a fully democratic and peaceful party, playing a full part in negotiations with other parties. The purpose of the exploratory dialogue is to help to bring that about. As we have come this far, the wider interests of the people of Northern Ireland should not be abandoned without holding Sinn Fein's feet to the fire in face-to-face negotiations.
    Mr. Blair: May I say that I associate myself entirely with those remarks?

    435
    On Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had conducted a review over many months into the taxation of insurance payments and had removed any uncertainty. Today, the Chancellor has popped up and announced a new and different review into part of the same problem. Why did not the Prime Minister tell us about that other review on Tuesday?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is slightly confused and is again seeking to spread a little despondency. I shall try to explain it for him carefully, so that he is able to remove any misunderstanding.
    There is no new intention to levy taxes on the payments from certain insurance policies. The question that has been asked by the insurance companies is whether those payments are already taxable under existing tax laws, which date back to the last century. The insurance industry has asked the Inland Revenue to give its opinions about that.
    The Inland Revenue receives similar questions from the insurance industry and other industries routinely, week after week. When the Inland Revenue has concluded its consideration of that issue, it will report to Ministers—not, of course, before it is ready to do so. When we have its opinion, we can consider whether the law needs changing.
    Before the right hon. Gentleman spreads any more misunderstandings, let me say to him that there is no record of any tax ever having been deducted from those insurance payments and, until the matter is settled for those policies under review, the Inland Revenue will not expect tax to be deducted.
    So that the right hon. Gentleman cannot accuse me of leaving out any information, let me say to the House that there is one real threat to people with private insurance. Let me quote:
    "We can close tax reliefs that are unfair, like reforming those for … private medical insurance"—
    the words of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Blair: The right hon. Gentleman has not told us why he did not mention that review on Tuesday. How does what he has just said square with the fact that yesterday the Inland Revenue said that insurance payments other than those relating to mortgages were to be taxed and never mentioned any review, and why did the Chancellor say on Tuesday that it was a simple problem, that he had sorted it out in 10 minutes and that he had not even heard of the first review, never mind the second one?
    This has been not a review but a pre-election panic attack, and it bears all the hallmarks of the right hon. Gentleman's Government—it begins in incompetence, falls into confusion and ends in chaos.
    The Prime Minister: We were carefully weaved round to the preordained soundbite again. I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I know that he is not nearly as silly as he sought to make out in what he just said.
    The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that such routine inquiries are made of the Inland Revenue by industry and industry spokesmen all the time. They are answered by the Inland Revenue. There are huge numbers of them. They are not all referred to Ministers. Sometimes, when they are made public, the right hon. Gentleman tries to make a great scandal about them.
    436
    The right hon. Gentleman knows well that there is nothing in this today and there was nothing in it on Tuesday. All he is about is the usual Labour party scaremongering for cheap political gain.
    Sir Giles Shaw: May I return my right hon. Friend to more relevant matters? I add my congratulations to many on the skill and courage that he showed in persisting with his programme in Londonderry yesterday.
    In relation to the magnanimous gesture that my right hon. Friend has just made in respect of discussions and preliminary talks, will he please ensure that any discussions or talks are not conducted under any form of duress and that, when such talks start, item one on day one in the first hour will be that of somehow getting rid of arms, which continue to overshadow the prospects of Northern Ireland with the threat of violence?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is, of course, quite right that there can be no suggestion of discussing those matters with Sinn Fein in the exploratory talks under duress.
    Let me also say to my hon. Friend that I have no illusions about the nature of Sinn Fein or its spokesmen. The behaviour of a few hundred of its supporters yesterday showed how far it has yet to go before it becomes a democratic party, as the rest of us in the House understand the meaning of the term, "democratic party".
    In two hours yesterday, those supporters destroyed the image that Sinn Fein has sought to build up in recent months, and the event reminds us of the nature of the people with whom we are dealing. We want to push them towards democracy. We know that it will be a tough job, but we will continue to try because it is in the wider interests of the people of Northern Ireland that we should do so.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May. [20964]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Prime Minister finally confirm that he misled the House on 25 April when he said, in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), that the information that there were two bureaucratic staff for every three teachers was in "Social Trends"? It is not; it is in the Annual Abstract of Statistics, which goes on to say that the so-called bureaucratic staff are cleaners, catering staff and nursery assistants. Will the Prime Minister now tell the House that?
    The Prime Minister: The source of the figures is even more appropriate than the hon. Gentleman suggests: the Local Government Management Board collected them.
    What I said to the House was wrong in one respect. I said that local education authorities employed two non-teaching members of staff to every three teachers. In fact, it is not two against three but two and a half against three.
    Sir Timothy Sainsbury: Having studied the report of yesterday's debates—as I am sure he has—my right hon. Friend will have been reminded of the magnificent performance of our exporters, especially our industrial exporters. Does he agree that a number of Government policies have contributed to that success, not least privatisation, the reform of industrial relations, a sensible

    437
    taxation system and inward investment, and that all those developments are threatened by the Labour party's policies?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about the remarkable performance of British exporters, including industrial exporters and exporters of services. They would undoubtedly be put at risk by many of the policies proposed by Labour, and the extra costs that those policies would impose on employers. Exports have successively reached a new record in about nine of the past 12 or 13 months. I cannot recall an occasion when that has happened before.
    I should have thought that, instead of carping, Labour Members might for once give some credit to British industry and British exporters.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May. [20965]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Is the Prime Minister aware of the concern and even fear among disabled people about the Government's proposed new tests for incapacity benefit? Does he accept that that concern is genuine, and will he dissociate himself from the disgraceful comments of the Secretary of State for Social Security, who attempted to brand all those people fraudsters?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend did no such thing. He has taken a great deal of action to help disabled people, as has my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. We are as concerned about disabled people's security of mind, and the provision of services for them, as any other party in the country. The Disability Discrimination Bill, which has passed through the House of Commons and is currently passing through the House of Lords, will be the biggest single advance for disabled people that we have seen in this country for many years.
    As for the new incapacity benefit, I hope that—as the Labour party sometimes claims also to be concerned about the size of the social security bill—the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be indefensible to continue to pay incapacity benefits to people who are not genuinely incapable of work. Either the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends agree with that, or they do not. If they do, they have no cause to criticise the Government; if they do not, they had better stop giving us lectures about public expenditure, and admit to the increased taxation that they would have to impose.
    Mr. Garnier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that air service agreements between the United States and the United Kingdom are a matter for the United States Government and his Government and are nothing whatever to do with the European Commission?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with that point and we have made our views entirely clear in that regard.
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May. [20966]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Prime Minister accept that desperately ill people and their families feel agony and
    438
    anguish when they cannot gain immediate admission to local hospitals? My constituent, Lilian May Wilkinson, alas, died as a result of that situation. Does the Prime Minister understand that that is one of the many reasons why today people in the city of Leicester are pouring out to obliterate the Tories from our city?
    The Prime Minister: I should have thought that if the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted a detailed reply to the difficulties that have caused the tragedy to which he referred he might have given some prior notice of the case before using it in that fashion. He knows that the overwhelming majority of people get a better service from those who work in the health service than they would find anywhere else in the world. Errors do take place in a service that size. People are human; even those who work in the health service can make mistakes.
    However, I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have done better to remind people that once every 16 seconds an ambulance makes an emergency call, that once every nine seconds a surgeon performs a national health service operation, that every tenth of a second someone somewhere visits his or her general practitioner and that 8 million people are treated each year. Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman choose one issue, of which he gave no notice, in order to try to make that sort of political point?
    Mr. Trimble: I assure the Prime Minister that there is one party in this place which will not allow itself to be subjected to duress. I refer again to yesterday's incident which marred the Prime Minister's visit to Londonderry. Does he realise that the incident was not unprecedented? While it was of a slightly greater intensity than others, that sort of street demonstration has occurred regularly in the past few months and it is part of an IRA-Sinn Fein campaign to undermine the Royal Ulster Constabulary—a campaign which is assisted by other elements, some of whom are within the House. Therefore, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that those members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who have protected society from terrorism for the past 25 years have his wholehearted support and that there is no question of disbanding or restructuring the Royal Ulster Constabulary?
    The Prime Minister: I made clear in the speech that I gave yesterday in Northern Ireland my admiration for the work that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has done, not just yesterday—when I think that its members performed superbly—but over the past 25 years in seeing the people of Northern Ireland through a most difficult period in their history. The Royal Ulster Constabulary has a very proud record and I am happy to endorse it for the hon. Gentleman this afternoon.
    I said earlier that I have no illusions about the people with whom we are dealing. I say again that peaceful democratic parties do not act in the way that Sinn Fein supporters acted yesterday. They do not act as front organisations for heavily armed paramilitaries; they do not intimidate and threaten the population; they do not break the legs of teenagers with baseball bats, as they have been doing; and they do not behave in many other thuggish ways. Of course I welcome the end of killing in Northern Ireland. However, as I said clearly yesterday and will say again and again, much of the brutal behaviour by paramilitaries must be stopped before they can begin to claim that they are democratic parties.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for the next two weeks?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
TUESDAY 9 MAY—Debate on British policy towards the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 10 MAY—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day (11th allotted day). There will be a debate on the national health service in London on an Opposition motion.
THURSDAY 11 MAY—Debate on the second report of the Social Security Committee on the Church Commissioners and Church of England pensions on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 12 MAY—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet on Wednesday 10 May at 10.30 am to consider European Community document No. 10589/94, European Community document No. 4674/95 and the unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 28 April 1995 relating to telecommunications.
[Wednesday 10 May:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: 10589/94, 4674/95, unnumbered; relevant report of the European Legislation Committee: HC 70-ix (1994–95) and HC 70-xiv (1994–95).]
The following week, business will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 MAY—Progress on remaining stages of the Gas Bill.
Motions on the Conditional Fee Agreements Order and the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations.
I anticipate concluding the remaining stages of the Gas Bill on either Tuesday or Wednesday, and propose that on Thursday 18 May there should be a debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. Rooker: I thank the Leader of the House for reverting to using his best endeavours to announce, as far as practicable, two complete weeks of business. May I raise three points relating to next week?
I understand from press reports some weeks ago that some time next week the committee headed by Lord Nolan will present its interim report to the Prime Minister. Although the committee reports to the Prime Minister, it is in effect a report to Parliament and people about Members of Parliament and their interests in quangos. Therefore, we expect and request early publication and not to have to wait for the Prime Minister to think about it and delay publication until the Government have decided what they are going to recommend or not, as the case may be. We do not want a knee-jerk response. All political parties will be affected and there will be collateral damage all round. We also expect reasonable time to be allocated for a debate a couple of weeks after publication of the report.
440
Secondly, will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for Social Security—whoever he considers most relevant—to make a statement to the House next week about the tax and social security implications for the 460 victims of thalidomide of the decision reached yesterday by Guinness plc to pump extra money into the Thalidomide Trust in the next 15 years? That is welcome in so far as it goes, but it is quite unacceptable that the issue appears to be dealt with in a piecemeal fashion. It affects a small group of our fellow citizens who were not expected to live this long. Many of them are heads of their own families now. Parliament really should be able to address the matter and we could do so better if we had a statement from the relevant Minister about the implications of yesterday's decision.
My final point relates to a point that may turn up on business next week, but if it is scheduled for after 10 o'clock it may be taken on the nod. Since 12 April, the Home Secretary has had on his desk the report of the English parliamentary boundary commission. Given that that report recommends five extra constituencies for England and that we have already approved the Welsh report, which creates two extra constituencies, and the report of the boundary commission for Northern Ireland, which increases the number of constituencies from 17 to 18, after the next election there will be eight extra Members of Parliament.
It would be quite unacceptable and the public would go ape if we were to increase the size of the House—which some think is too great already—without debating the issue. In the normal course of events, it would be taken "forthwith" after 10 o'clock. It would be lamentable for the House not to debate a fairly substantial increase in the size of the House.
Mr. Newton: I shall take those points in reverse order. In respect of the boundary commission, I cannot at present give a date when my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary expects to bring the proposals to the House in the way that is expected. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that such motions are normally taken "forthwith", but I shall consider carefully with my right hon. and learned Friend what the hon. Gentleman has said.
In respect of tax and social security in relation to thalidomide cases, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is due to answer questions on Thursday in the week I have just announced, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, having had some experience in various previous incarnations of similar problems in relation to the contamination of blood with AIDS and other matters.
The publication of the Nolan report is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Lord Nolan, but I do not anticipate any prolonged delay in publication and I certainly expect a debate at an early stage.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: As Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's last few words. Interest in standards in public life is not confined to Opposition Members, but we probably have the highest standards of conduct in public life of any nation. The issue is, however, of concern to us all on both sides of the House. I hope that we shall have a debate on the matter as soon as possible.
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said, but I note my hon. Friend's support for an early debate.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing a debate on former Yugoslavia next week. His announcement is timely indeed. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the annual defence White Paper was published yesterday, notwithstanding the fact that later today there will be a debate on the Royal Air Force. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an undertaking that the traditional two-day opportunity to debate the defence White Paper will be provided as soon as possible, and especially before the House rises for the summer recess?
Mr. Newton: I cannot make off-the-cuff promises on that or any other matter this afternoon. I note, of course, what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I think that every debate that I have announced for next week is a response to requests recently made to me either in the House or in the Corridors.
Sir Patrick Cormack: May I thank my right hon. Friend for at last giving us a full-day debate on former Yugoslavia? Given the extreme gravity of the situation, which increases almost hourly, will he ascertain whether it is possible for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as well as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to take part in the debate?
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's request. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has other important foreign affairs responsibilities that may take some of his time next week.
Mr. Alfred Morris: The Leader of the House is a respected former Minister with responsibilities for disabled people. He will have heard the exchange earlier today about the comments of the Secretary of State for Social Security yesterday at the Lobby luncheon, in which he clearly and undoubtedly linked social security abuse to occupants of wheelchairs. Is the Leader of the House aware that the reaction of organisations of and for disabled people is one not merely of concern or dismay but of anger and a sense of betrayal? May we have a ministerial statement about what was said at an early date so that the Secretary of State for Social Security can be questioned on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Newton: I thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt fully and appropriately with that question a few moments ago. I shall not seek to add to his response. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about me.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend use his influence through the usual channels to try to ensure that next Wednesday's debate is about the national health service as a whole rather than the NHS in London? If the service is as bad as the Opposition parties are saying, why are people living longer? Is it because they are eating bran for breakfast?
Mr. Newton: It will be for you, Madam Speaker, to determine what speeches are in order. It appears to me at least that it is impossible to debate proposals concerning the NHS in London without taking account of the effect of the relationship between services in London and elsewhere. In the county which I represent in part, we
442
have been conscious for some time that tackling some of the problems in London would be an important ingredient in being able to tackle problems in counties such as Essex.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: May I underline the importance of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about thalidomide victims? The Leader of the House may not be aware, but an undertaking was given by a junior Minister in another place that continuing consideration would be given to thalidomide victims through interdepartmental meetings, which is a prerequisite for finally achieving some justice for them. Will he ensure that an early debate takes place, or a statement is made, on this issue? We feel that there is a clear Government responsibility for the thalidomide victims.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that the matter will be carefully considered and that any statement that seems appropriate will be made when it seems appropriate. I am conscious of having taken part in similar discussions when payments were made in respect of contaminated blood that went to some haemophiliacs.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Following the very successful police operation two days ago against suspected criminals, will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the police in prime Government time, in which contrasts would appear between the Government's positive policies towards law and order and the rather vacuous statements of the Opposition parties?
Mr. Newton: I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend's latter remarks. I hope that I have demonstrated that I always do my best to respond to requests such as his.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Leader of the House aware that, with regard to health in London, I was able to initiate a debate on Wednesday 26 April on health services in east London, in which I made a number of charges and statements, including the fact that it would be quite in line with Government policy for Bart's hospital to open as a private casualty emergency hospital if it were so funded? Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who despite requests did not attend that debate, to let me have notes on any inaccuracies in my charges?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly pass on that question to my right hon. Friend.
Lady Olga Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep alarm of senior service chiefs at the Labour party's proposal to allow homosexuals into the armed services? Bearing in mind the fact that it is a highly controversial proposal and that it could undermine the important discipline in our fighting forces, will my right hon. Friend set aside prime time to enable all parties to debate such an important issue?
Mr. Newton: Again, I cannot make such a promise, but I draw attention to the fruitful use that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has evidently made—from his point of view, at least—of opportunities on Wednesday mornings. Beyond that, it is of course a fact that armed forces legislation is necessary every five years. I will not do the mathematics, for fear of it being suggested that I were pre-empting the next Queen's Speech, but the calculations are fairly clear.
Ms Diane Abbott: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on air quality? Is he aware that bad air quality has been forecast for most of Britain for the third day running and that it causes misery to asthma sufferers, especially children? Childhood asthma is a particular problem in my constituency. Given the inadequacy of the Government's policy on such issues, a debate is long overdue.
Mr. Newton: Air quality is very much an environmental priority for the Government and that is why we are bringing forward legislation in the Environment Bill in the very near future to implement the proposals that we published in January, which were widely welcomed.
Mr. David Shaw: In relation to the discussion about the possibility of a debate on the Register of Members' Interests, and considering that my right hon. Friend found a couple of hours recently to debate problems involving junior Members of the House, would he find double the time for a debate if senior Members of the Opposition were found to have breached the rules of the register, and would he ensure that every Opposition Member who spoke in the previous debate had the opportunity to speak again?
Mr. Newton: I simply have to say again, as I hope that I have demonstrated, that should reports from important Committees of the House require debate, I would expect to provide appropriate time for such debate.
Mr. Clive Soley: May we have a debate on the changing role of Back Benchers, not least of those on the all-party committees and the innovative evidence-taking committees, which have been set up by myself and others? Such committees are widely appreciated outside the House, but they create administrative problems and need to be developed within the structure of the House. Many of us would welcome a proper debate on that subject.
Mr. Newton: I think that you, Madam Speaker, would agree, given your chairmanship of the House of Commons Commission, that such matters need to be considered in the first instance by the appropriate Committees.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Will my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity for a debate on the press and media? Many relevant issues have never been properly addressed, such as concentration, privacy, right to reply and so on. Recently, there have been serious cases of financial and sexual entrapment. It is quite clear that certain people in the media feel that they are entitled to use methods such as telephone tapping, purloining of private correspondence, bribery and entrapment, which are normally associated with the secret police in totalitarian societies. There is widespread concern in the country about that trend. May we have an opportunity to explore those issues in a debate on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Newton: That is yet another request that I will consider. I must make the point that it is well known that issues of cross-media ownership are under examination at the moment. I cannot predict when a conclusion might be reached and announced. However, it would seem that that might be a more appropriate time for such a debate.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1034 and particularly that part of it which deals with the personal safety of members of the Pakistan Bonded Labour Liberation Front?
[That this House calls on the Government to convey to the Government of Pakistan its profound concern at the killing of Iqbal Masih, aged 12, on Sunday 16th April, to press the Government of Pakistan to conduct a full and impartial investigation into his murder and to bring those responsible to justice and to urge the Government of Pakistan both to safeguard the personal safety of members of the Pakistan Bonded Labour Liberation Front, with whom Iqbal Masih campaigned, and also to promptly and fully implement the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1992, bringing to an end the continuing and widespread conditions of child servitude and adult debt bondage against which Iqbal Masih had campaigned.]
The chairman of the Pakistan Bonded Labour Liberation Front is in the United Kingdom at the moment, but will be returning to Pakistan very shortly. There is real concern about the personal safety of leading members of that organisation after the murder of Iqbal Masih. Will the Leader of the House draw this issue to the attention of the Foreign Secretary as I believe that a statement from the Foreign Secretary expressing international concern would be of great value in ensuring the personal safety of members of that organisation?
Mr. Newton: I shall of course bring that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. However, I can say that we deplore the murder of Iqbal Masih and hope that the Pakistan authorities will bring to justice those responsible and fully implement the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1992.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice (Lewisham, East): As the Leader of the House has already denied the possibility of a debate on the comments of the Secretary of State for Social Security that wheelchair users may well be fraudsters, is he aware that the national press office of the Department of Social Security has confirmed today—
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have heard the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security referred to frequently in the House. I was at that lunch and he did not say what hon. Members are claiming he said.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. I am not responsible for what Ministers say. They are responsible for their own comments.
Mrs. Prentice: Is the Leader of the House aware that, despite the fact that he feels that the words of the Secretary of State for Social Security that some wheelchair users may well be fraudsters because of the invalidity benefit changes—
Mr. Shaw: He did not say that at all.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Prentice: Is the Leader of the House aware that the national press office of the Department of Social Security has confirmed today that wheelchair users will be subjected to a work test? Given that information, does he not now

445
agree with the Opposition that the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Government must at least make a statement? If not, will he offer an opportunity for a debate?
Mr. Newton: As I was not present at the lunch, I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) for making it absolutely clear that what is being said about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is, to use his word, a distortion. On the latter point, I make the point that many people in wheelchairs work, wish to work and are proud to work.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Has my right hon. Friend noted the rare absence from the Chamber of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the frequently repeated absence of all the Liberal Democrat Members? Will my right hon. Friend provide a debate next week on open spaces with a view to examining the policies and practices of the respective parties, notably the Labour party, which claims to favour the retention of open spaces? Ealing's Labour-controlled council is now set to sell off for development Ravenor farm, which has existed for hundreds of years, to the consternation of the people of Ealing and of Greenford in particular.
Mr. Newton: I note the twist in the tail of my hon. Friend's question, which was directed, as is so often the case with my hon. Friend, at those in Ealing and I hope that they will heed my hon. Friend. As for the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I assume that he was referring to what he might describe as an improvement in the environment with regard to the absence of certain people. The Environment Bill might provide an appropriate opportunity for my hon. Friend.
Mr. Derek Enright: The Leader of the House will be aware that the political adviser to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wrote to several Conservatives, business men as well as Members, asking them to join a Conservative working party on agriculture and agricultural policy for the next election. That is absolutely fine, except that he wrote on Ministry notepaper and arranged to use a Ministry room for the meeting. Will the Leader of the House therefore arrange for somebody to come to the House to make a statement next week on the propriety of the use of Ministry notepaper and Ministry rooms for party political purposes?
Mr. Newton: The right course is for me to bring that question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to an article in today's Financial Times, which reports that although the British people own fewer cars than our continental counterparts, we are forced into making greater use of them for personal and business reasons? That leads to greater congestion on our roads and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, to air pollution, which has reached unacceptable levels, especially during the past few days. Is it not important to make time for a debate on that subject, which affects not only the health of the nation but the business prospects, personal amenities and leisure of many of our citizens?
Mr. Newton: I have already referred to that matter and the likely opportunity for a debate in relation to the Environment Bill.
Mr. Toby Jessel: As for the debate on the national health service in London next week, can my right hon. Friend confirm that it will be in order to draw the House's attention to the excellent Teddington memorial hospital, which is the smallest national health service trust hospital in the whole country, has 49 general practitioner beds and is a tremendous success—
Hon. Members: He was not here.
Madam Speaker: Order. I am hearing complaints that the hon. Gentleman was not here for the statement. The hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber throughout the entire time and that is why I called him. In respect of what he is saying, he might seek to catch my eye next week because he seems to be making a statement. He knows very well that we have a debate next week. Is he asking for a second one?
Mr. Jessel: I lost track of what I was saying, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was extolling the virtues of his local hospital. I thought that he might wait until next week and catch my eye and do that in a five or seven-minute speech.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Leader of the House will recall that I have been pressing him to make a statement on the question of the precedence being given by the Select Committee on Members' Interests to a libel action in the courts over and above proceedings in Parliament. Will he be forthcoming and make a statement? This matter is important to Parliament. It is about the very integrity of our institution and many of my hon. Friends want to know what the position should be.
Mr. Newton: First, may I thank you, Madam Speaker, for answering the previous question on my behalf and, indeed, if I may say so, answering it so nicely.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that decisions about how Select Committees, including the Privileges Committee that I chair myself at the moment, conduct their inquiries, and any interrelationship with legal proceedings, are for those Committees. There would be considerable resentment if I were to stand here and make statements telling them how to go about their work.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House make time available—I notice that there may possibly be a suitable day the week after next—for a debate on foreign policy so that the relationship between the richer northern countries and the poorer southern countries can be examined and debated? The issue of world poverty should be addressed seriously. It cannot be right that we continue to extract wealth from the poorest countries through debt repayment and trade imbalance and pretend that it is nothing to do with us and that we do not need to do anything about it. Can he promise such a debate?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a debate, not least because there is already to be what is, in effect, a foreign affairs debate, although I accept that it is on a somewhat different, and more limited, issue from that which the hon. Gentleman raised. I will bear his request in mind. He might have acknowledged that this country has been among the leaders in the western world in easing the debt burden and debt repayment requirements.
Mr. Harry Cohen: I welcome next week's debate on the national health service in London, which has been initiated by the parliamentary Labour party, because it will give us the opportunity to point out that hospital waiting lists have gone up by 15 per cent. in the past nine months in my area of Redbridge and Waltham Forest and reached a record 180,000 in London as a whole. However, why are such debates always at the behest of the parliamentary Labour party, never in the Government's time? Is it because, in Baroness Thatcher's famous words, the Government are frit?
Mr. Newton: No doubt the hon. Gentleman is another who will be seeking to catch your eye next week, Madam Speaker; perhaps he will speak even more briefly than my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). However, the hon. Gentleman does not have a good argument. NHS legislation is currently before Parliament, so to suggest that the Government have not provided time to debate the health service is ridiculous.
Mr. John Denham: Will the Leader of the House endeavour to persuade the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the privatisation of British Rail Maintenance Ltd. in Eastleigh? I recently discovered that the deal nearly came unstuck because ABB had the right to claim 60 per cent. of the work allocated to BRML. As we are now told that the problem has been overcome, would not it be right for the House to be told whether ABB was paid off in cash,
448
whether some other favours were offered to ABB or, if neither of those was the case, how the Government have managed to pursue this privatisation against such obstacles?
Mr. Newton: I will bring that question to my right hon. Friend's attention, but I should have been more encouraged to do so had the hon. Gentleman not sought to work into it a number of allegations which I very much doubt have any justification whatsoever.
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: May we have a statement next week on the continuing problem of junior doctors' hours? The Leader of the House will be aware of recent high-profile cases, but may I point out that one of my constituents recently described to me how she sometimes works more than 100 hours a week at the Western general hospital in Edinburgh and regularly works beyond the 72-hour legal limit? As that is by no means exceptional in Edinburgh or elsewhere, is not it time that we had a statement on this most important matter?
Mr. Newton: The problem goes back a long way and again takes me back to a former incarnation. I shall bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, but I must point out that under her stewardship more significant progress has been made in tackling the problem of junior doctors' hours than for many years.

Point of Order
4.2 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is common ground among the parties that there is concern about the increasing use of delegated powers, statutory instruments and regulations while only enabling and paving clauses appear in the primary legislation.
The reason why I raise this rather general point is that yesterday, as you may remember, a report on the Jobseekers Bill was issued by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee in another place. It is a Bill in which I took considerable interest and on which I spoke for the Labour party. We argued consistently that the Bill was in effect a skeleton measure and that, as almost everything was left to regulations and statutory instruments, it was almost impossible to evaluate the Government's true intent and how the legislation would work.
The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee concluded that the Bill was possibly a skeleton Bill and that the House should consider it in that light. It was very critical of a number of clauses, especially clause 6 which, it suggested, made it impossible to scrutinise the Bill appropriately and evaluate its true intent. The Committee said that it was impossible to subject the exercise of legislative power to an appropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny. As a result, the Government were forced to recommit clause 6 to the Floor of the other place.
We understand that it is likely that there will now be a definition, for which we pressed repeatedly during the Bill's passage through the House but could not get, of the key terms "available for employment" and "actively seeking employment" on which benefit entitlement rests.
450
My concern, which is worth raising with you, Madam Speaker, and with the House, is that there is no equivalent in this place of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. We have the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, but it can examine the statutory instruments only when they appear and long after the primary legislation has progressed through Parliament. The result of that, of course, is that the Committee is confined simply to whether statutory instruments are intra vires of the original Act and whether they have been properly drawn.
I do not make a partisan point—perhaps another Government will suffer such criticism, because the situation is convenient for Government—but there is increasing worry in the House about the way in which statutory instruments, in effect, are replacing primary legislation. Therefore, because they are subject to only very brief debate and cannot be amended, the House's scrutiny role, which is one of its absolutely essential reasons for existence, is being eroded and undermined.
I wonder whether it would be sensible for us to look at the precedent that was set in another place and consider whether we should consider this cause for anxiety when primary legislation is brought forward.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has outlined a complex situation very succinctly. I have been very interested, as have hon. Members, in the way in which he has presented his case. What he seeks to do would require, as he knows, an amendment to Standing Order No. 124A. He may wish to make a case for such a change. It is not a matter for the Chair, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's interesting point. There are two ways in which he might tackle it: first, through the usual channels, or, secondly, taking it on his own account and tabling a motion.

Royal Air Force
[Relevant documents: The Seventh Report from the Defence Committee on Low Flying: Follow-up to the Fifth Report of Session 1989–90, HC 314 of Session 1993–94, and the Fifth Special Report, HC 686 of Session 1993–94, containing the Government's Reply thereto.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
4.6 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Roger Freeman): This debate is aptly timed. The forthcoming VE day commemorations remind us of the enormous debt that we owe the Royal Air Force. Victory in 1945 was achieved only after years of effort and sacrifice. The picture was very different in 1940: most of Europe had been overrun, and all of southern England was in range of the Luftwaffe operating from airfields around the channel coasts. Britain, battered and weakened after Dunkirk, stood alone. But a successful invasion hinged on control of the air, and we turned to the Royal Air Force for the defence of Britain.
We remember with pride the battle of Britain, the first true air battle in history, when our outnumbered Air Force drove the Luftwaffe from the skies and crippled the invasion fleets then massing in the channel ports. The RAF's victory in 1940 preserved the safety of these islands, to become the springboard of final victory.
But victory was still far off. In the next few years, only Bomber Command, at great sacrifice, could take the war to the heartlands of the enemy, while Coastal Command played a key role in turning the crucial battle of the Atlantic in our favour. That maritime achievement, and the support given to allied land forces by both tactical and, at times, strategic air forces, set the tone for the inter-service co-operation that has been a continuing and growing aspect of RAF operations ever since.
Mr. Bill Walker: I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene so early. Does he agree that many of the air crew who flew in those dangerous operations were ex-air cadets? Does my right hon. Friend recognise the massive contribution that air cadets have made to the nation since that time?
Mr. Freeman: That is a timely intervention, because schoolchildren today and anyone under the age of 55, which I dare say includes both Front-Bench spokesmen, will not have been old enough during the second world war to remember those great events.
I particularly appreciate my hon. Friend's support for air cadets and sea cadets. I have just returned from my constituency, where, at Southfield school for girls, 1,000 girls, including many air cadets and sea cadets, celebrated—perhaps it was a little early—VE day. It is very important that every schoolchild understands the importance of VE day. I hope that every school—including, I am glad to say, those in my constituency—will embrace the recruitment of uniformed cadets and reservists.
In the 50 years since victory in Europe, the RAF has continued to maintain its tradition of professionalism. It provided a major element of our strategic and conventional deterrent forces through the long years of the cold war, helping to preserve the security of western
452
Europe. It played a major part in operations in Malaysia, in the south Atlantic, in the Mediterranean and the middle east, and in other areas of the world.
Most recently, we all remember the magnificent contribution that the RAF made during the Gulf war, in which the air campaign was the key to success. As I speak, the RAF is fully engaged on a range of operations across the globe, about which my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will say more when he winds up.
For the RAF, the past few years have seen a scale of change not experienced since the end of the second world war. We have now entered a new strategic era—a world, to quote the White Paper published yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence,
"in which we are immeasurably safer, but in which we face increased uncertainty and rapid change".
In that new and unpredictable strategic environment, we need forces capable of reacting quickly and effectively to a range of contingencies. We need forces and equipment offering flexibility, mobility, combat power and utility across the full range of military tasks in all three defence roles, as spelled out in the White Paper. Those are the characteristics of air power.
The restructuring of the RAF front line following "Britain's Defence for the Nineties" has now been completed.
Lady Olga Maitland: While my right hon. Friend is talking about restructuring the armed forces, is he aware of the deep concern and alarm among our senior service chiefs about the Labour party's proposal to permit homosexuals in our services? Does he not agree that that would undermine our discipline, and that it is not a realistic proposal?
Mr. Freeman: If my hon. Friend will permit me, I shall deal with that point in greater detail later. In the meantime, perhaps she will bear with me if I stick to the theme on which I had embarked.
As I was saying, the restructuring of the Royal Air Force front line, following "Britain's Defence for the Nineties", has now been completed. Subsequent events, and the similar conclusions reached by our allies, show that our response to the end of the cold war was soundly based. Our main priority since "Options for Change" has been to ensure that the resources allocated to the RAF are concentrated on the front line. We have scrutinised all aspects of our cost and management structure to that end.
Much of that process was under way before the 1994 defence costs study. Plans were in hand to rationalise the RAF headquarters structure, leading to the establishment of the new logistics, personnel and training commands last year. Substantial restructuring of the flying and ground training organisations was also in hand, as was a rationalisation of the three equipment supply depots into a single facility at Stafford, saving £160 million over the next 10 years.
A major study—the RAF manpower structure study—was in progress to assess the effects on RAF manpower of new technology, improved working practices and the extension of civilianisation and market testing.
Mr. John Greenway: On the subject of training and restructuring, when does my right hon. Friend expect to announce his final plans to incorporate Army

453
fixed-wing training with Air Force and Royal Navy fixed-wing training at RAF Scampton under the tri-service proposal in the defence costs study?
Will my right hon. Friend also consider undertaking a further review of flying training, the university air squadrons, and the employment of Bulldog and its possible replacement by a more modern aircraft, such as Firefly, which JEFTS—the Joint Elementary Flying Training Squadron—uses?
Mr. Freeman: I shall answer the second question, which falls to me, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will answer the first later. However, I must point out that we have moved—or shall do shortly—to tri-service rotary-wing training, which I am sure the whole House will believe is sensible. My hon. Friend will answer the question about fixed-wing training.
As for the Bulldog and its possible replacement, I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has been vigorous in his support of a company in his constituency that makes the Firefly, an excellent aircraft. I confirm that we shall carefully examine the economics of replacing the Bulldog compared with those of other options, such as a mid-life update, with improvements to the Bulldog.
It is important that our university air squadrons receive the best possible equipment. The university air squadrons and the air cadets provide not only excellent and fertile recruitment grounds for the RAF, but serve a wider social purpose, and my colleagues in the Department would join me in emphasising the importance of those services.
The defence costs study, "Front Line First", built on this foundation. It aimed to preserve front-line capabilities and to reduce support costs without sacrificing effectiveness. Elementary and basic level flying training will now be conducted at RAF Cranwell and RAF Linton-on-Ouse respectively. Fast jet advanced flying training will be concentrated at RAF Valley. We have also decided to amalgamate single-service basic rotary-wing training into a tri-service defence helicopter flying school at RAF Shawbury. Following a period of consultation, we decided to close RAF Finningley and RAF Scampton.
We were also able to achieve substantial further savings in logistics support without sacrificing output or effectiveness. The completion this year of the new facility at RAF Wyton is a major step towards a more economical organisation designed to implement the new business practices needed to deliver lower support costs.
The RAF is at the forefront of advanced logistics techniques which compare well with the best practice in industry. The aim is to realise significant cost benefits while making the logistic chain more flexible. We are making a substantial investment in the RAF's logistics information technology strategy, which will help to provide the most cost-effective through-life support for all the RAF's equipment programmes. It will also support deployed operations worldwide. This ambitious strategy will be a pathfinder for similar initiatives in the other two services.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Minister has referred to market testing, and the importance that the Government are attaching to savings. Why are the 500 important RAF personnel involved in the maintenance of flight simulators not being allowed to make in-house bids
454
for the service? That is particularly important in my area, which contains RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss, and there are a substantial number of jobs at stake. Why are those skilled personnel not being allowed the facility of making an in-house bid?
Mr. Freeman: There are two reasons. The hon. Lady asks a perfectly sensible and serious question, which applies not just to simulation training. First, the RAF must reduce its uniformed manpower to meet the economies about which I have talked. Employing a service man or woman is more expensive than employing a civilian, and is less flexible. We must look at support activities such as training, but also at the logistics command, to see where non-core activities can be performed better by the private sector.
Secondly, in addition to the pressure on numbers, it is sometimes better to contractorise an entire operation, and it is for the benefit of the taxpayer, and, I believe, of the RAF, if that function can be performed more cheaply, and in some cases better, by the private sector. I appreciate that that presents problems in the short term for the RAF personnel who are performing the tasks, but they are in the RAF only for a certain period, and in some cases, they can be reassigned.
Mrs. Ewing: I understand the Minister's point, but why should those personnel be denied the right to make an in-house bid? Surely, with the rights of a democracy, and given the skills of the personnel, they should have the facility to make a tender themselves. Why are they being denied that facility?
Mr. Freeman: I had hoped that I had explained the rationale, which is that there are functions which need not, or should not, be performed by service men or women. There are many other examples where we welcome in-house bids and where the function can and should be performed in part or in whole by service men and women in the future. We have made strategic judgments that it would be better if certain functions were performed not by service men but by the private sector. The hon. Lady may disagree, and I am sure that she will contribute to the debate.
Mr. Peter Hardy: That matter will obviously loom large throughout the debate, but does the Minister accept that, if the Air Force is to continue to be a customer—perhaps increasingly a customer—of private operations, it needs to be an intelligent customer, and should therefore retain substantial skills to ensure that the taxpayer gets a good deal?
Mr. Freeman: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Where we might disagree is on whether simulation training falls within the activities that the services should perform. If he will bear with me, I will briefly cover RAF Sealand and RAF St. Athan, where it is the Government's judgment that the RAF should retain an element of being an intelligent customer, and should therefore stay in that business.
Returning to the first part of my remarks, given the new emphasis placed on flexibility and mobility, we judged it no longer necessary to maintain both our air stations in Germany, and plan to close RAF Laarbruch in 1999. Work continues to assess the most cost-effective, long-term basing arrangements for the Harriers and support helicopters, which will return to the United Kingdom.

455
"Front Line First" gave a substantial impetus to the Government's "Competing for Quality" initiative, to which the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) referred, which was designed to improve the quality of public services and gain better value for money by expanding competition.
The RAF manpower structure study confirmed that there was scope for the extension of that initiative in the support area, and our aim is to concentrate our scarce and expensive resources of highly trained military manpower on those operational and support tasks that need their skills and qualities. For other tasks, we will use the "Competing for Quality" programme to secure long-term value for money, substantial savings in cost, efficiency improvements and higher standards of service.
Our aim is to complete RAF support activities, which account for some £400 million per annum, by the end of the century under that programme. That is in addition to the £2 billion of running costs—leaving aside equipment procurement—that the RAF already spends in the private sector every year.
I said in the defence debate last October that we intended to press ahead with a vigorous market-testing programme, within the framework of Government ownership, for the major engineering establishments at RAF Sealand and RAF St. Athan. Since then, consultation with industry has confirmed our view that there are good prospects for achieving best value for money through competition and private sector involvement.
Subject to trade union consultation, we have now concluded that, at RAF Sealand, the way forward should be to allow the private sector to compete for the management of the facility as a whole. The continued involvement of service men and women is assumed, as is the case at St. Athan.
We intend to develop a formal statement of requirements broad enough to cover a range of management solutions at RAF Sealand, including those based on partnering arrangements between the public and private sector—that is to say, a private sector company joining the Air Force in the management and running of RAF Sealand. There will be an opportunity for an in-house bid for the management of the facility at RAF Sealand—as I said, service men and women will continue to work there—and our aim is to have the new structure in place by July next year.
The position at RAF St. Athan is more complex, given the diverse nature of the work and the substantial service presence. We have concluded that work at St. Athan on combat aircraft maintenance, which is closely related to the front line, should for now remain a direct service task. For the other work, which forms the majority of that done at the site, we propose to move as quickly as possible to competitions based on discrete packages of work, again allowing the opportunity for in-house bids. Subject to consultation with the trade unions, our intention now is to develop an agreed framework and time scale for moving ahead.
The combined effects of the rationalisation and restructuring measures that I have described will have a major effect on RAF service and civilian personnel. We have announced that a redundancy programme, involving some 8,600 service personnel, is needed for the RAF, of
456
which just over 1,000 were planned before the defence costs study. Volunteers have been sought for redundancy in 1995–96, and work is continuing on the composition of the second phase in 1996–97. The first phase—some 2,100 redundancies—will be volunteers, but we expect that there will have to be some compulsory redundancies—about 6,500—in the second phase in 1996–97.
Change on that scale, however necessary, is inevitably painful and disruptive for those concerned. My ministerial colleagues and I are only too well aware of the extent of turbulence and uncertainty, and the effect on the morale of the service men and women and civilians concerned, and of their families.
Mr. David Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that, although there are strong arguments in favour of the restructuring that the Government have set in train, it produces great uncertainty for many service men and women, including many of my constituents who serve at RAF Halton and RAF Strike Command, as they and their families do not yet know how the changes initiated nationally will affect them? Will he undertake to press on senior officers of the Royal Air Force the importance of making it clear as soon as possible to individual service men and women how they personally will be affected, so that some certainty is restored to them?
Mr. Freeman: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is extremely important that we identify which service men and women have been selected for redundancy, because, until that is done, there will be uncertainty. I understand how the uncertainty affects the whole of the Royal Air Force, not just those involved. But the sequence of the ending of the cold war, involving reductions in the front line, and then the defence costs study to try to economise on our support in the best way possible, producing good value for money but improving and, in some cases, enhancing our front line, must be the right way forward.
Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister confirm that there will be full negotiations with any service man or woman who is asked to accept redundancy under the current plans, and that the existing regulations will not be altered? For those who remain within the service, will he touch on the vexed issue of housing, given the considerable debate about the transfer of RAF housing to agency status?
Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces listened intently to the hon. Lady's question, and will respond when he winds up the debate, because her point refers not just to the Royal Air Force. The hon. Lady deserves a proper reply, and she will get one from my hon. Friend, if not verbally, then in writing.
While considering the morale of the armed forces, I should like to say something about the policy of discharging those members of the armed forces who admit to being homosexual or who engage in homosexual activity. Discharge is the policy recommended by our military advisers and fully supported by the Government.
The Ministry of Defence has long taken the view that homosexuality is not compatible with securing the aims of the armed forces, because it undermines the good order and discipline necessary for military effectiveness. This is not a moral judgment, but a practical assessment by those best placed to make it—the military—of the implications of homosexual orientation on military life. It is therefore

457
our policy administratively to discharge personnel who admit to being homosexual or who engage in homosexual activity.
We consider that homosexuals and homosexual activity should be excluded from the armed forces in that way because of the different, and unique, nature of service life. No parallel exists in civilian life. Service personnel are often required to live and work together in very close proximity to one another. They have little choice about living in communal single-sex accommodation, with the resultant lack of privacy. At times, they must work in difficult circumstances, under considerable stress, where operational requirements take precedence over personal privacy and comfort. In such circumstances, absolute trust and confidence between all ranks is essential.
Moreover, some 35 per cent. of new recruits to the armed services as a whole are aged under 18. The services have a responsibility for the welfare and morale of their young recruits, and in that sense, act in loco parentis. Parents, as well as the young people themselves, trust the services to look after and safeguard them properly. We should be failing in our duty if we did not do so.
The House will already have appreciated the fact that the shadow Secretary of State for Defence has said that the ban on homosexuals in the armed forces is an infringement of civil liberties. He was reported in the Daily Express of 29 April 1995 as saying:
"The policy is that homosexuality will not be a reason for dismissal from the Armed Forces. That will be our policy after the next election."
On 22 April, he was reported in The Daily Telegraph as saying that, within a month of the Labour party ever taking office,
"a working party would be set up to introduce new regulations to lift the current ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces."
He said:
"We will work out a way to hit the ground running."
I quite understand, from a moral standpoint, that people may adopt different approaches to homosexuality. I am not entering into any argument on the moral issues, because that would be inappropriate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have different views. Upon military advice, however, and with the full support of Her Majesty's Government, we do not believe that it is appropriate to retain homosexuals in the armed forces.
Dr. David Clark: I have listened carefully to what the Minister said and the tone in which he said it. He referred to reports in The Daily Telegraph. The Labour party's position was read out to journalists from that paper on four separate occasions, but they ignored it completely. I am therefore glad to have the opportunity to make our policy clear.
As the Minister knows, and as was read out to The Daily Telegraph, this is a problem currently before the courts—indeed, I believe that it is before the High Court within the next two weeks. This problem faces our armed forces as well as virtually all other armed forces in the western world. As The Daily Telegraph was told:
"Other countries have faced similar problems and have ultimately been able to arrive at a constructive solution, acceptable both to the Armed Forces and society as a whole.
A Labour Government will therefore establish a Commission"—
if the problem still exists—
"to study the experiences of other nations".
458
I want to emphasise that the commission will obviously include the chiefs of staff, as it must do. It will
"adopt the best practices towards evolving a solution for the British Armed Forces."
That was a moderate statement, and I was delighted to note that it was basically endorsed by the vice-chairman of the Conservative party on the BBC at 7 o'clock on Sunday.
Mr. Freeman: The deputy chairman of the Conservative party has written to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to explain that his contribution to the programme was misinterpreted. His view is not as it was reported.
I have made the Government's position crystal clear, so I hope that there is no room for misunderstanding it. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) must make the role of the commission clear to the House. He said that the chiefs of staff would serve on it, which sounds a little incredible to me. The hon. Gentleman has been quoted as saying that the purpose of the commission is to work out how to implement change rather than whether such a change should be made. Doubtless other Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen will shed more light on the subject. I have put—with clarity, I hope—the Government's position.
Mr. Harry Cohen: I applaud the statement from my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), which represents the right way to proceed.
The Minister has said that the Government's position is absolutely clear, and that they are not making any moral judgment, but the Government have obviously made such a judgment by saying that they do not want homosexuals in the armed forces. Other armed forces have got round the matter and include personnel of homosexual orientation, which has not caused any of the problems that the Minister has pretended would exist.
This year is the 50th anniversary of the end of the last war. The Minister should remember that then, the country was happy for many people of homosexual orientation to fight and to lay down their lives for it. Their orientation was not held against them by the country then, so why is the Minister adopting such a backward attitude now?
Mr. Freeman: I am not casting any aspersions upon the valour of the service men and women who may or may not have been homosexual in the second world war—the hon. Gentleman should not misinterpret my remarks. As the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has acknowledged, I am not making a moral judgment. I have simply said that, in today's circumstances and given the size and nature not only of the threat that faces our armed forces but of the way in which they discharge their duties—hon. Members should not forget that we have a Regular Army, Navy and Air Force—it is a military judgment that homosexuals should not be retained in our armed forces. The Government concur with that.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is not part of the problem the fact that our debate is largely being conducted by people who have had no military service? As a teenager, I served in a remote part of the middle east, living in a tent with several other adults. I was by far the youngest person there. The circumstances would have been totally unsuitable for any type of situation with a homosexual, especially on active service.
Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
If you will allow me to press on, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend give way on a further matter?
When the House considered that matter most recently, in 1990—I chaired the special Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill—it was the Committee's opinion that homosexuality was incompatible with proper military discipline, and that those who had a homosexual disposition that in any sense impinged on their military duties should be administratively discharged.
Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House by saying now that, were that matter to be taken to the European Court, and were the European Court to judge that the dismissal of homosexuals from the armed forces of the Crown was in breach of the European equal opportunities directive, Her Majesty's Government would take no notice, but would do what is right in the light of the interests of the country and the maintenance of good morale and discipline in our armed forces?
Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend poses a question that I find difficult to answer, partly because it is not a matter for me. I simply say, however, regarding the first part of his intervention, which is much appreciated, that, both in 1990 and, as I recall—I also served on that Committee, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces—five years before that, it was an all-party conclusion that the present policy, which I have outlined, was the correct one, and that homosexuals should be administratively discharged from the armed forces.
I shall now discuss equipment. Following "Front Line First", we announced some very significant early improvements to the RAF's operational capability, including the addition of 12 Harrier aircraft to the front line and substantial additional provision for front-line flying training, which, when it comes into full effect, will result in our front-line air crew being able to fly at rates among the highest in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
The successful outcome of "Front Line First" also underpinned our future investment plans. The scale of those plans for the RAF may not be generally understood. Our programme covers all capability areas, and is designed to replace certain equipment and to deal with the proliferation of sophisticated threat systems and advances in technology.
Eurofighter 2000 will be the key aircraft for the RAF in the first decade of the 21st century. With new short and medium-range air-to-air missiles, Eurofighter will offer a superb capability. The development phase of the programme is making steady progress. Flight testing is expected to resume later this month at British Aerospace Warton. The third prototype, the first to be equipped with the new EJ200 engines from Eurojet—the engine consortium in which Rolls-Royce plays a key role—should also undertake its first flight, in Italy, this month.
We and our partner nations of Germany, Italy and Spain hope to sign the EF2000 development reorientation memorandum of understanding shortly. That will enable us to place the revised main development contracts with industry, placing the project on a much tauter footing. We are also in discussion with our partners about the arrangements for the production investment, production and integrated logistic support phases. We also intend to enhance our capability—
Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of my constituents in Stafford on the way in which the issues of equipment spares, and all the things that RAF Stafford 16 Maintenance Unit does so well, have been handled? Will he say that that will continue, and that the extremely effective record of the Government in respect of 16 MU will continue into the future?
Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I join him in paying tribute to RAF Stafford. Of course Stafford will play its part in supporting future aircraft equipment programmes, including the EF2000.
Sir Jerry Wiggin: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of the Eurofighter, will he give the House an assurance that, in taking the final decisions about the future of that programme, he will use financial yardsticks that are as rigid and careful as those that were applied to the purchase of the EH101 multi-purpose helicopter?
Mr. Freeman: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am grateful for his support for the continued existence of the helicopter design and manufacturing capability in the United Kingdom, which is extremely important.
We also intend to enhance our capability for deep low-level attack by day and night and in all weathers. As part of "Front Line First", we announced a substantial package of improvements to 142 Tornado GR1 aircraft, sufficient to sustain eight front-line squadrons well into the next century. The order, which has been placed with British Aerospace, is worth some £700 million.
We need to provide modern weapon systems for our advanced combat aircraft. Advanced precision weapons were used to great effect in the Gulf war. Again as part of "Front Line First", we signed a contract for Paveway III bombs and laser designators which, with associated work, totalled about £300 million.
Since "Front Line First", we have issued invitations to tender for two more key weapon systems. The conventionally armed stand-off missile will allow long-range precision targeting of strategic, tactical and infrastructure assets. The air-launched anti-armour weapon will be capable of attacking future main battle tanks and a range of other armoured vehicles and air defence systems. The competitions currently under way are a vital part of our procurement strategy for those new weapons, which are due to enter service early in the next century.
The time scales needed to develop and produce complex weapon systems are such that we must also give thought now to aircraft that will come into service well into the future. Tornado GR4 aircraft will need to be replaced in the second decade of the next century. The requirement for a future offensive aircraft could be addressed in a number of ways; a European collaborative venture is one possibility.
Preliminary studies to define the relevant technologies are in hand on a co-operative basis with France, and a memorandum of understanding is being drawn up that will allow the work to be carried forward. We need to minimise the risk inherent in such major new development projects, and we fully recognise the benefits of demonstrating, at an early stage, the key advanced technologies involved to ensure that subsequent procurement decisions are soundly based.

461
Following the signature of a statement of intent before Easter, we are also negotiating with the United States a memorandum of understanding for participation in its joint advanced strike technology programme. The US programme aims to provide a family of closely related and affordable combat aircraft for the US services. Our prime interest is in the advanced short take-off vertical landing variant, which could provide a replacement for the Royal Navy's Sea Harrier aircraft in the next century. We are also exploring whether one of the variants from the JAST programme could satisfy the requirements of the RAF for a Tornado GR4 replacement.
The E3D airborne early warning aircraft has justified its central place in the future force structure in a range of recent operations. At sea, our Nimrod aircraft continue to carry out essential maritime patrol tasks. I was pleased to announce earlier in the year that we had invited four potential prime contractors to bid for an aircraft to replace the Nimrod early in the next century. We expect a contract to be let in late summer 1996.
Air transport is an integral component of air power in the new strategic environment. It is essential for rapid power projection, and for a range of peace support and humanitarian missions. We announced last December that we would purchase 25 Hercules C130J aircraft to satisfy the immediate operational needs of the RAF, and that we would rejoin the future large aircraft programme at the end of the feasibility phase, subject to a number of conditions being met. We hope to do that by the end of the current calendar year.
The contract for the C130J aircraft was placed with Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company on 3 March. There is a significant UK industrial interest in the programme: some 35 British companies have competed successfully to supply equipment to Lockheed. Their achievements will provide the UK economy with business opportunities estimated at around £1 billion. Following the announcement, we are actively seeking to establish a satisfactory basis for rejoining the FLA programme. Work to date underlines our strong resolve to help to establish a viable programme, based on commercial management, under the umbrella of the Airbus consortium and a competitively priced aircraft.
As the House is aware—and as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) has just pointed out—there has been a long-standing requirement for additional support helicopters. We announced in March that we would purchase 22 utility EH101 and eight Chinook helicopters, together with an additional six Chinooks to maintain the current fleet, taking into account attrition losses. That decision, which was widely welcomed, will lead to a substantial increase—some 70 per cent.—in support helicopter capability, as well as employment and industrial benefits.
The White Paper refers to a number of other improvements made possible by stability in the provision of resources for defence, and the continuing efforts by budget holders to extract the greatest output from the resources allocated to them.
Let me end by referring to the defence industrial base. The size and extent of the investment programme that I have outlined indicates the central role that industry will continue to play in delivering the front line of the future for the RAF as well as for the other two services. Defence
462
expenditure in the UK, by the MOD and by overseas customers, sustained over 400,000 jobs in the industry in 1992–93, the last year for which estimates are available.
UK companies are responsible for some 90 per cent. of UK defence equipment spending. The UK draws great benefit from an efficient and technologically capable defence industrial base which contributes significantly to the UK's export order book, winning new business worth some £5 billion a year. It also provides significant spin-off into the civil sector, and skilled training for many of the country's craftsmen.
In recent years, my Department has pursued a policy of competitive procurement, with the aim of providing the right equipment at the right price and the right time to ensure that our forces are properly equipped, supported and trained, while making the best use of taxpayers' money. As a result, there has been a dramatic improvement in the efficiency of the UK's defence industrial base. Industry has shown on numerous occasions that it can compete in the world's defence markets, and win against tough competition.
The current restructuring of the defence industry in Europe and the US is likely to continue as a result of declining defence budgets, the increasing costs of high technology development and global competition. In common with its counterparts elsewhere, the UK defence industry must continue to evolve in response to those developments.
How industry is structured, and what it sells, must principally be determined by companies operating within the market, and not by Governments; but it is clear that there is a growing commercial necessity for more collaboration, both with other European countries and with the US. I am pleased to see that many UK companies are entering into joint ventures and co-operative arrangements. There is no doubt that those cross-border alliances will be a vital component in meeting our future defence equipment needs.
I recognise that Government cannot stand aside from these developments. We already do all we can to assist industry by discussing our future equipment plans as openly as possible. There are long-standing channels of communication such as the National Defence Industries Council, frequent meetings with trade associations and the publication of the "Defence Contracts Bulletin". We shall seek to sustain and develop those channels to make them more effective. We want a genuine partnership between the Ministry of Defence and British industry.
More fundamentally, we must recognise industry's concerns to maintain the UK's position in a declining world defence market. We share an interest in ensuring that we retain healthy and forward-looking defence industries, capable of competing with the best in the world and contributing as equal partners in major international collaborative projects, not least in Europe. A strong national industrial capability in the defence sector will help to ensure that we can provide our armed forces with the equipment that they will need in the longer term.
The Ministry of Defence is therefore looking at its own procurement practices and planning assumptions to ensure that such factors, including the advantages and disadvantages of off-the-shelf procurement or collaborative or national development of equipment, are fully taken into account, while always maintaining the principle of value for money. As part of that exercise, my officials will wish to take into account the views of

463
industry and, of course, of the Defence and Trade and Industry Select Committees in their current work. I shall be giving evidence to the combined Select Committees later this month.
From this Government, the RAF will have the full range of equipment it needs to sustain the proud traditions built up in the course of its first 77 years. It will be more flexible, mobile and able to apply air power in complex and sophisticated ways beyond the dreams of its founding fathers. Above all, it will retain the commitment to excellence—in operations, training, technology and management—that has sustained its past achievements.
We recognise that the key to all this will be our ability to continue to attract and retain the high-quality people needed to deliver such a challenging agenda. The next couple of years will be difficult and demanding, but I am confident that the RAF will surmount the challenge, as it has done so often in the past.
For their part, the Government are committed—as yesterday's White Paper makes clear—to injecting a period of stability after the prolonged and difficult, but inevitable and essential, process of change following the end of the cold war.
In The Guardian of 3 May, the shadow Foreign Secretary promised that the Labour party would
"build on its new statement of aims and values … to increase the momentum on policy-making with a string of statements before the end of the year".
I turned the page to read precisely what that meant for defence.
Mr. Martin Redmond: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Freeman: Perhaps the House would like to hear about the Labour party's policy first. As to defence, The Guardian stated:
"No policy paper is underway, although Shadow Secretary David Clark has promised a full defence review within six months of coming into office."
Mr. Redmond: I thank the Minister for giving way. I draw his attention to a Conservative Lord Chancellor's remarks to me when I wrote to him quoting from a newspaper. He said, "Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers, as it sometimes rots the mind." I advise the Minister not to do any long-term newspaper reading.
Mr. Freeman: I find it hard to discover, either from the newspapers or from past statements by Opposition Front-Bench spokespersons, precisely what Labour party policy is. The Times of 2 March stated:
"David Clark, the Shadow Defence Secretary, said the review"
to which I have just referred
"would remove the uncertainty from the Armed Forces".
The Labour party does not have a defence policy, other than the one regarding homosexuality in the armed forces to which I referred earlier. The hon. Member for South Shields has made his party's position clear in that regard, but he has referred to no other policies except the review. The review would cause instability and uncertainty, and it would damage the morale of the armed forces.
Dr. David Clark: On that very narrow point, it is worth while informing the Minister—I know that he is a very
464
reasonable man—that the Labour party has established a policy commission to examine foreign affairs and defence issues. It has held meetings, and has received papers from many experts. We are evolving a policy that we will present to the British public at the next election. I am certain that it will be endorsed, and that there will be a Labour Government.
Mr. Freeman: The whole House has heard the hon. Gentleman's message that work is in hand. I think that our reply is, "Hurrah!" We look forward to hearing about the Labour party's policies, but we will not know this afternoon precisely what they are. I have spelt out the Government's policies concerning the Royal Air Force, and I hope that the House will endorse them.
4.51 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: I feel sure that Opposition Members would wish to be associated with the remarks of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement about the dedication, professionalism and sacrifice of past generations in the Royal Air Force, as well as of our present serving personnel. That does not apply only to the RAF; it applies throughout our armed forces. We are well served by the people who choose to defend this country.
In the run-up to the VE day celebrations, we are delighted that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the grandson of our second world war Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, will wind up the debate today from the Conservative Front Bench. I am sure that Sir Winston, who had a great sense of history, would have been extremely proud that the Minister should be replying to the debate on behalf of the Government. However, I am certain that both Churchill and the Minister would agree that victory in Europe 50 years ago was not the achievement of only one man; it resulted from the collective leadership of the wartime coalition Government, the courage and the immense sacrifice on the part of our armed forces and the fact that the people of this country had a single-minded determination to defend freedom and democracy.
It was with the 50th anniversary of VE day in mind that I recently visited the RAF museum at Hendon. I recommend a visit to that museum to any hon. Member who has not already visited it. It is a credit to the RAF and to the museum curator and the staff. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement said that very few present Front-Bench Members were alive during the war or immediately after it. As a schoolboy, I remember the legends and the stories about the famous wartime aircraft. I recalled those stories when I visited the museum and saw the Hurricanes and Spitfires and the Halifax, Wellington and Lancaster bombers.
The visit brought home to me the immensity of the industrial war machine that we developed to defeat the Nazis. We needed not only quality but quantity of aircraft, and we managed to provide it. Although we no longer supply that quantity of aircraft in this country, there is no doubt that we still build some of the finest military aircraft in the world. We should all be very proud of that fact.
The museum collection also contains portraits of the RAF leaders during the war—Air Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding and the Marshal of the Air Force, Sir Arthur Harris. In recent years, it has become popular to denigrate their achievements. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but

465
the reality is that we were in the middle of a major war, we had suffered terrible bombing by the Germans and I think that those RAF leaders took the right decisions for that time. I wish that people would look at the issues from that perspective instead of constantly criticising the leaders' achievements.
The one statistic we should never forget is that more than 70,000 air crew were listed as either killed or missing during the five and a half years of world war two. More than 50 per cent. of that number were from Bomber Command. They made that sacrifice to protect freedom and democracy—something that we should never take for granted.
The RAF still protects freedom and democracy. In the former Yugoslavia, the Jaguars and Tornados are helping to police the no-fly zone. Every day, Hercules air crews risk their lives delivering medical supplies and food to the beleaguered people of the besieged city of Sarajevo. We do not perform those duties only in Bosnia. The RAF served with distinction during the Gulf war and RAF forces are still stationed in that area today. Harriers operating from Turkey police Iraqi Kurdistan. Under the United Nations mandate, Tornado bombers fly out of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to protect the marsh Arabs in the southern Iraqi marshlands. If it were not for their presence, the genocidal regime of Saddam Hussein would reap a terrible harvest among that civilian population. The people of those areas believe in the RAF.
Without the help of the RAF, the security forces in Northern Ireland would not have been able to cope during the 25 years of the troubles. I recently had the pleasure—if that is the word—of being flown from Derry to Belfast airport by the RAF during a force eight gale. The crew members were very good, and I was very frightened and glad to get off the plane. Their professionalism shone through. I think that there is a feeling in some circles—it is referred to in the defence estimates report—that the troubles are over. Following yesterday's incident in Northern Ireland, we must not take too much for granted. We must be very careful when it comes to cutting the size of our forces on that basis.
The people of Britain are very grateful for the search and rescue role performed by the RAF using the Sea King helicopters. At this point, I must express some concern about the search and rescue review that took place in 1992. That review left this country with what I can only describe as a minimal service.
The decision to rationalise was based on the fact that the Sea King had replaced the Wessex. In my opinion, that cost-cutting exercise could cost lives in future. That was realised by the Select Committee on Transport, which recommended that RAF Manston and RAF Brawdy in Wales should remain open. The Government ignored that advice.
The reallocation of search and rescue has been criticised by many local communities as response times have increased because of the changes. The change of cover implemented in the North sea, the Dover straits and St. George's channel no longer meets the criteria set out by the helicopter coverage group. Although those areas are not large, they are intensively used, especially by ferries to the continent. If we are not careful, there will be a major disaster and we will not have adequate helicopter coverage to respond in sufficient time, resulting in the loss of lives.
466
There is no doubt that the replacement of the Wessex by the Sea King was welcome, but no matter how modern and speedy a helicopter is, it cannot be in two places at once. The number of helicopters has been reduced, when there is an increased demand on the search and rescue service from mountain rescue teams who, for health and safety reasons, increasingly call on that service.
In my constituency, where there are no mountains but there are fells, the mountain rescue service regularly uses helicopters to get injured people to hospital quickly and to safeguard members of the mountain rescue team who have to descend through difficult terrain.
I am sorry that the Government have left the search and rescue service severely overstretched. I call on them to take action to redress the position immediately before there is unnecessary loss of life.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Can the hon. Gentleman report any incident this year when a helicopter has been requested by the mountain rescue service and not provided, except in very bad weather conditions?
Mr. Martlew: I understand that there was an incident in the channel and a Belgian helicopter got there first.
Mr. Gallie: I was asking about mountain rescue.
Mr. Martlew: The hon. Gentleman is playing with words; he hears only what he wants to hear. There is no doubt that response times have deteriorated and there is increased concern. I am putting it on record before there is a disaster, as the Government need to be warned.
Mr. Bill Walker: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The search and rescue capability that used to be at RAF Leuchars in my constituency is sadly missed. There have been incidents when people were unable to get a helicopter when one was required and that is rather sad.
Mr. Martlew: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. If we keep closing RAF base after RAF base, the Government will need to consider whether alternatives should be used. The RAF would not like that because it considers it to be valuable training, but we have to make sure that lives are not lost.
Mrs. Ewing: We all agree that search and rescue services are an important part of the work of the RAF. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no need to accept arguments that are often propounded by other hon. Members that the capability represents a cost to the taxpayer, because all the RAF stations involved in mountain search and rescue services regard it as part and parcel of their general training, therefore it is a commitment rather than a cost to the taxpayer?
Mr. Martlew: I understand that there is a cost to the taxpayer, but it is one worth paying. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) suggested that local authorities should pay towards it. That is not the case. If there are any grounds whatsoever for that argument, perhaps the money should come out of the Department of Transport budget. I see that the Secretary of State agrees.
I am concerned about overstretching of the search and rescue capability and generally in the RAF. We now have 50 aircraft flying on behalf of the United Nations in Iraq and Bosnia.
Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating that we should spend more rather than less on the RAF. How does he square that with six consecutive Labour party conference motions suggesting that we should cut our defence spending by £6 billion?
Mr. Martlew: I find that difficult to accept from the hon. Lady, whose party has cut defence by 30 per cent. in recent years. According to the defence estimates, the Government plan to make cuts of £1.5 billion in future, so that they can give back the tax before the next general election. I do not accept that argument from the hon. Lady.
Mr. Freeman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to mislead the House on this point, but from 1 April this financial year and for the next three years, our defence expenditure is stable.
Mr. Martlew: The Minister should read the defence estimates.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I wrote them.
Mr. Martlew: The Secretary of State may have written them, but he obviously was not reading what he had written. On page 136 there is a commitment to cut £1.5 billion. If that is not the case, why did he announce that there would have to be compulsory redundancies in the armed forces in future? It is because the Government are cutting defence. It is wrong for the Government to attempt to mislead the House. I hope that we shall debate the defence estimates before the recess, rather than afterwards, in order to discuss the matter more fully.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has already expressed concern about overstretch, which puts great pressure on the aircraft, pilots and support teams. Current operations are placing particular strain on certain sectors. I understand that the Hercules fleet is facing real problems. We have NATO bases in Turkey and Italy, but the Hercules fleet has to carry out more than regular flights to service those bases. When the Select Committee was considering the matter, it stated that defence policy was being decided
"by the availability of scarce resources rather than the dictates of national interest or international obligations."
The only possible conclusion is that the Government have cut the RAF too far.
I am not totally negative about the Government, as I am a very fair man.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): In the forthcoming Labour defence review, should it ever happen, will the hon. Gentleman clarify for the House what changes he would be likely to make to the RAF and whether he thinks it would get bigger or smaller?
Mr. Martlew: I remember the Minister saying that he considered his time in the Army as a career break between Eton and the Cabinet. If he carries on asking such questions, it could be a very long career break. The defence review will tell us the answer.
I shall not be totally negative about the Government's downsizing of the RAF. We congratulate the decision of the Secretary of State to remove unilaterally the nuclear deterrent role of the RAF. That role began in the 1950s and continued through Labour Governments, but the
468
Secretary of State had the courage to decide to remove it. I only wish that he had the courage to take credit for it. Time and again he comes to the Dispatch Box foaming at the mouth with artificial indignation about Labour Members who are long-lapsed members of CND, when he has done more to reduce the number of nuclear weapons than anybody else in British history.
The Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box frothing and foaming on the day he announced the cancellation of the tactical air-to-surface missile—TASM—the RAF nuclear missile. The same thing happened when he announced that the United Kingdom would have 21 per cent. fewer nuclear warheads than in the 1970s. Then it was announced that the Government would withdraw the RAF's nuclear bomb, the WE177. I understand that it is to be withdrawn by 1998, when originally it was intended that it would be in service until the next century. Earlier in the week, the Secretary of State fumed, huffed and puffed at the Dispatch Box about the CND. That was followed by a statement which, on analysis, suggested that we shall have fewer nuclear warheads on Trident than ever before. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has reduced the number of nuclear warheads by 21 per cent. and reduced their explosive power by 59 per cent. Those are the comparisons to be drawn with the levels of the 1970s when we had a Labour Government.
Mr. Rifkind: As I have not been the Secretary of State for Defence since the early 1970s, I can hardly claim credit for comparisons with the 1970s. The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that there has been a reduction in the number of warheads and the explosive yield of our nuclear force, comparing today with the early 1970s and the coming into effect of the non-proliferation treaty. As the hon. Gentleman has been so kind as to be complimentary about the reductions in nuclear weapons for which I have been responsible, will he accept, given that background, that the Labour party's current proposal to insist that Trident should carry only the same number of warheads as was carried by Polaris is based on a clear and fundamental misunderstanding of the respective systems? It is a simplistic approach and the outcome would be very much against the UK's interests. The policy is not compatible with our requirement to ensure the same deterrent effect with Trident as with Polaris.
Mr. Martlew: I would give more credence to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's views if he had not responded as he did to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) when he asked him to scrap TASM. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave a similar answer on that occasion. We think of him as carrying on his good work. Perhaps in future he will be known as Malcolm the Disarmer.
Mr. Rifkind: I much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's generosity in giving way. Perhaps he will be good enough to consult the record on my views about TASM since first being asked about it. He might recall that I said that the matter was under review, and that was exactly the position. We concluded that, because we could achieve the same sub-strategic deterrent with the use of Trident at virtually no additional cost to the defence budget, the TASM approach was infinitely preferable to financing at well over £1 billion a new sub-strategic system to be carried by the Royal Air Force. As we could maintain the same sub-strategic capability with a much smaller burden on the defence budget, it made sense to go in that direction.
Mr. Martlew: I am not criticising the Secretary of State. If, however, he had taken the Opposition's advice on TASM two years earlier, development costs could have been saved.
I must praise the Secretary of State for all that he has done in the context of nuclear weapons. I understand that his honorary membership of the CND is in the post.
The Labour party has always taken the view that we should provide our armed forces with the best available equipment. At the same time, we need to ensure value for money. Wherever possible the equipment should be produced entirely or partly within the United Kingdom. When that is impossible, the maximum offset should be obtained. Against that background, it is no surprise that since the mid-1980s the Labour party has been a supporter of the purchase of the Westland helicopter known as the EH101.
To that extent, the Opposition welcome the Ministry of Defence's decision in March to purchase 22 of those helicopters. We remain critical, however, that there was an eight-year delay in the placement of the order. There is no doubt that that delay lost us valuable export orders. I think especially of the Dutch contract for the Dutch forces. It might be that our Minister with procurement responsibilities had a word in the ear of his Dutch counterpart and thereafter the Dutch bought the French equivalent. There is no doubt that Westland is important if we are to retain a helicopter industry in the United Kingdom and that the industry must be kept at Yeovil.
The Minister has talked about the Hercules replacement. The Labour party was of the opinion that the future large aircraft project should be given an opportunity to enter the market. It therefore welcomes the decision that was announced in January by the Government that they will rejoin the FLA project after the completion of the feasibility studies. That means in reality, however, that the Government are admitting that they were wrong to pull out in the first instance.
These criticisms are nothing compared with our condemnation of the Government's handling of the Eurofighter 2000 and the Tornado mid-life update contracts. The Labour party has supported the Eurofighter project since its inception, and it will continue to do so. Unfortunately, there has been a sorry tale of delay and overspend. The EF is now two years behind schedule and remains dogged by difficulties. In February, it was estimated that the total cost of the aircraft would be £14.9 billion. In real terms, the cost of development has increased by a projected £2.2 billion. If the cost of the aircraft increases when it is in production, overall costs will be even higher. We could buy many district general hospitals for £2.2 billion. With that amount, the RAF hospital could be kept open for about 1,000 years, or longer. I am much involved with the west coast main railway line. We could upgrade that line from Carlisle to Glasgow and back again—not that there would be any need to go back—for £2.2 billion. There has been a waste of £2.2 billion because the Government cannot control costs.
Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the RAF had been cut too much and that more money needed to be spent on it. Anyone reading a report of what he has just said would have the impression that a future Labour Government, if one were ever to exist, would not pursue the Eurofighter 2000 purchase.
Mr. Martlew: I am sorry if I did not explain myself sufficiently clearly. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening attentively.
Spending on the RAF would not have needed to be cut if there had not been excess expenditure of £2.2 billion. As I have said, the Labour party has supported the Eurofighter since its inception. It does not, however, support the extravagance that is now to be seen.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Martlew: I am sorry, no. I have already given way to the hon. Lady.
The Eurofighter is two years behind schedule and it is already £2.2 billion over budget, and that figure is likely to increase. At least the aircraft flew in April 1994, which we welcomed. This is a key year for the Eurofighter because the development phase is largely completed and the four nations involved in the consortium must now sign an production agreement.
The aircraft has come under particular criticism by the Germans. There have been problems between the contractors and the German Government. I hope that they have been resolved. As I have said, we are coming to the point when the contract must be signed for the production run.
It was argued initially that the industries involved would obtain work on a percentage of the aeroplanes built. The Germans decided originally that they wanted 250. They have now decided that they want only 140. The Italians have reduced their take of new aeroplanes from 165 to 120, and the Spanish from 100 to 87. Meanwhile, we have maintained our commitment—I do not object to this—to 250. Those figures should allow British industry to undertake 40 per cent. of the production work on the Eurofighter. I am sure that nobody would disagree with that.
I read in the Financial Times last month, however, that the Government of Germany were threatening to pull out of the scheme if they did not get 33 per cent. of the production work. I hope that in his winding-up speech the Minister will say that the British Government will stick with the original agreement. If the German Government want more work, they must order more aeroplanes. We should stick with the 40 per cent. for which we originally signed. I do not think that Ministers can take any credit for such a fiasco, although I accept that neither the Minister of State for Defence Procurement nor the Minister of State for the Armed Forces were in post when most of the money was wasted.
The Tornado mid-life update is yet another example of the Government's failure to extract value for money or, indeed, get projects delivered on time. The National Audit Office subjected the project to severe criticism and pointed out that the original in-service date for the aircraft was 1993 and that the estimated cost was £540 million. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement said that it was a great project costing £700 million. It should not have cost that. It should have cost only £540 million. Indeed, many of us suspect that there will be at least a £270 million overspend on the project and that it will be five years late. It is another example of how the Government have wasted money in the MOD. No wonder the Ministry of Defence is known throughout the Government and the country as the Ministry of waste.

471
As I said, present Ministers cannot take all the credit. The former Minister of State for Defence Procurement, the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), has been promoted to the Cabinet as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The man responsible for the highest overspend in any project is now second in command at the Treasury. It beggars belief.
I accept that the Royal Air Force had to reorganise after the cold war—perhaps the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam does not, but most of us accept that there had to be some change. The reorganisation under "Options for Change" reduced the strength of the RAF from 90,000 personnel—what it should have been—to 75,000 by this year. It meant that we lost 14 squadrons and our front-line jet combat strength was reduced by a third. Overall, the number of air bases in the United Kingdom and Germany was reduced by 23. Then, in July 1993, the Government panicked. They needed to save £750 million and they therefore cut another Tornado squadron. The defence costs study means that by the end of the decade, RAF personnel numbers will have dropped from about 90,000 to about 50,000—nearly a cut of 50 per cent.
Lady Olga Maitland: I thank the hon. Gentleman for finally giving way. Perhaps it is even more appropriate for him to give way now than it was earlier. We are hearing of the concern about so-called cuts; what I would call value for money. Will he explain a little how he equates his concern about the size of our armed forces with a statement made by his hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) to the Royal United Services Institute? I have a copy of the hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he said that he welcomed an opportunity to reduce defence spending. How does that equate with the hon. Gentleman's concern about the size of our armed forces?
Mr. Martlew: I do not think that my hon. Friend quoted a figure of 30 per cent., as has the Minister, who welcomed the opportunity. When I asked the hon. Lady in a recent debate whether she would increase spending in the armed forces, she said that she would only if there were growth in the economy. Despite that answer and the growth in the economy, she is going to vote for the defence estimates and for the slashing of the defence budget by £1.5 billion. Her arguments are not credible at all.
Numbers in the RAF have been cut by almost a half. Such decline is not easy to manage, and we accept that, but the crass way in which in the Government have done it is beyond belief. The repercussions of the decision to issue compulsory redundancy notices to service personnel who were on active service went way beyond the individuals concerned. Whenever I go to a base or an Army camp, I am reminded that the Government sent redundancy notices to people on active service in Northern Ireland and Bosnia.
The other drastic blow to morale, especially of the RAF, came when the Secretary of State—I am sorry that he is not in his place—demanded, in essence, the resignation of Sir Sandy Wilson, the second most senior officer in the Royal Air Force. That demand followed allegations of unauthorised spending on official residences. We in Parliament cannot tell whether that action was justified. A report was produced by KPMG Peat Marwick—it cost us £100,000 and we were only
472
investigating an overspend of £380,000—but the Government censored it; they would not make it public to Members of Parliament or anyone else. No official announcement was made.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) accused the Secretary of State of fleeing the capital on the day that the news came out. Not only did the Secretary of State flee the capital that day but the following week he fled the country and went to Poland. It was a disgrace that the character of one of our finest officers was besmirched in such a way without the Secretary of State coming to the Dispatch Box to explain why.
Mr. Hardy: Does my hon. Friend agree that the record was put a little straight, because, a few days after the Secretary of State had expressed no confidence in Air Chief Marshal Sir Sandy Wilson, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, in reply to a debate secured by his hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), paid a deserved and full tribute to Sir Sandy? The record needs to be further clarified, so I hope that my hon. Friend's questions will be answered in full.
Mr. Martlew: I attended that debate and I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a pity that the MOD seemed to keep on leaking to the press the information that the Secretary of State had no confidence in Sir Sandy—
Mr. Soames rose—
Mr. Martlew: In a minute.
Mr. Soames: On that point.
Mr. Martlew: I wish to finish this point.
Mr. Soames: We had a very serious—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) is not giving way. The Minister should wait until the hon. Member gives way.
Mr. Martlew: I am sorry for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the Minister replies to that point—he will have the chance to reply at the end of the debate—will he tell us who was the major budget holder for that official residence? Was it Sir Sandy? We understand that it was not. I do not wish to go into the matter any further because I understand that hon. Members of all parties will be touching on the issue.
There has been rapid change in the RAF. Morale is low, yet rapid change is to continue. The Minister announced that there will be compulsory redundancies, and we know that that will also affect morale. I must touch on one report, "Managing People in Tomorrow's Armed Forces", which was published in March, following discussions chaired by Mr. Michael Bett. The Bett report contained many good things. I used to be interested in personnel, so I read the report thoroughly and it contains ideas which would improve the efficiency and morale of the forces. However, one item is generating tremendous opposition, if not disbelief, in the forces—the proposal to introduce performance-related pay. That proposal is nonsense. It cuts across the ethos of our armed forces of teamwork, comradeship and sacrifice. That ethos has served our armed forces, and therefore our country, well over the centuries.

473
How can we measure performance when it is a matter of life and death? Will our pilots be braver or better in combat if they think that they are going to receive a bonus? Do the Government really believe that, in this country at the present time, the love of money is greater than the love of country?
The chief constable of Hampshire recently highlighted the point, and his comments could apply to any of the uniformed forces, when he said:
"I joined the force out of a sense of public service … recognising the financial disadvantage. Had I wanted the principles of the market-place, I would not have made that decision … The notion that I will work harder or more effectively because of performance related pay is absurd and objectionable, if not insulting."
My advice to the Minister is to cherry-pick the Bett report. I am aware that the chairman of the report said that it should not be cherry-picked, but that was arrogance on his behalf. I would leave the particular cherry of performance-related pay to rot on the tree. Please do not try to run our armed forces like Barings bank.
The Labour party is committed to the strong defence of the nation. Where this Government pursue a policy on strong defence, the Labour party will support them. However, when we do not support them, we will be constructively critical, as we have been today. I am sure that Conservatives will take the same line when there is a Labour Government in the not-too-distant future.
We do not wish to play politics with the defence of this nation or with our armed forces. It is in that spirit that we remember the sacrifices that were made 50 years ago. People in England and Wales today are taking the opportunity to vote. That option would have been denied them if we had lost the war and had lost to fascism. I hope that those who are eligible to vote will do so. Even those who do not take that opportunity have it because of the sacrifices made 50 years ago.
5.32 pm
Sir John Cope: I want to make two points about the RAF—a large point and a small point.
First, it is appropriate to support the tribute paid by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to the RAF for its service during the second world war. My right hon. Friend said that 55 was an important age in that respect. I happen to be rather above that age. I was about eight when the war ended so I have no first-hand reminiscences of horror or fighting, but I remember sleeping in a shelter and the fact that the string on one's gas mask pulled into one's shoulder on the way to school. I recall the occasional thrill of seeing aircraft passing overhead with the three yellow bands which were on them at the time.
My right hon. Friend the Minister was right to pay a great tribute to the RAF for its part in the second world war and in a series of actions since. I was particularly pleased that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) mentioned Northern Ireland, of which I have particular experience and where the RAF has been extremely valuable.
I strongly support the remarks that my right hon. Friend the Minister made at the end of his speech about the defence industrial base. He made a welcome statement and some very good points that back up what he and his colleagues have done recently in the Ministry of Defence.
474
Strong defence industries are just as important to the defence of our country and our freedoms as strong armed forces. My constituency interest is in the airframes, aero-engines and missiles of British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce. I think of the defence industries mainly with regard to RAF procurement rather than that of the Army or Navy, although my point is not a single service one.
I do not mean simply that it is a good idea to have one's own reliable domestic suppliers in times of war. There are clearly times when that is of the greatest importance, and the incident with Belgian ammunition not so long ago reminded us that gratitude for past services cannot always be relied on. I served in a Territorial Army regiment that had collectively been awarded the Belgian Croix de Guerre during the liberation of Brussels, but I shall let that pass.
It is important that our great companies flourish and many of our most important exporting companies are in defence and related areas, including those to which I have referred. They are profoundly affected by MOD procurement decisions. That is why I welcome Defence Ministers' renewed emphasis on industrial arguments when taking procurement decisions. In particular, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on showing appreciation of the importance of the defence industrial base in the future large aircraft decision last December and his attitude to the FLA since, which he expressed again earlier. I also congratulate him on the support helicopter decision, which was taken more recently.
It is very important that our industrial interests are taken into account for economic and employment reasons. Expressed crudely, if we cannot compete in the world marketplace with our industries and great companies, we will not be able to defend ourselves. Poor countries are bullied and lose wars. That is a very important aspect of this part of the debate.
Every important project is now international, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said. United Kingdom Government procurement is not enough to provide the basis for modern aircraft. That is why our defence industrial base depends on exports as well as on sales to the MOD.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the Defence and Trade and Industry Select Committees, which are considering the issue at the moment. I welcome the involvement of the DTI as well as the MOD in defence procurement decisions. I hope that as a result of the Select Committee reports and of what flows from them we shall see increased and earlier involvement of the DTI in major defence procurement decisions.
I am sorry to see a reduction of the funding percentage for technology demonstrators. Like the Public Accounts Committee, I believe that technology demonstrators can save money. The Government should take that into account. They should also involve suppliers earlier and more deeply in procurement decisions so as to reduce costs, just as major companies are doing with their suppliers. The Japanese have taught us a lot about how to treat one's suppliers and how to get the best value for money by involving suppliers early. The MOD needs to apply those lessons, just as the great companies are applying them.
The defence industrial base is an important part of our economy and that, in itself, is vital for our freedom. I realise that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State knows all this and that he said it in his speech. In a sense,

475
I am directing my comments not to him but to ensuring that everyone in the MOD and the armed forces appreciates the strong emphasis that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have placed on their defence procurement decisions. After all, the 1939–45 war—especially in Europe but also in the far east—was a struggle that was measured not only by the undoubted bravery of the armed forces on all sides but by the industrial might of Germany on the one hand and the allies on the other. In a sense, that is part of the lesson of that war, as of many wars in the past.
I said that I wanted to make two points and the small one relates to the university air squadrons. My right hon. Friend the Minister paid tribute to both university air squadrons and, in the same sentence, to the Air Cadet Force which, I know, is also supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). However, I make a clear distinction between the two.
The Air Cadet Force is extremely important and I agree with what was said about it but, as they are organised at present—I emphasise the latter two words—the university air squadrons, and especially their flying training arrangements, are a shocking waste of money. I realise that, in RAF terms, it is not a great deal of money. We have been talking about billions of pounds but the cost of the university air squadrons is not in that bracket. However, that is no excuse for waste.
My attention was drawn to the matter when Bristol university air squadron moved into Colerne airfield in my part of the country without warning my constituents, but that was because of an error. The airfield is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), our excellent Minister for Trade, but the airfield boundary is also the constituency boundary and the aircraft take off over some of my constituents and an important international school that is located there. The airfield was disused for many years and was supposed to be safeguarded for future use. The local authority did not know that, but that is a different matter. In fact, the issue will probably finish up in court, but I shall not dwell on that aspect.
Such events made me look carefully at the university air squadrons and their financing. They are said to have cost £11.9 million in 1993–94 and much the same in 1994–95. I doubt whether that includes the capital and other costs of keeping airfields such as Colerne open for their use. Colerne covers an enormous acreage with substantial buildings. It was previously disused and presumably could have been sold. I shall deal, however, only with the £11.9 million.
The total establishment of the university air squadrons across the country is said to be 725 students, although a parliamentary answer last week stated that there were 801 students at present. Using the higher figure, the cost per student per year is about £15,000.
Mr. Bill Walker: As a former Treasury Minister, my right hon. Friend will understand that some of the costs charged to the university air squadrons cover the amortised cost of, for example, instructors. The instructors are carrying out Royal Air Force duties while instructing, and it is essential that they keep in current instructional flying practice. In other words, some of the costs would have to be transferred elsewhere.
Sir John Cope: That may be so, but there are many such costs. In any case, my hon. Friend's argument depends on precisely what other duties those people went on to perform or whether they are being retained by the RAF for those duties, which I understand they are in some cases.
The justification for the existence of the university air squadrons is apparently twofold. First, it is said that they are necessary for recruiting and, secondly, that they give students initial flying training. Neither reason stands up to scrutiny. Bristol university air squadron has a total of 48 members and a small proportion of them—five to be precise—are already acting pilot officers, being paid a salary and attending university at the same time. They have, in a very real sense, already been recruited. Twelve have RAF bursaries and some, but not all, of them will go into the RAF. However, the RAF does not want them all. The majority—31 out of 48 at Bristol—are not wanted by the RAF and will not be in future, but they are also trained to fly at an average cost of £15,000 a year for three years. Even if one thinks that the acting pilot officers and bursary students would not have joined the RAF unless the university air squadrons existed, it is still very expensive recruiting.
Across the country, 57 former university air squadron students joined the RAF for pilot training last year. Therefore, when regarded as an incentive to recruiting, the university air squadrons cost £209,000 per recruit, which is a vast sum.
The other so-called reason for the existence of the university air squadrons is that they give initial pilot training to people entering the RAF, but it is very expensive training. I inquired about private flying tuition. It seems that similar training could be bought by the hour for about £3,200 per student per year.
Mr. Hardy: The right hon. Gentleman should understand that training air crew for the Royal Air Force is very different from training pilots to fly either their own aircraft or civil aircraft. Does he not realise that pilots and other air crew in the Air Force have to be trained not merely to carry out their air crew duties but to do so in a very hostile environment? If one separates training from the service itself, as the Air Force is tending to do under this Government, the ethos of the service, which might generate a willingness to fly in a hostile environment, might disappear.
Sir John Cope: I do not entirely agree. It is of course true that some of the later stages of training, not conducted by the university air squadrons, are very different in character from civilian flying training but the initial training is not that different, and certainly not different enough to justify such high costs. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Ministry of Defence has already recognised that point.
If all the 801 members of the university air squadrons were trained by civilian flying schools, the cost would come down from £12 million to £2.5 million. If, on the other hand, private tuition was used for only the 57 students who actually joined the RAF for later pilot training, the cost would be about £182,000 rather than £11.9 million. That is a tremendous difference.
Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there are real benefits in the university air squadron system in that it is an invaluable point of

477
contact between the Royal Air Force and the university community as a whole? There is little enough contact between the services and civilians today but the university air squadrons enable undergraduates to get a taste of service life and what is entailed in flying in the Royal Air Force. In view of the grading aspect of the flying training that they undertake, that would tend to attract some people who might not otherwise join the service but it might also dissuade some people from entering the Royal Air Force. Once people have entered proper flying training in the Royal Air Force, it costs a great deal to wash them out. It might be better that that happens at university rather than when they have put on the uniform.
Sir John Cope: There is something in that, and my hon. Friend clearly speaks from experience, especially of the Royal Air Force. I am not suggesting that the university air squadrons should be abolished. What I am asking for, and what I understand is taking place, is a careful review, following on from the excellent document "Front Line First", of the way in which flying training is conducted in these circumstances. I believe that any rational review would lead to changes in the flying training conducted by university air squadrons. That, I agree, would change the character of the squadrons as we now know them, and that is what I am seeking to achieve. They seem to me to be a wasteful way to achieve the desirable results to which my hon. Friend draws attention.
We have every reason to be grateful to the Royal Air Force. My criticism of that one very minor matter does not mean that I do not support it and its work very strongly. In fact, I very much appreciate the work of all our armed forces, including the Royal Air Force.
5.49 pm
Mr. Martin Redmond: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to say a few words. The right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) complained about the string on the gas mask making a mark on his neck. He was very fortunate; we were too poor to own one. I am quietly confident that, had the present Government been in power, they would have privatised the distribution of gas masks.
Mr. Soames: I know that times are pretty rough in Yorkshire, but, actually, people used to be given gas masks. They did not have to buy them.
Mr. Redmond: We still cannot afford to buy them because of the high unemployment in south Yorkshire. I am quietly confident that, if the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is feeling compassionate, he will reconsider the closure of RAF Finningley.
The right hon. Member for Northavon mentioned the Air Cadet Force, which has a valuable role to play. Regrettably, with the planned closure, there must be a big question mark over RAF Finningley. One hopes that, even at this late stage, the Minister will look at matters logically and reasonably, come to a different conclusion and keep RAF Finningley open.
Actions speak louder than words. We have heard certain words from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and certain quotations from newspapers. The Minister emphasised what the papers said. He cannot have his cake and eat it too. When I challenged the right hon. Gentleman on what was printed in the paper regarding RAF Finningley, he told me not to believe everything that
478
I read in the newspaper. One either believes or disbelieves what one reads in the newspaper. I am surprised that the Minister, with his vast experience, did not see fit to check whether the newspaper report was accurate.
We have had problems for centuries regarding the pacifist attitude of people in power, who have deliberately refused to spend money on keeping the nation's defences adequately built. Unfortunately, we have suffered a loss. I regret to say that men have been slaughtered needlessly throughout the centuries. We have seen the pictures of first world war troops going over the top of the trenches and being slaughtered. In the second world war, men were slaughtered needlessly before we had a good fighting machine.
Yesterday's edition of the Evening Standard referred to the Spitfire. It was a marvellous aircraft, which certainly helped to turn the tide against Nazi Germany. VE day, which we will celebrate at the weekend, came about because people took the opportunity of making sure that the war effort was geared up to meet the challenge from Germany.
We need to be consistent in what we say and do. I cannot accept that what has been said meets the requirements of the future. One of the necessary defence ingredients is training. We must have first-class training, equipment and manpower. Over the centuries, Britain's service manpower has been the best in the world. Unfortunately, the forces have not always had the best equipment or best leadership. If we slip up on any of those ingredients, we shall put the defence of the nation at risk. I gather from the Government's conclusions that they are overstretching the armed forces to a dangerous level. I hope that, even at this late stage, they will reflect on what the country requires. We must have a surplus of manpower, planes or whatever, and I am sure that the Minister is aware of that.
The Government's response mentions overseas training. I remind the House that political parties and Governments in other countries change from time to time. Although we are welcomed now, we might not be welcomed in future. If the Government reduce or risk training facilities, they will not be doing the job that they were given.
The closures of RAF Finningley and RAF Scampton obviously place training facilities at risk. I raised that point with the Minister of State, and I was told that the RAF's airfield needs were stretched to the limit and that, if it required over and above the limit, it would commandeer private airfields to meet training requirements. The Government just cannot turn things on and off with the stroke of a pen. Training is important, but by trimming or privatising certain sections of the RAF, the Government are placing a greater onus on the personnel who remain. RAF Finningley is an example of that, small though it was. Military personnel were required for guard duty over and above their normal duties. That has placed a burden on the lads and it is causing stress and strain that RAF people can do without. That is only one small example of the extra burden that the remaining lads must endure as a result of the Government's policy.
We learn, reading The Guardian, that the Secretary of State will have a great big worldwide role for our military personnel. If that is the case, will we complete the task with the reduction that is now taking place? I doubt whether logic can provide an answer. Bearing in mind the

479
privatisation that has been hinted at, there is obviously a major problem. I cannot accept that privatisation would lead to any benefit. Things still have to be paid for. There is a big question mark about the wisdom of the major privatisation schemes in the lifetime of the Government since 1979. They have not served the best interests of the people of this country.
One wonders how the decision to close RAF Finningley was reached. We met the Minister about 12 months beforehand to talk about joint use, whereby the private sector and the military section could complement one another and help to defer some of the costs of the station. It appears that our words fell on stony ground. Certainly the defence team was not keen to accept our suggestion.
Just before Christmas, we met the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and got a better response, but he said that a whole consultation process was taking place, so he could not comment. I cannot speak for the other establishments affected, but will the Minister provide me with a list of the parties and organisations that were consulted during that process? A few were consulted, but beyond that I am not sure. No doubt the Minister will give me a full list.
Several questions arise from the closure of RAF Finningley. The cuts stemmed from a Treasury initiative designed to make savings so that the Government could meet the requirement for tax cuts at the next general election. Or perhaps the military chiefs have done a double shuffle and suggested the closure of Finningley and other establishments, saying, "That is where the savings will be made; that will meet your requirements."
I am not sure who is kidding whom here. The closure of Finningley will not save money for the Government. When people are thrown on the dole and the number of jobs is reduced, other Departments have to pick up the bill. One needs to look at the broad picture. With all due respect, I do not think that the situation has been considered in a global sense.
As regards the military aspect, Ministers say that the resources can be provided at other stations. I shall talk about that later, but when we move equipment, personnel and extra duties to other stations, it is not simply a question of moving them out and then in. One has to provide the equipment to accompany such a move, and that costs money. I do not believe that the figures that we have been given reveal the true costs. There are all sorts of questions about the true cost of the cuts. All that we can say with any truth or sincerity is that there is a dramatic reduction in the RAF's strike capacity.
Since aircraft were invented, they have played an important role in winning victories for this country, whether they were the old biplanes in the first world war, the Spitfires in the second world war, or latterly our aircraft in the Gulf. Those wars proved that the RAF could damage the enemy without great loss of life in the ground forces—a softening-up process. Regrettably, the RAF suffered some casualties, but had it not been there to soften up the opposition, there would have been enormous casualties among the ground forces. The reductions now taking place in the RAF bring our capacity to do that in future into question.
I hope that the defence team will have a different approach. There is an old saying that someone could not organise a pee-up in a brewery, and that may be true, but
480
the situation is too serious not to consider it in depth. On 29 September last year, we had a letter from the Government saying:
"our primary concern must be to ensure the best use of defence resources".
If we have not sufficient resources, there is a problem, and I hope that, even at this late stage, Ministers will have the guts to tell the Treasury that what is being proposed is not acceptable. We must have an adequate force—indeed, the best equipped force in the world—and we can have that only if we are prepared to put our money where our mouth is.
I do not think that any long-term planning has gone into the suggested cuts, so I hope that the suggested closure of RAF Finningley will be reviewed and that the station will stay open. As the Minister knows, I have tabled many questions and written many letters to him on the subject. Those have not been answered adequately, because all the answers took the form of broad-brush evasion. Apparently there is to be a compromise—a bit of this and a bit of that, and a little bit of a package.
Perhaps Ministers think that they may not be around when the decision takes effect. Certainly the Labour Government will have the huge responsibility of ensuring that there is a well equipped and trained force adequate for this country's defence needs.
I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to what is proposed in the White Paper. I am sorry to have to keep emphasising that, but there appears to be neither logic nor reason behind the reductions. I hope that when he has thought about all the questions asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Minister will seriously consider delaying any action until we have had a thorough look at the implications for this country and for our forces, which will be so desperately needed in the 21st century.
6.8 pm
Mr. Neville Trotter: Sadly, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who so effectively chairs the Defence Select Committee and plays so valuable a part in our debates on the services, cannot be with us today because of a family bereavement. But I am pleased to see the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) in his seat, because he too plays a valuable role in the Committee's affairs. Most of the members of the Select Committee are in Italy today, on a visit that was arranged some time ago. They are in fact talking to members of the Italian air force today, having talked to the NATO commanders over the past few days.
The Committee is especially concerned about the instability on the southern flank of NATO, which includes the turbulent areas of north Africa, the former Yugoslavia and the republics of the former Soviet Union. The Committee has made regular visits to the British forces in Bosnia—this country's participation there includes, of course, extensive RAF involvement. I met the RAF contingent at Aviano air base in northern Italy during the Easter recess, and I found them to be full of professionalism and enthusiasm as always. I shall return to the RAF's substantial involvement in operations in Bosnia and elsewhere overseas.
The Committee will soon be visiting the Jaguars and Tornados at Lossiemouth and the principal Nimrod base at Kinloss. Later in the year the Committee will be visiting the Harrier force deployed to Turkey to undertake operations in northern Iraq.

481
It is fitting that the debate today is on the very eve of the celebrations to commemorate VE day, 50 years ago. In the second world war, the men and women of the RAF played a vital role in every campaign through to the final liberation of Europe. It is not to decry the heroic efforts of the other services to say that, but for the RAF in the battle of Britain, the civilised world would not have survived that conflict.
The men and women of the RAF today are justly due the praise that they have been given during this debate, and they are worthy successors of those who served in the squadrons which fought in the second world war. Their numbers are far less than in 1945, but their resolve and training standards remain of the highest quality. I looked up some figures relating to the strength of the RAF at its peak in 1944. There were at that time 1 million men and women in the service, but they faced a Luftwaffe with a strength of 3 million and—as late in the war as 1944—a German aircraft industry which was producing 3,000 new aircraft a month.
We could also celebrate this weekend 50 years of peace in western Europe—the longest period in our history. The long, hard and costly slog of maintaining our massive defences against the threat to our very existence that was posed by the Soviet-led Warsaw pact has paid off, and we now see democracy throughout Europe. The RAF, in common with other western air forces, has inevitably reduced in numbers following the end of the cold war. The United States air force, for example, has reduced by 40 per cent. the number of its combat aircraft since the end of the cold war.
This is not the time to debate at length the future of central and eastern Europe, but the Committee has recently visited Russia and Ukraine. I was myself able to visit the Black sea fleet base port of Sebastopol. It was encouraging to find freedom of speech and many expressions of friendship. I was also able to visit the huge Zhukovsky aeronautical research establishment outside Moscow. A few years ago, it would have been impossible for me even to have entered the town of Zhukovsky.
We noticed some disturbing features on the political, economic and military scene in Russia. The Russian satellites in eastern Europe have been lost, and the Russian forces have been greatly run down. There have been massive cuts in the Russian air force, and pilots are flying perhaps only 40 hours a year against the recognised desirable NATO figure of 240 hours a year.
The threat of a third world war which hung over us for so many years after VE day has been removed. While we sincerely hope that Russia can overcome its massive problems, we cannot be certain that, in a few years, the problems there will not lead to a hostile Government and a renewed military threat. Certainly, we have seen a great increase in instability elsewhere in the world since the end of the cold war.
It is impossible to be sure what challenge Britain and our forces will face. All that is certain is that there will be a challenge, but we can be equally sure that the RAF will respond with its customary efficiency and professionalism. While the reduction in size of the RAF was inevitable following the end of the cold war, we are right to continue to spend £60 million a day on defence. That is an interesting and perhaps not widely appreciated figure—we are still spending £60 million a day on defence.
We must maintain the present front-line strength, while seeking to improve our capability with new technology. We heard earlier in the debate about the enormous sums of money involved in producing the new equipment which
482
is needed. A feature of the present-day world is that many countries which could prove hostile to us in the future have sophisticated weapons that could be used against our services. That is particularly true in terms of the air defence systems which could face the RAF. The RAF must have the best possible aircraft, weapons and training.
I welcome the progress that is being made in the acquisition of new weapons systems. Today's conditions for ground attack give rise to two requirements—precision-guided weapons and those with a stand-off capability. The target should be hit on the first pass without the cost and danger of multiple attacks, and the aircraft—if at all possible—should keep a distance away from the enemy's defences.
The Committee will be following with interest the weapons procurement programme outlined in my right hon. Friend the Minister of State's opening speech today, and in yesterday's White Paper. We are certainly following closely the progress of the vital Eurofighter programme. It is interesting to reflect that the European fighter project will be bigger in financial terms than was the construction of the channel tunnel. It is a project of enormous size, and of the greatest importance to the future of the RAF.
The Committee will be looking at the possible alternatives for the RAF's future maritime patrol aircraft, a role that has been successfully pursued for 25 years by the Nimrod force. We now need improved avionics to cope with the more sophisticated submarines with which the RAF may have to contend in the future. The only three suitable airframes that are likely to be available are the same three as competed originally some 30 years ago when the Nimrod was chosen. When the Committee visits Kinloss in a few weeks' time, it will be interesting to hear the views of the Nimrod crews on what they would like to see as a replacement. I suspect that we shall end up by rebuilding the Nimrods and fitting them with new avionics.
I welcome the decision at last to order helicopters, and the mix of the Chinook and the EH101 seems to be a good solution to a problem which has been agonised over for far too long. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement mention to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who will reply to the debate, my concern at the recent crash of a 101? Can my hon. Friend assure me that that will not affect the programme for the introduction into service of this valuable machine? We are also waiting for some response on the causes of the tragic Chinook crash more than a year ago. I do not believe that a report on that crash has yet been published. Can my hon. Friend state when that report is likely to be published?
I would like to refer to the attack helicopter which, although primarily an Army matter, is of importance to all of us who are concerned about our air defence forces. It is important that a decision is taken speedily on that project. I mention the word Apache, as that seems likely to be the best of the machines competing to become our attack helicopter.
Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend and the House may find it helpful if I state briefly that we intend to try to reach a decision before the House rises for the summer recess, and that the competition will be for an attack helicopter.

483
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) referred to a Dutch decision for an attack helicopter, not a utility support helicopter.
The competition will be on the basis of value for money, and we will not be influenced by arguments about being good Europeans or good Atlanticists. The decision will be taken purely on the basis of operational effectiveness and value for money.
Mr. Trotter: That was a reassuring comment from my right hon. Friend. May I refer to the order for C130J Hercules aircraft, and say how much I welcome the decision that we are also staying in the future light aircraft development project? In this way, a sensible solution has been found to the problem of replacing the ageing Hercules.
I referred earlier to the need for our force to be well trained, as well as well equipped. Modern air warfare requires constant practice of low-level flying. The Committee has reported on the matter since the previous RAF debate in the House, and I refer to a number of the issues raised in that report. It is obviously important that as much operational low-level flying as possible is carried out overseas, and the sophisticated ranges in the USA and at Cold lake in Canada are very valuable in that respect. A significant number of low-level flights have also taken place at Goose bay in Labrador for many years, and we have been told that the agreement with the Canadian Government was to be renegotiated. Can we be told whether that has happened?
The Committee was told that discussions were to be held about possible low-level flying by the RAF in Morocco and in the countries of central and eastern Europe. I can see something of a problem in both Morocco and in the countries of central and eastern Europe with regard to ranges. We would either have to incur the cost of installing them, or we would have the inconvenience of taking large equipment in and out when we exercised in the area.
The Committee was keen to see the introduction as soon as possible of ALFENS. For those who are not familiar with the alphabet soup of military technology, that stands for automated low flying enquiry and notification system. We were told, in the Government's response to our report, that ALFENS would be in service by 1995 and it is a valuable asset, as it should increase the safety of low flying. Can we be told the current position? The Committee was also told that jet low-level flying would be reduced by 30 per cent. by the end of 1994. Has that target been achieved?
More RAF aircraft are now deployed on operations overseas than have been for 30 years—mostly for Iraq and Bosnian operations. Every front-line type in service is involved. Those detachments are now on such an on-going basis that they are not merely month after month, but year after year. Those constant operations on a major scale prove the competence and ability of the service, but also affect the people in it. While they are enthusiastically responding to the challenge, as we have seen on our visits, we must not overlook the effect of the separation on their normal family lives.
For the air crew, while the detachments involve much flying, it is often not in conditions that provide good combat training. When they return home, they are thus faced with the need for intensive combat-related flying, which often
484
requires that they go overseas again to train on the ranges in north America, Sardinia or Cyprus. That has a knock-on effect on the time that they are away from their families.
Inevitably, the service has been faced with a period of great change following the end of the cold war. Clearly, a long period of stability is now needed and I welcome the comments to that effect in the White Paper that was issued yesterday. That is the No. 1 requirement for the service.
This is not the time to debate the recent report by Mr. Bett and his team, but there must be full consultation with the services on his numerous proposals. As the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Marhew) said, Mr. Bett stated that there should not be any cherry picking, but I think that there will have to be some. I think what Bett meant was that there should not be any financial cherry picking—it is important that there should be no financial disadvantage to the service as a result of implementing only some of his proposals—but I am not sure that all 150 of the recommendations can be accepted. I am sure that Bett's intentions are wholly worthy. He seeks to provide the best possible career for the men and women of the services into the next century and he recognises that the operational needs of the service inevitably involve a conflict between the need for mobility, which requires personnel to go anywhere at very short notice, and the natural wish of service men and women for a stable family life. Any changes that come about as a result of the report must do so with the genuine agreement and support of the services, represented by their leaders and after the fullest possible consultation with the men and women in the service.
Tomorrow, when we look back with pride on the achievements of those who served in the second world war, many of whom will be with us in Westminster Hall in the morning, we can take equal pride in the present generation who are serving so effectively in the Royal Air Force today. We can be sure that, whatever the challenges, the service will remain committed to the professionalism and excellence that it has shown throughout its 77 years of existence, which make it a standard-setter for the rest of the world. The men and women of the service are rightly proud of their achievements, they bring great credit to our country and, as a nation, they give us great cause to be proud of them.
6.22 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), with whom I share membership of the Select Committee on Defence. In so far as he reflected on the conclusions and reports of that Committee, I need do no more than wholeheartedly endorse much of what he said.
I recently heard a senior officer of the Royal Air Force say:
"The Royal Air Force has had a bad year."
Having had the opportunity to reflect on that observation, I understand why it was made, but it is an unduly pessimistic response to some of the events of the past 12 months. One might say that, in the 76 years of its existence, the past year was not the best politically, but it certainly could not be said that it was a bad year operationally. But I will deal with some of those issues in a moment.

485
At this stage, some fleeting reference to the report issued this week by Sir Peter Cazalet would be right. I must repeat what I said when the report was issued—it is entirely sensible, and provides a proper balance of understanding between the place for entertainment in the armed services and the public's perfectly reasonable expectation that there will not be undue extravagance. As someone who has had the opportunity—indeed, the pleasure—of experiencing hospitality in some of the service residences to which the report refers, I can certainly say that, while it has been adequate, I have never seen any examples of extravagance.
When the report appeared, some people described it, rather dismissively, as a whitewash. Those who did so had either not read the report properly, or did not understand the significance of what they were reading. Suffice it to say that I hope that that issue, which has been prompted to some extent by the experience of the Royal Air Force, will now be put properly to one side and not allowed to deflect a mood, in the House and in the country, of determination to acknowledge that the ceremonies that we are about to experience during the next two or three days are possible only because of the skill and courage of the Royal Air Force throughout the second world war.
When the Minister of State for Defence Procurement put such matters in context at the beginning of the debate, he referred to the primary role of the defence of the United Kingdom and, quite rightly, to the role of Coastal Command, which often does not attract the sort of attention that it undoubtedly deserved. He also referred to the allied bombing campaign, which has become controversial. Controversial or not, however, there is no doubt that it could be carried through only because of the extraordinary determination and courage of the air crews of Bomber Command.
This being an occasion for a certain amount of nostalgia, I am conscious that, as the war came to an end, I was the victim of a substantial propaganda effort. I do not know whether the grandfather of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was responsible, but you may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I say "may" advisedly—that the legend grew that the feats of the famous "Cat's Eyes" Cunningham, who could identify German aircraft over the United Kingdom in the dark, could be attributed only to his remarkable consumption of carrots.
Every schoolboy who grew up during and just after the war was encouraged by his parents to eat as many carrots as possible—in the hope, we thought, that we would be able to emulate the famous "Cat's Eyes" Cunningham. Some time later, when the scales fell from our eyes, we realised that that great campaign had much more to do with the preponderance of carrots, compared with other vegetables, in the United Kingdom at the time, than with any eyesight-enhancing qualities that they might have.
If I might be forgiven that moment of nostalgia, I hope that I can say with some justification that the experience of all of us who have regular contact with the Royal Air Force is that the men and women—increasingly, the women—of that service display skill and courage in abundance. If we had to effect the withdrawal of the United Nations forces from Yugoslavia, let us be in no doubt that those qualities would be at a premium.
486
The Jaguar aircraft, which are there to provide close air support, would certainly be in use, and the importance of the Tornado F3 aircraft, which have been policing the no-fly zone, would be considerable, as would that of the TriStar tankers, AWACS aircraft, Nimrods and Hercules, which are already playing their part in the UN effort over the former Yugoslavia.
As the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) pointed out, some four years after the conclusion of the Gulf war, we still have substantial deployments in the area—Harriers operating from bases in Turkey to police the exclusion zone over northern Iraq, as well as Tornado and reconnaissance aircraft operating from the Gulf to police the exclusion zone over southern Iraq.
As the hon. Member for Tynemouth pointed out, those are considerable burdens. It is estimated that, at any one time, the Royal Air Force has around 50 aircraft operating in support of the United Nations over Iraq and the former Yugoslavia. Those have become long-term obligations and, as a consequence, they affect personnel and equipment. As the hon. Member for Tynemouth pointed out, they also affect training and capability, because the operations do not always allow for the honing of those skills, which is a normal part of the training for flying Tornado aircraft.
We have been quick to recognise the problem of overstretch in the infantry, but we must look carefully at the risk of overstretch to the Royal Air Force. It is worth remembering, while change is still in the air, that much of "Options for Change" and "Front Line First" is still to be implemented. Bases will be closed and personnel reduced, and some of that may not be fully effective until almost the end of the century. Irrespective of what anyone does between now and then, there will then be a period of considerable change. So those who argue for a period of stability or for no more change have a considerable presumption in their favour.
I suffered a disappointment from a constituency point of view when the original decision under "Front Line First" to relocate the rescue co-ordination centre from RAF Pitreavie to RAF Leuchars in my constituency was rescinded and it was decided to send it to RAF Kinloss. However, my disappointment was nothing compared with the disappointment of the leader of the Conservative group on North East Fife district council, because the announcement was made some 48 hours before he went to the polls to try to become a member of the new unitary authority in Scotland. I expressed my disappointment in terms that could only be regarded as restrained when compared with those that he used.
In the defence White Paper published yesterday, the Secretary of State envisaged a more worldwide role for the United Kingdom forces. If by that we are to understand that the Government are willing to allow the UK forces to participate in United Nations operations, the proposal will enjoy ready support from these Benches.
But it means that the RAF may need to operate in areas that do not have modern ground facilities, host nation support or pre-existing industrial facilities. With aircraft like the Harrier, which is designed to operate from forward bases—its very flexibility is predicated on the view that it can operate a long way from ground facilities or host nation support—it is important that the level of maintenance and the availability of skills are kept at the highest level.

487
The Government should answer the serious question whether the greater civilianisation of the provision of maintenance and other back-up facilities will always be adequate. Although the proposed Bill relating to reserves seeks to address that problem, what would happen if deployment were to a hostile country or a country where there is terrorism? We should think carefully about the extent to which we can impose on public opinion the notion that those who are civilians for all practical purposes but who become reserves by virtue of the operation of the legislation should be exposed to such risks.
The use of private contractors has not been without its difficulties, as experience with Airwork and the Tornado aircraft has shown. We must be careful about the lessons that we draw from our experience in the Gulf, where there was host nation support and more than adequate facilities, and where, because of the involvement of British Aerospace in Saudi Arabia, there was a substantial pre-existing industrial base. We must be careful about the extent to which we can apply what might be described crudely as "privatisation" to the provision of support services of that kind.
As the Minister showed, no debate on the RAF is ever complete without consideration of procurement issues. I welcome the fact that the issues of the Hercules replacement and the support helicopter have now been resolved. The Minister caused me some surprise as I was driving along the motorway one afternoon, listening to him being questioned on the Hercules replacement. I heard him praying in aid my support as an endorsement of the Government's decision. Although I was flattered, it is not something that one has become used to.
At the heart of the procurement discussion must rest the question of the Eurofighter 2000. Although the hon. Member for Carlisle referred to it, I wish to put a number of specific questions. I appreciate that they may not be answered today, but I should be grateful if they could be answered in due course.
Does the Government's commitment to purchase 250 aircraft still stand? Might not the Ministry of Defence, as suggested in evidence to the Defence Select Committee, be minded to purchase more than 250 Eurofighter 2000 aircraft? Is it true, as the hon. Member for Carlisle said, that the aircraft is some two years behind schedule? What are the likely consequences for the overall defence budget if the real-terms cost of the aircraft has increased by £2 billion over the 1986 estimate?
The Minister referred to the memorandum of understanding which is to be signed in relation to the production phase of the aircraft, but can he be a little more precise about when that memorandum will be signed? We all feel that no further slippage should be allowed.
An important question to which reference has already been made is: will the UK will obtain an allocation of work proportional to its order for 250 aircraft, which allocation should be of the order of 40 per cent? How seriously does the Ministry of Defence take reports that, if the German workshare falls below 43 per cent., German parliamentary approval for the production phase may be withheld? If that happened, what would be the
488
consequences for the project? I ask those questions because the House is united in the view that that aircraft is vital to the Royal Air Force.
Mr. Freeman: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I briefly answer those questions? Although my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces may refer to them in winding up, it might assist the hon. and learned Gentleman to develop his argument to know that 250 aircraft is our firm commitment. We may buy more in due course.
The project has been delayed; I challenge the claim that it has been delayed for two years, but the delay is largely attributed to problems which the Germans had in reducing their order indicatively from 250 to 140. We have published the latest estimated development cost at £3.9 billion for the UK, and clearly explained the reasons for the increase. Some of it is to do with additional missiles that the aircraft must carry, but some is extra development cost, which is inevitable when developing all new aircraft.
I hope that we shall sign the memorandum of understanding on development reorientation this month, as that is essential. We have had no formal discussions with the Germans about workshare, but I agree with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) that it is important to start from a basis of workshare in production proportionate to the number of aircraft to which we have committed ourselves.
Mr. Campbell: I am grateful to the Minister for responding so comprehensively. The detailed way in which he responded to those questions shows that he is master of his brief, and I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to him for doing so. I regard the Eurofighter aircraft as absolutely vital, and that view is shared on both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) led an all-party delegation from the House to the German Parliament in 1992 to persuade our political equivalents that they should be more supportive of the project. I do not know whether we were any more successful than events might otherwise have dictated, but that experience was extremely valuable, and I hope that it had some effect.
From what I understand about the capability of the Grippen or Rafale, I suspect that if, for any reason, Eurofighter 2000 were not to proceed, we would be driven towards purchasing American equipment. As many people know, that equipment is often offered at an attractive price—to buy it off the shelf—but its through-life cost is significant. There are plenty of instances in which the Americans have offered aircraft for a cheap initial price, but have ensured that they get their pound of flesh by imposing higher costs through the life of that aircraft.
Should Eurofighter not proceed, it would have all kinds of industrial consequences, about which most hon. Members would be concerned. That serves to underline the importance we should all attach to the successful completion of the project.
The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), has already referred to the Tornado mid-life update, so it is unnecessary for me to say anything more about it, but, in another context, it raises questions about the procurement of weapons. I welcome the fact that a contract has been placed for Paveway.

489
As for the conventionally armed stand-off missile, CASOM, the Minister referred to the achievements in the Gulf. He will be aware that much of the thinking that lies behind the need to obtain CASOM arose from operational experience in the Gulf. The low-level operations carried out by British aircraft were found, after three or four days, to be too expensive in terms of the rate of attrition. As a result, it became necessary—or, to put it more fairly, the choice was made—to discontinue low-level operations, which were basically runway denial operations using the JP233.
That raises an interesting question of some technicality, upon which I do not profess to be expert, about how far the RAF now believes that it has completed its review of the low-flying tactics employed in the Gulf war. How far does it think that such tactics might be utilised on another occasion, particularly if the availability of weapons includes CASOM? That technical issue is important.
A review of the kind that today's debate has occasioned would not be complete unless some effort were made to look to the future for the RAF. During the cold war, the RAF had a number of roles. Its first and perhaps primary role was the air defence of the United Kingdom over the North sea. In that regard, RAF Leuchars played, as it continues to play, a significant part. Its second role was to provide low-level counter-air offensive against Warsaw pact airfields. Its third role was its important part in the implementation of the then NATO nuclear doctrine of flexible response. Those roles are now either much reduced, or have gone.
The decision to cancel the tactical air-to-surface missile and to withdraw, by 1998, the iron bomb, the WE177, reflects the fact that the RAF, which had, along with the Royal Navy, carried the responsibility of the independent deterrent, will, after 1998, no longer have that responsibility. I do not believe that that is an argument, or that there is any other argument, to justify the conclusion of some that the RAF should cease to have a strategic role and be equipped only for a tactical support role.
There is less chance of high-intensity warfare than there was even five or 10 years ago, but we cannot eliminate that possibility. If the RAF and other services are called upon to act in the furtherance of United Nations Security Council resolutions, they must be equipped to do so. It may not be impossible to find ourselves flying against the SU-27, the Flanker, or its derivatives, if Russia is willing to sell such aircraft without regard to the behaviour, actual or potential, of purchasers.
I therefore do not think it is right for us to consider the future of the RAF without making a firm commitment that we will ensure that it retains a capability to fight high-intensity warfare should that break out.
I do not believe that we could contemplate any further reduction in funding for the RAF, without affecting its front-line strength. There is a limit to the reductions in the numbers of personnel or the contracting out of support services that can be made, because, eventually, such decisions will have an affect on what are sometimes called the "teeth". That should not stop us trying to find savings where we can without any affect on capability.
I remain unconvinced of the continuing presence, even in a limited way after 1999, of the RAF in Germany. I have heard the Minister of State for the Armed Forces argue the political case for that, but I do not believe that it is as overwhelming as the Government appear to think
490
at the moment. If one can reduce costs, as we undoubtedly would, without affecting overall capability, surely such proposals should be given serious consideration. There is a cost in maintaining the aircraft in Germany, albeit for political purposes, in that, because of low flying restrictions, much of the air crew training cannot be done in Germany and must be done in Britain or further abroad.
I have a party interest in the RAF, but, as I have already acknowledged more than once, I also have a constituency interest, because RAF Leuchars, which is home to 43 Squadron and 111 Squadron, is based in my constituency. I therefore have the opportunity to see the RAF not only as a member of the Select Committee on Defence, but as a constituency member. Everything I see convinces me that the present generation of the RAF is a worthy successor of the traditions of the force, which we shall honour this weekend.
6.46 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate on the RAF. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) on his thoughtful and helpful speech.
As is normal on such occasions, I declare an interest. I have worn a light blue uniform, with great pleasure and pride, for more than 50 years. The RAF still kindly allows me to fly cadet aircraft. As president of air cadet gliding, I take an active and keen interest in it.
I join others in congratulating the RAF of today on its professionalism and courage. Its personnel certainly live up to everything that was achieved by their predecessors in the battle of Britain and the battles over Germany, the Atlantic, the far east and the middle east.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) was way out of line when he suggested that gas masks were available only to people who could afford them. I am old enough to remember when they were available to everyone. Everyone at the public school I attended—a public school in Scotland is not quite the same as a public school in England—was issued with a gas mask.
Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) will be back in the Chamber shortly, but to do him justice I should point out that he said that gas masks were given free to people at the beginning of the second world war. He felt that should similar circumstances arise under the present Administration, they would want to charge for them.
Mr. Walker: I should have thought that, in times of national emergency, one forgets all about differences of political opinion. That is why Clement Attlee served as deputy Prime Minister during the second world war. The gas masks were available to everyone.
I begin by expressing my deep anxiety at the short time allowed for the consideration of defence costs studies and the taking of decisions. Decisions had to be taken too quickly, and we may live to regret that. I, for one, never opposed the idea of a defence costs study operation, because I believe that every organisation must, from time to time, carefully examine the way in which it operates. I therefore realised that the results of the defence costs studies might be of great value. I repeat that I was worried only about the short timeframe. Consequently, some of

491
the matters that I wish to mention may have been judged differently if we had taken longer to decide and considered them more deeply.
First, I draw special attention to third line servicing. I am worried that insufficient uniformed personnel will be available for deployment in emergencies overseas—as when they were deployed in the Gulf—and to incorporate the necessary modifications that occur in circumstances such as those that arose in the Gulf, or circumstances that occurred when we had to send aircraft a long way to the southern hemisphere, to the Falkland Islands. No one can forget the way in which the in-flight refuelling modification was carried out in a remarkably short time.
Secondly, we must accept that, when we are required to participate in such operations, there is a need to increase the rate of servicing to meet increased demands imposed by the more intensive use of aircraft and equipment. I am worried that that could present problems without adequate uniformed personnel.
Thirdly, I am worried about how we sustain a capability for a long time. Operations in the Gulf lasted a relatively short time. We were fortunate that the ground war did not continue for any length of time; otherwise we may have exposed certain deficiencies in our capability. Some of those were offset by the fact that we had British Aerospace and other things available, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East said. Those things may not always be available.
The three problems that I have listed may be especially difficult for air transport, whether it be in the form of fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters.
I agree with the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) that, in addition, the Royal Air Force must continue to be an intelligent customer. The intelligent customer is intelligent because of the learning curve that goes with experience; the intelligent customer cannot be hoodwinked into believing that things must be done in a given way at a given cost.
I shall now comment on one or two matters that I thought that the Government did get right. I want to ensure that people do not think that I am being critical—I am not. It is inevitable that different opinions will be held about certain activities of the Ministry of Defence and the RAF.
The Government were right to buy the C130J. It was the right aircraft to carry out the job at the time that we needed it. They were also right to keep the options open for the FLA when it becomes available. I have been around long enough to know that, simply because an aeroplane is what I call a paper aeroplane, it does not necessarily fly, but I think that the FLA will fly and that it will become available.
At the time, I had strong reservations—I still have some—about the ability of the EH101 to meet the air transport demands that may be placed on the RAF. I considered that the Chinook was a better buy and had a better capability. However, the RAF must now make a decision and I have no doubt that, as it always has, it will make the mixed fleet work. Nevertheless, it could be especially vulnerable to a possible uniformed shortage in future because it will have to—as it would with the introduction of any aircraft—put the necessary infrastructure in place.
492
The defence costs study answer for the RAF training system can best be described as extremely high risk. It may save money now, but the cost later may be massive. Central flying school and RAF flying training units have always been centres of excellence. That has been recognised worldwide. That is why every country in the world, almost without exception, wants at some time to send people to attend Central Flying school or to be associated with our flying training operations.
The quality and ethos of that training will be at great risk as a result of the civilian programme that is envisaged. The civilian content is too great. I do not oppose the use of civilians, but I believe that quality and ethos and the gold standard that the RAF is recognised as providing worldwide may be at risk. I simply cannot envisage how the proposed structure will be capable of expansion in times of emergency.
I am deeply worried that future RAF officers who are undergoing pilot training will not see an uniformed airman for the first two years of their flying training. Fast jet pilots are much more than people who have the physical and other attributes necessary. They must also have the right attitude, and part of the attitude comes from the ethos that is developed during their flying training. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who has considerable experience of RAF flying training, knows what I am talking about. My hon. Friend and I both know something about RAF flying training and civil flying training. One does not develop that attitude in civilian flying training.
The Government's reply to the seventh report from the Defence Select Committee deals with combat readiness: It says
"The RAF will continue to review its levels of combat readiness. These are determined by both national and NATO considerations which require the RAF to be capable of meeting, at short notice, a variety of operational commitments and contingencies."
The flying hours required are then discussed.
I would simply say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I have never been associated with the lobby that opposes low flying in Scotland. I believe that if Scotland is the only place suitable and available, it must be used, and in my constituency aircraft regularly fly low. My wife is convinced that the Walker residence is used as the turning point for all RAF sorties that go through the central highlands.
Mr. Soames: It probably is.
Mr. Walker: It probably is.
The presence of the RAF in my constituency has two faces. There is the face of the low fast jet—I am probably the only person in my constituency who will stand up and welcome it—but the other face, which is always welcome, is a yellow helicopter. There is no doubt that one of the best public relations activities with which the RAF is associated is military search and rescue.
The search and rescue capability has been stretched somewhat, and it has certainly been stretched in the past winter as a result of the vast number of people up in the mountains of Scotland. I am not opposed to large numbers of mountaineers; I am only worried that the military should be confronted with all the costs. I have always felt that other ways of absorbing the costs should be considered. That argument was made earlier by the hon. Member for Don Valley.

493
I have always regarded search and rescue as part of military training. I have been associated all my adult life with RAF training and with Central flying school and its activities. I cannot register deeply enough my great fears that the future of the RAF gold standard of training may be at risk.
The RAF must be congratulated on the work that it has already done in regard to manpower, before the imposition of the current demands and pressures. In particular, I congratulate Air Vice Marshal Andy Roberts: his work put the RAF well ahead of the game. I do not pretend to have read the Bett report in detail—I have not had time to do so—but, having scanned it, I am confident that the personnel side of the RAF is uniquely equipped to handle whatever the Government decide. Let me register my opposition to the idea of performance-related pay, however.
When considering manpower and structures, we must consider the impact of overstretch, and the effect of active service absence on service families. That leads me to another issue that affects families: medical services. Here again, I believe that the defence costs study has gone too far. I do not see how the tri-service structure, as envisaged, can provide adequate opportunities for specialist career appointments, training and development. Certainly service wives are very upset, as was demonstrated by the survey conducted throughout the RAF earlier this year. The likely failure of tri-service medical provision means that the 100 per cent. support that families are expected to give RAF service men may not be forthcoming in future.
On 18 October last year, I said—and I have no reason to change my mind tonight—
"Cuts in the medical services are affecting morale. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the viability of secondary medical care to the armed forces can be sustained and will he acknowledge that the sharp decline in the number of service consultant specialists brought about by the loss of career prospects will jeopardise the provision of secondary care? Will he make a statement regarding primary medical care and the need to provide adequate levels of health support to military personnel in order to return them to active service at the earliest opportunity?"
I added—and I do not apologise for repeating it now—
"I am standing here today thanks to massive benefits that I gained from RAF medical care after a serious accident."—[Official Report, 18 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 203.]
In fact, it was a very serious crash. I shall never forget that those medical practitioners made it possible for me to become a Member of Parliament: I could well have been confined to a wheelchair.
Just how the medical services will cope in a Gulf-type war that may involve substantial ground casualties must be a matter of great concern to military planners. In the absence of adequate specialists, only a substantial number of reserves can meet the shortcomings. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that I am a great supporter of reserves. I am not worried about the fact that we may have to call on them; I just want to be sure that we can get them when we want them.
Again, I have had time only to scan the Cazalet report, but I believe that it vindicates the way in which armed forces entertainment has been undertaken. If the report had been available earlier, much of the ill-informed comment about senior officers' residences and entertainment—particularly those concerning Haymes Garth—would have been entirely different. As others have pointed out, Air Chief Marshal Sandy Wilson was and is a distinguished RAF officer—a man of great
494
integrity, for whom I have a high regard. I only wish that he and his family had not suffered as a result of the actions of the press, which did what no press should ever do and attacked a serving senior officer who could not respond.
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. Will he also condemn the outrageous Labour slurs on senior officers, and the continuous "drip, drip, drip" effect of such criticism? It is wholly unjustified, and deeply damaging to the morale of the services. It does not only affect senior officers; it drips down through the rank structure, and is very harmful.
Mr. Walker: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend and I know only too well that such attacks drive a wedge between senior officers and all other ranks.
Dr. John Reid: I cannot let that pass. I am genuinely bemused by the Minister's allegation that slurs have been cast on senior officers: I can think of no occasion on which that has happened. Our official reaction to the report that was issued in the past couple of days—it was not shown on any television channel, as it was thought not sensational enough—was to welcome it, and to point out that we had criticised the weaknesses in institutionalised control by the MOD rather than any of the officers involved. On the one occasion when we were involved in criticism, we did not level that criticism but defended General Sir Michael Rose against criticism levelled in the House.
Mr. Walker: I know how the hon. Gentleman feels, but I understood my hon. Friend the Minister to be referring to what happened before the publication of the Cazalet report. Everyone will recognise that the hon. Gentleman is an honourable man, and his views on military matters are frequently not very different from mine; I do not suggest that he was responsible for the slurs. We all know, however, that substantial slurs were cast on senior serving military personnel in the newspapers and other media—assisted, sadly, by some Members of Parliament. 'I find that desperately sad, because senior military people can never respond to such public chastisement: they have no means of doing so.
Paragraph 12 of the Cazalet report states:
"Within the Armed Forces, official entertainment is undertaken for a variety of purposes…and takes two main forms. Firstly, there is the representational aspect of the provision of official hospitality for individuals from outside the Services. Certain senior commanders and other senior personnel have particular responsibilities for entertainment of this kind and occupy specially enhanced married quarters for this reason."
That is why such people have married quarters; it is not because they like to live in grand circumstances.
"Secondly, there is provision for commanders at all levels to undertake some limited entertainment of their subordinates."
Anyone who have ever run a large organisation knows the importance of entertaining key subordinates on a fairly regular basis, in circumstances in which relaxation is possible.
Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is making an important point. Given his experience, he will agree that we are not discussing only the essential domestic entertaining that goes with service life—although that is fundamental—but the fact that, owing to the prestige of the British armed forces, the entertainment that they provide for, in particular, the many foreigners who come to learn from our armed

495
forces is part of the glue that binds the British services with so many nations across the world and helps to render them such a golden asset to the United Kingdom.
Mr. Walker: I could not agree with my hon. Friend more, and this debate provides an excellent opportunity to put on record our feelings about the recent ghastly treatment of the services.
Paragraph 95 of the Cazalet report states:
"My study has led me to conclude that, despite the presentation of the lifestyles of senior Service officers in some parts of the media, the level of entertainment carried out is probably about right…In some ways, it has been unfortunate that the spotlight has been directed in this area over the last year or so, as there is no doubt that, in certain areas relating to this subject, the Services are already addressing the existing shortcomings."
I feel very strongly about that matter, but I shall move on in order to address other issues.
By the end of the decade, the RAF will have closed 30 bases at home and abroad. I am concerned that there will be too few airfields in the United Kingdom and no scope for expansion in the event of a national emergency. When the defence costs study is completed, the RAF will have fewer operational airfields in the United Kingdom than at any time since 1934. In such circumstances, it would be prudent to require that airfields be retained in an operational state and not turned into housing or industrial estates.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), who complained earlier about university air squadrons, will probably not agree with me, but I sincerely believe that we should retain those airfields. If we use university squadrons or other flying squadrons to keep them open, so much the better.
I welcome the assurances given by the Government in their commitment to the Eurofighter 2000. I believe that, when it is delivered, the programme will justify the investment in time, effort and money. I also welcome the proposals to invite bids for replacing the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft. I am glad that the Tornado GR1 has been upgraded and that laser-guided weapons will be purchased.
I also welcome the introduction of the anti-armour stand-off missile and the fact that the conventionally armed stand-off missile programme will proceed on schedule. Those decisions are essential if we are to maintain the capability of the Royal Air Force into the future. I welcome the fact that the Harrier GR7 is in operational service and I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that all that aircraft's service requirements have been met. The GR7 is being used by the Royal Navy on its aircraft carriers and it is not the first time that the RAF have operated from Navy carriers.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister refer to the reorganisation of the Royal Air Force auxiliary units in his speech? I would like him to explain what is happening to the volunteer reserve units—particularly the public relations flight officers and the intelligence officers, who did such sterling work during the Gulf war and who currently serve in units in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia.
I believe that a small professional Royal Air Force—that is what we will have when the defence costs study is complete—should have a substantial reserve capability. I hope that the Government's thoughts are now turning to enlarging and widening the size and scope of the reserve
496
forces, including the flying reserves. It will not surprise my colleagues to learn that I shall conclude my comments by referring to the air cadets.
Last Sunday Air Commodore Peter Stean, the commandant of air cadets, and Air Vice Marshal Peter Squire, the Assistant Chief of the Air Staff, and I attended the east midlands wing air cadets field day and review. There were 950 youngsters on parade and more than 300 adults. I wish that our media would concentrate on the good youngsters in this country; I wish that they had been there to see those youngsters and the adult uniformed staff on parade and on duty. I remind the House that those adult staff receive pay only for attending courses and camps. That means that for every day that they are paid the nation gets their services free for eight days.
As president of Volunteer Gliding Schools, I express my concern that, with fewer service airfields available, the deployment of volunteer gliding schools is an ever-increasing challenge. We are nearing the point when we may run out of airfields. That problem must be addressed if volunteer gliding schools are to be situated close to air cadet catchment areas.
Early-day motion 533, which has been signed by a substantial number of hon. Members, congratulates the Government on their support for the cadet forces, particularly the air cadets.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon drew attention to concerns about the university air squadrons and their Bulldog aircraft. He probably does not know that the air cadet air experience flights and the university air squadrons have merged and that the air cadets will fly some of the Bulldogs. That will apply in Colerne as well as everywhere else and I hope that those aircraft continue to generate noise around Colerne. I believe that when people complain about the noise of light aircraft—particularly the Bulldogs or power gliders—we should deploy a squadron of Harriers for a week to show them what life on a military base is like.
I know that other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so I shall conclude my remarks. The Duke of Edinburgh got it right when he said:
"There are many ways of giving useful service to the nation, but none can be more valuable than helping young people to grow up into responsible citizens. Adolescence is a particularly difficult and challenging period in their lives, but it can be eased by offering them opportunities to experience adventure, discipline and responsibility."
That is what the cadet forces do and they are a national asset. The air cadets perform a particularly important function and I am delighted by the strong support that they receive from Ministers. On behalf of the air cadets, I thank the Government for their support. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has recently visited some air cadet units. They appreciate his interest and I hope that he will make many more such visits in the future.
7.17 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: I shall respond to some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) in a moment. The Secretary of State for Defence said earlier that he had written the Defence White Paper. We all know that the Secretary of State's signature will appear at the bottom of it, but I believe that Defence White Papers are written by accountants with a particularly creative bent—not least because of the distinct inaccuracies which have appeared in almost all of them.

497
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement is well aware of that and he said that there would be wider involvement in international activity. That occurs frequently and, when additional commitments are made, I am sure that the Secretary of State will offer that to the House as a further excuse for the Defence White Paper being blown off course. I shall return to that subject in a moment.
As hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have said, the Royal Air Force has contracted severely in the past few years. As many hon. Members are well aware, the contraction has gone far enough. Many of us consider that it has gone too far. We have nine operational stations in Britain, and two in Germany, for strike, offensive support, air defence, reconnaissance, and airborne warning and communication system—AWACS—aircraft.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who made a substantial speech, may be right to say that there may be a removal from Germany. That would leave us with nine operational stations in Britain and that would make the condition of the RAF far less satisfactory than it was in 1934—a point made by the hon. Member for Tayside, North. There would be only nine operational stations for the highest quality air force in western Europe.
We are concerned about not only the number of stations, but the number of personnel. The contraction continues, but the commitments may continue to expand. Perhaps the Minister will remind us of the number and names of the countries in which RAF personnel have served or are serving this year. Conservative Members may not like being reminded, but it would be useful to have that on record.
I am extremely anxious about the Government's management of the air force and their policies in respect of the involvement of the private sector. I have always believed in the mixed economy and there is certainly a place for private sector involvement in the RAF. There are benefits for the private sector and the air force, but the Government, in their slavish regard for dogma, are so eager to get rid of blue uniforms and pass business and profit to the private sector that they put the service in difficulty.
Reducing the number of blue uniforms on an RAF station weakens the service and reduces the capacity of that service to guard its own bases, or even reduces the service so that it cannot fulfil one of its obligations—to provide a full life for the people committed to that service 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Sooner or later, a Royal Air Force station will not be able to raise an unit football team so few will be the blue uniforms in it. That position is likely to arise unless the Government temper their attitude.
I was grateful for the Minister's reference to the fact that the position at St. Athan and Sealand may not be as fearful as some of us dreaded. The Government have gone too far and are reducing the capacity of the service to be the intelligent customer to whom reference was made.
May I begin the main part of my speech with another criticism that has not yet been offered? So far in the debate, there have been frequent references to the second world war. However, the Government have not yet perceived that their political role is not merely to administer the service, but to protect its image.
It is all very well for the Minister today to talk about the contribution of the Royal Air Force in the second world war, but when such comments are needed, and have
498
been needed in the past few years, they were not made. In a debate in the House just after the row about the Harris memorial—one or two Conservative Members may recall that debate—I pointed out that no one put it on record that Bomber Command flew not simply to kill German citizens or destroy German morale. If Bomber Command had not flown in the war, the Germans, with the capacity for aircraft manufacture that has been referred to, would not have produced the fighters that were used to attack the bomber squadrons over German skies; they would have produced bomber aircraft that would have dropped bombs on Britain. One wonders what would have been said 50 years later about the destruction of British cities.
The bomber squadrons flying over German skies occupied more than 1 million German soldiers and scores of thousands of German guns. If they had not been kept back to defend German towns, cities and industries, they could have been deployed in Normandy, and we now know that the invasion was a closer run thing than the propaganda machine liked to admit.
Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman might draw attention to the fact that the V2 would have been in service much earlier had it not been for the Royal Air Force knocking out that capability.
Mr. Hardy: I am aware of the successful raid on the Peenemunde establishment by Bomber Command. In February, after we had the failure of communication or protection in respect of the Harris memorial and we were listening to the laudable and commendable attempts to create reconciliation, on the anniversary of the dreadful raid on Dresden, there was another outburst of criticism of the Royal Air Force. The raid on Dresden was a terrible thing and a lot of people died. Nearly as many people died as a result of the RAF raid on Dresden as died in the concentration camps on the same day. The echoes of the VI and V2 missiles, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, were still noticeable in south-east England. The battle of the bulge had only just taken place and there was vicious hand-to-hand fighting because Germany had not surrendered. If the air raid-had taken place over Dresden after the Germans had offered to surrender, it would have been a heinous and terrible act, but war is war.
It is regrettable that Ministers with a political responsibility to guard the heritage and tradition of the service did not defend it in the terms that should have been offered. It is not simply a matter of protecting the economic condition of the RAF. When game is under threat, gamekeepers are required and the role of the RAF as gamekeeper in the national interest has eroded and withered away.
A few moments ago, the Minister of State intervened in regard to the house occupied by Air Chief Marshal Sir Sandy Wilson. He made a robust criticism of the role of the press in that matter. I agree that the press behaved very badly. As I said earlier, there was a great deal of attention on the Friday, when the Secretary of State appeared on television, but, a few days later, there was none when the Minister of State intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on the role of senior officers.
I do not believe that Sir Sandy Wilson received a fair deal from the press or from Ministers. Ministers did not make it clear that the house had been empty for 14 months or what its value was. Indeed, the press seems to be under the impression that the house was worth less than half the

499
value that the Minister might like to tell us later in the debate. I do not believe that the press was adequately informed of the principal suggestion that Air Chief Marshal Sir Sandy Wilson made. Because the house had previously been occupied by a two-star officer and he was a four-star officer who, because of reorganisation, was to occupy the house as one of the most senior officers in the RAF, it would be appropriate to have an internal wall knocked out, to make a large room. It would have been appropriate for the Minister to have said—the press has not been told—who was the budget holder for that property. Altogether, there was a nasty taste and a suggestion was made that Air Chief Marshal Sir Sandy Wilson was a scapegoat. I understand why the Government, with their propensity to appoint people who agree with them at all costs, took that course.
I am reminded of a long time ago when I was a schoolmaster. In those days it was fashionable for my education authority to appoint as headmasters people who were willing to please the director of education at all times, sometimes from a supine position. I was responsible for quite a few things, including the school timetable. I found that I was unable to give the headmaster anything other than a first-year form. The naughty children in the first-year form were sent to me. I would much rather we had had headmasters who would stand up to directors of education—someone prepared to put his feet down firmly and speak out when necessary. If it is important for a headmaster to have that sort of character, so it should be for a senior officer in Her Majesty's forces. Unfortunately, the present Administration is looking for supine senior officers. As that is the sort of officer that the Government want, they will try to ensure that that is the officer that in future they will get. There will not be room for outspoken fighter pilots who have intelligence and a certain amount of nerve. There will not be room for those who are not prepared to subscribe to every fashion that the Government wish to adopt.
Conservative Members who have criticised the Government's policy are entitled to do so. It is in the interests of our country that we maintain a high-quality RAF. I see that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) is in his place. He has played a distinguished part in the Western European Union for a long time. He will be aware that the last sitting of the WEU in 1994 saw it considering a report that I presented on the capability of the air forces of western Europe. I began to prepare the report with some anxiety about what I should find, and what I found was somewhat surprising. When it came to all-weather strike capability, air-to-air refuelling, adequate reconnaissance, up-to-date strike capacity, adequate flying training and sufficient numbers of flying hours, most of western Europe was sadly lacking.
Last year, we had parliamentarians from eastern Europe rushing to Paris understandably to express considerable anxiety about their security. If any of us represented a constituency relatively close to the newly appointed Colonel Zhirinovsky—he has just been made an honorary colonel in the Russian army—we would understand their anxiety. He has been demanding that Russia recovers its former provinces, which are now independent and sovereign states. It is not surprising that parliamentarians from eastern and central Europe rushed to Paris to ask for security guarantees.
500
It is surprising, however, that most western European countries listened to their neighbours from eastern and central Europe and almost fell over themselves to promise them the security guarantees for which they asked when they had no capacity to deliver anything. Some of the countries that gave eastern and central Europe the security guarantees for which their parliamentarians pleaded have little capacity to defend themselves, let alone anyone else.
I do not like it that Britain has had to bear a much heavier burden than many of its fellow NATO members. It is about time that the Government began to tell them rather more firmly and clearly that the United Kingdom should not have to bear burdens that they themselves should bear. They have done well out of ducking responsibility over the past 30 or 40 years. We, of course, have accepted the obligation to defend ourselves.
For as long as we have a seat on the General Council of the United Nations, we must accept the bill that so ensues. If we are part of the international community—I hope that my party will remain internationalist—we must accept the obligations that that brings. The obligations that the RAF has fulfilled on behalf of Britain over the past 30 years—indeed, over the past 30 months—have been fulfilled extremely impressive and a source of pride for the nation. The obligations have been costly, but they have been carried out responsibly.
How can we expect the service to maintain such commitments and roles when we have just eight squadrons of strike Tornados, six squadrons of air-defence Tornados, two squadrons of Jaguars, three squadrons of Harriers and only two major bases, at Brize Norton and Lyneham, for major transport services? The line has become extremely thin under a Conservative Government, who for 16 years in office—the same can be said of the Conservative party for the 15 years that preceded the present Administration—prattled about the need to maintain the nation's defence.
Obviously, the ending of the cold war brought about different economic demands, but the Minister will be aware that far more people in Europe have died, been maimed, driven mad or ethnically cleansed since the cold war ended than when it prevailed. Yet there is no real prospect of absolute security in Europe. There is certainly no real prospect of absolute security in other parts of the world.
It should be understood that we need to see the development of international authority. We must recognise the absurdities in the command structures of the United Nations and ensure that they are removed. If we are to get rid of them and if there is to be a proper response to crises, it is certain that Britain will have a major role to play. If Britain is to play that role, the RAF will have much to do, but I see the RAF having little capacity to expand at any speed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) my parliamentary neighbour, has already spoken about RAF Finningley. I have known Finningley since I was a boy. I was in the air training corps when I flew in an Airspeed Oxford at Finningley. I doubt whether anyone in the air force has flown one in recent years. Probably many RAF personnel would not recognise it. Finningley was an important station during the war, and remained so after the war. It was probably one of the largest aircrew training bases in NATO. It represented a substantial capital investment by the United Kingdom and it has had considerable meaning for the economy of south Yorkshire.

501
The Minister will be aware that I wrote to him about RAF Finningley. I think that I sent a copy of the letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. I referred to the history of the station and to its economic importance in terms of jobs in south Yorkshire. I was told, "We cannot take those factors into account". A narrow assumption has had to be made, but if needs develop, where shall we train the loadmasters, the air engineers, the aircrew electronic operators and the navigators? Will there be privatisation and greater costs? South Yorkshire jobs will be lost, the base will go, and we might find ourselves short of runways.
It is not only those consequences that cause me to be angry. The Government have not paid proper attention to the need to maintain the image of the service. When the air day took place at Finningley—the last one was held in September 1994—more people attended it to express, directly or indirectly, their appreciation of the service as it is today and as it was, than attended the St Leger horse race a week earlier. It was an enormous attraction. It was probably the most important attraction in the social calendar of south Yorkshire. Yet it is to be taken away for the narrowest of considerations.
We know that the Government can throw enormous sums away without batting an eyelid. Against that background, one wonders about the closure of Finningley. Will the Minister therefore explain a story that I read in The Daily Telegraph a little while ago? It said that £5 million had been lost on a failed project to transfer married quarters to a housing trust and mentioned three—year contracts for the chairman and financial directors of that trust, who were in place for only a very short time. They received getting on for £500,000. The article said that the failure of the trust, which has virtually been wound up, meant that the Ministry of Defence was left with a budgetary shortfall of £500 million. I am not an expert in creative accountancy, but when a budgetary shortfall of £500 million can simply be ignored, I can think only that the attitude towards RAF Finningley is quite dreadful.
The Government may feel that they are well equipped to run the nation's defences, but the experience of the RAF over the past few years does not justify their claim. I hope that the Minister will pay some attention, if not to Opposition Members, to his hon. Friends, who are capable of giving advice which should be heard and to which he should attend. As I said, the line is too thin. The needs are likely to increase and the dangers are enormous. We are right to point out that present policies are not succeeding; they are creating dangers which should be acknowledged. A new approach is necessary if the Royal Air Force is to be able to guard the skies of Britain and to contribute to world stability and peace in the years ahead.
7.40 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: As we have this debate on the eve of our commemoration of victory in Europe, we may appropriately ask ourselves how best can we keep faith with those who died that we might be free? I suspect that those who died would say, "Do not make the same mistakes again in government which made our task so difficult. Look resolutely forward and help to build a Royal Air Force, whose structure, strategies, manpower policy and equipment will stand the test of time."
502
In the middle of this decade, as throughout the history of the Royal Air Force, we are experiencing dramatic change. In the air force's earliest days, in the great war, which culminated with the birth of the service on 1 April 1918, air power in four brief years moved from Army co—operation to the deployment of an independent air force; a striking force that could hit the Ruhr and the western part of Germany. Very quickly thereafter, we had the Geddes axe, the dramatic retrenchments and then, all too soon, the hasty build—up that, of course, ended, in the second world war. When that war ended so thankfully in May 50 years ago, the bombers that had dropped bombs were rapidly redeployed to drop food for starving civilians and, in some instances, to repatriate prisoners of war.
We thought then that we could enjoy a period of peace, but all too soon the cold war broke out. We should recall the deterrent role so successfully played by the Royal Air Force throughout that war. To recall such a role is fitting because, only a few days ago, Her Majesty's Government announced that about three years from now the Royal Air Force will relinquish its last nuclear weapons.
With a great sense of responsibility, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, the V bombers—my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) knows more about them than I because he served on them—were the first custodians of our independent strategic nuclear deterrent. Thereafter, the Royal Air Force maintained a tactical capability which is soon to be phased out. I ask the House to bear with me if I question the wisdom of phasing out that capability.
One of the inherent advantages of air power is its basic flexibility. I doubt whether a sub—strategic Trident system will ever deter as effectively as multi—role combat aircraft—that is to say, dual—capable strike aircraft, which can be deployed to a theatre and, by their deployment, send a signal to an adversary who would otherwise behave aggressively. I have said before that I believe that the threat of bluff being called is greater when we deploy deterrent forces which, by their submarine nature, are invisible and less apparent in the theatre of emergency tension or potential war. So I regret the decision not to press ahead with the tactical air-to-surface nuclear missile—the TASM—and I wonder too whether the studies into the proposed conversion of the strategic submarine nuclear, the Trafalgar class for Tomahawk cruise missiles, will prove costly and can be effectively done. I suspect otherwise.
I take heart, however, from the modernisation of the Royal Air Force's front line. I am delighted with the decision to buy the HerculesC130 J transport, with the new support helicopters, with the procurement of the European fighter aircraft, with the weapons systems that we are buying, such as the conventionally armed stand-off missile, the intelligent anti-armour weapon and much else besides, such as the replacement maritime patrol aeroplane. There has been, in short, an effective re-equipment programme—not yet completed—in which we can take great satisfaction.
Of course, to make that possible, there have been reductions in support, the rationalisation of the headquarters and staff structures and massive redundancies. We have seen proud stations close. How eloquently the hon. Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) spoke about Finningley and the loss of multi-engine and rear-crew training from that station. How sad it is as well that RAF Chivenor, where so many fast-jet pilots converted to Vampires and in later years to Hunters, and more recently did their tactical weaponry on the Hawk, is closed yet again. It is hard not to

503
be emotional about the closure of RAF Scampton, the war-time home of 617 Dambuster squadron. Everybody who cares for the history of the Royal Air Force will find that closure very emotional, especially as it has been in recent years the home of the central flying school and the Royal Air Force aerobatic team the Red Arrows.
With those changes have come not only improvement in equipment, but certain redeployments in which we can rejoice. I must thank my friend the late Air Chief Marshal Sir John Thomson, who was one of the Royal Air Force's outstanding senior officers in recent years. One of the last things which he did as outgoing air officer commander-in-chief of strike command was to approve the decision to incorporate the Queen's flight into the 32 Communication squadron at RAF Northolt, in my constituency, to become the Royal squadron.
We take great pride in that locally, as we do in the fact that RAF Northolt is one of the oldest flying stations in Royal Air Force service. It was opened first as a Royal Flying Corps base in 1915–80 years ago—and it played a proud and important part in the battle of Britain. As we commemorate victory in Europe, it is important to note that it was the home not just of RAF fighter squadrons, but of the gallant Poles who went into action at the height of the battle of Britain, whose memorial stands at the threshold of my constituency and whose gallantry, along with that of the Czechs and others who served alongside British service men in world war two, we must commemorate. We must also commemorate the role of the auxiliaries and volunteer reserves and I am pleased that No. 1 maritime headquarters unit of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force is at RAF Northolt.
In the changes that have occurred, there has been a risk of concentrating on managerial imperatives rather than on the prime necessity for our armed forces, which is to be ready to fight at all times. This is the cardinal criterion for the creation of effective armed forces. As we allow ourselves this historic perspective, I wonder whether, in world war two, Bomber Harris at Bomber command, Hugh Dowding at Fighter command or Jack Slessor at Coastal command, could have been effective commanders in chief had they, at the same time, had to be members of the Air Force Board wrestling with policy problems in Whitehall.
It may be all right in peace time for commanders in chief to combine, as must the board of directors of a big company, executive and policy functions. However, I do not believe that it would be possible in war.
Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is a former serving officer. He knows as well as I that the two tasks must be carried out. It is not an option for management. Good management of resources, as my hon. Friend is well aware, is not an optional extra. In my judgment, the astonishing success of the three services is that they managed to combine in the same officers, the absolutely unbelievable ability to be extremely good managers and very good war fighters.
Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister, but that was not really the point I was making. I was trying to suggest that it might be all right in peace time in a period when there is no serious risk of an emergency or war for commanders in chief to have a role on the Air Force Board as well. However, in war, when they have operations to conduct, I do not see how it could be possible for them to
504
combine their operational responsibilities at headquarters with policy direction in Whitehall alongside Her Majesty's Government. That was my point and I think that it is valid.
At the beginning of my speech, I said that we should look resolutely forward. I hope that the RAF is paying sufficient attention to the crucial necessity for ballistic missile defence. We are conscious from our television screens of the horrendous sight of Zagreb being attacked with ordinary Katousha-type rockets. However, in the Yemen civil war only a few moths ago, Scud ballistic missiles were launched from North Yemen to South Yemen and vice versa. We must address the problem and set up an effective theatre ballistic missile defence architecture.
I recognise that the Government have initiated studies on a bilateral basis with our French friends and the Americans. I am aware of the NATO studies and of the time scale within which analyses are being carried out by British Aerospace and others. All that is welcome. However, with Islamic fundamentalism on the march, with great uncertainty in the Balkans, the Maghreb countries and in nations which are within ballistic missile reach of these islands, we must address the problem.
As a further lesson from the Gulf war, we should address more seriously the benefits to our defences of a military space programme, particularly with regard to reconnaissance, confidence-building measures, surveillance, early warning and signals intelligence. I hope to hear that we are co-ordinating our efforts with our European and American friends in those areas.
With regard to co-operation with our allies, I must state that I do not believe that it is politically necessary for us to retain two RAF bases in Germany. I would withdraw the Harrier wing and support helicopters from Laarbruch and the Tornado wing from RAF Bruggen. After all, the problems with low flying in Germany have been mentioned. There are no longer any Russian armed forces—thank God—anywhere in central Europe. We should redeploy the RAF units to which I have referred back to the United Kingdom, and thereby keep vital bases in this country open and improve employment prospects here.
The key to the future of the service lies, as ever, with its personnel. At a time when numbers of armed forces personnel and uniformed men and women are decreasing, we must compensate by improving training rather than cutting training. It is a very false economy to cut training, particularly at a time of numerical retrenchment and reduction.
I urge that we create a tri-service cadet college at Greenwich where young men and women can spend a year together in prestigious surroundings, in the public eye, learning the discipline necessary for a service career, the history of the services and military science. That would be a better induction to service life than the 24 weeks of initial officer training at Cranwell. When they have completed cadet training and have proved that they have the necessary qualities, we could then send them to Cranwell for proper professional training, both elementary flying training and basic, because they could both be carried out at Cranwell.
I query the service plans with regard to multi-engine training because they do not appear to be defined. There will be a study in Canada into training by civilian contractors. The experience of the service has always been that it is better to do it in a uniformed and disciplined environment.

505
Finally, if we are going to have a Royal Air Force which is capable of expansion, there must be effective reserves. I am glad about the progress that has been made in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. Combining it with the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve was wise. The regiment squadrons have done well. The aero-medical section at Brize Norton is a success as is the movements auxiliary unit at Brize Norton. I am glad that reserve air crew have an opportunity to fly the Wessex and the C130. I hope that in 1996 Royal Air Force reservists may have an opportunity to fly fast jets.
Let me remind the House, however, how inadequate our response is in this area as compared with that of the Israelis and the Americans. Jane's Defence Weekly on 11 March 1995 states:
"US Air Force Reserve F16s on 'Deny Flight"'—
that is, over the Balkans—
"Deployment of two US Air Force Reserve squadrons to Aviano Air Base, Italy, to enforce the no-fly zone over Bosnia has enabled"—
regular F16s to return to the United States for advanced training. That is the kind of measure we need to reduce some of the overstretch and strain in our regular units and to enable better use to be made of trained manpower when they leave the service.
All in all, the Government have done well with regard to the RAF. I am hopeful for the future and we would keep faith with those who died in the service of our country in the RAF, and to whom we pay tribute, if we continued the modernisation of the service which is, broadly, on the right lines.
7.59 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I am surprised that no one has quoted Sir Winston Churchill's famous phrase about the Royal Air Force at the time of the Battle of Britain. I suspect that that is because the phrase is copyright, and any money derived from quoting it would go to the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) or his trustees, in addition to his lottery windfall. In the circumstances, a more appropriate quote may be, "Never has so much been paid by so many for so little." However, that is more relevant to the lottery than it is to the RAF.
I pay genuine tribute to the RAF. I have said in previous RAF debates that its professionalism and standards are of the highest quality, and I reiterate that.
I wish to make two brief points. First, there is the question of the use of information obtained by the RAF Turkey in the invasion of Iraq. I am concerned at reports that Turkish forces invading the safe areas for Kurds in northern Iraq were able to use images obtained by RAF aircraft to help plan their operations.
I have a report dated 30 March this year, which states:
"Royal Air Force officials admitted yesterday that high-quality security photographs of the Kurdish safe areas in northern Iraq, taken by RAF and French warplanes, have been shared with Turkish military officers."
"The officials said only that they will continue to monitor the situation and that Ankara has been told to respect the principle of territorial integrity."
Turkey did not respect the principle of territorial integrity because 35,000 Turkish troops, backed by warplanes and tanks, attacked those safe areas. They have left that area only in the past day.
506
That was a gross abuse of the images obtained by the RAF. If the use of those images by Turkey is proven beyond doubt—as I said, RAF officials have admitted it—I call for Turkey to be prevented from having any further access to such images. The Minister should say what the Government's response has been, and whether they have made or will make representations to Turkey on the issue.
Mr. Hardy: The Royal Air Force is based in Turkey. Turkey is its host and also a part of NATO. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Royal Air Force cannot refuse to co-operate with a partner, and that if there is to be criticism and blame, it should be directed at the Administration in Turkey, and perhaps to our Foreign Office?
Mr. Cohen: I half agree with my hon. Friend. I am not blaming the RAF in this matter. There must have been a political decision to hand the images over to the Turkish authorities. I blame the Turkish authorities for invading the safe areas in Iraq. My criticism is of the Government. Somebody at a high level acceded to a request, if one was made, for the images.
The upshot is that the images were used for an operation for which they should not have been used—a national military operation by Turkey against safe areas. The Government should rebuke the Turkish Government on the matter. Will that be done?
Lady Olga Maitland: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while Turkey did go over the border, it was attacking PKK terrorist camps? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that the PKK has killed thousands of innocent men, women and children in Turkey. The invasion was an attempt to combat international terrorism.
Mr. Cohen: There is a lot of argument about Turkey and its war against the Kurds and the PKK and the slaughter of the Alavi people. However, what has happened is that Turkey has used RAF images to help invade another country, northern Iraq, and the safe havens that were guaranteed by the United Nations. Indeed, the Prime Minister took credit for setting up those safe areas. RAF images and information should not have been used, in those circumstances, to help bomb and attack those areas. We need a ministerial response.
Secondly, I wish to discuss cluster bombs, and particularly the definition of cluster bombs. I want to query the compatibility of the BL755 cluster bomb with our obligations under international law, and with what could become our obligations under international law after the United Nations weaponry convention review in September.
About a month ago, I asked the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), about land mines. He enunciated a new Government policy to the House of the responsible use of mines, by which he meant that they should be mapped and later removed.
In a letter to me of 21 April, the Minister claimed:
"the BL755 is not a land mine and does not include an anti-personnel land mine as a component."
That raises the issue of what the definition of a mine is.
I like simple, clear definitions, because they are the easiest to keep to. I suggest that anything that is on the ground and is triggered by a person coming into contact with it to cause that person death or injury is an

507
anti-personnel land mine. That is precisely what the anti-personnel element of the BL755 does, and that is contrary to what the Minister stated in his letter to me. The bomblets, to use the military's term, in the BL755 are scattered when the cluster bomb is deployed, ready to kill and maim people who enter the affected area.
The Government are playing around with meanings and definitions. Most people recognise a distinction between a bomb and a mine. The former explodes on impact with the ground, while the latter waits—this is the key point—on the ground for the victim to come into contact with it. That is why the BL755 produces a minefield by any other name. The weapons within it are clearly mines under the definition that I have used.
If the weapon were to be used, would the RAF go along and drop a team of sappers to mark the resulting minefield behind enemy lines? Of course not. How can the weapon be used responsibly and in compliance with protocol 2 of the inhumane weapons convention as the Government claim?
There is a further important question. We exported such weapons to the former Yugoslavia, and they are now in Serbian hands. In the past couple of days, Zagreb has been attacked with cluster bombs—perhaps the bombs that we sold. Can the Minister confidently tell the House that he expects the Serbs not to use those weapons indiscriminately if the no-fly zone is ever rescinded? Will they use them "responsibly", in the Government's parlance?
The BL755 blows up—or, if hon. Members can excuse the pun, undermines—the responsible use of mines policy that the Government enunciated only a few weeks ago. Ministers can get around the problem only by pretending that the BL755 does not have a mine element at all, but it does. It waits on the ground for somebody to come into contact with it.
The Government's approach will fool no one, but many tyrants around the world will do likewise, and say that they do not have any mines when they do. It could put the protocol, the effort to ban or reduce the number of land mines, and even the Government's desired "responsible" use of mines, in jeopardy. I therefore urge the Government to think again about the BL755 cluster bomb, especially in relation to our international obligations.
8.9 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: The lesson of the events that we commemorate this weekend is that the price of peace is eternal vigilance. Had that lesson been learned following the first world war, the second could have been avoided.
I shall use this debate on air defence to enlarge on the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and the warning that I gave in a previous defence debate, which is that this country and Europe are not prepared for ballistic missile attack. In support of that warning, I paint what I readily accept is a worst case scenario but which I believe to be wholly plausible.
No one doubts that the future of Algeria lies on a knife edge, and that today's civil war could lead to an Islamic fundamentalist Government. Within weeks, perhaps days, that revolution could be exported to neighbouring Tunisia, where the Ben Ali Government could be replaced by the
508
banned Islamic Renaissance party. Before Europe and the United States of America had time to respond, Muslim radicals in Egypt could have incited the mob to overthrow the Mubarak Government. Immediately, the border between Egypt and Gaza would be pulled down. As Islamic brothers embraced, Israel would mobilise, and the peace process would be dead.
In response, President Clinton and NATO would order ships to the eastern Mediterranean and send troops to support King Hassan in Morocco, which is fast becoming destabilised by the flood of refugees from Algeria, and is itself threatened by revolution.
Unable to believe their luck, President Gaddafi and the ayatollahs in Iran would promise to reinforce the new regimes, which would request the immediate supply of missiles of all kinds. Of course, Iran and Libya have more than enough to go around, having recently taken delivery of large quantities of RoDong ballistic missiles from North Korea. In addition, they have long held hundreds of Scuds B and C, Al Fatah and Tondar medium-range missiles.
They would no doubt press North Korea to speed up the development and supply of its larger longer-range NoDong missiles, which Libya is co-financing and which would put this country within range. Apart from Israel, there is only one direction in which these missiles located along the entire southern shore of the Mediterranean would face, and that is Europe.
The question to which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will respond is, are we prepared for such a threat today and in the immediate future? Also, are we prepared for accidental, unauthorised or even deliberate launches from the growing number of countries that possess or that are developing and acquiring ballistic missiles?
I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister will refer to the initiatives for the future missile defence of Europe which are now under way, such as our two-year programme of pre-feasibility studies, parallel studies in NATO, informal discussions with allies and close links between the Ministry and the United States Ballistic Missile Defence Organisation.
None of that suggests that we are prepared now. It does suggest, however, that there is some overlap, and that this country is hardly at the centre of co-operation between the United States of America and our allies in preparing for the future missile defence of Europe-quite the reverse.
Why is the United Kingdom not part of the agreement made three months ago by the United States of America, Germany, France and Italy to co-operate in developing an extended air defence capability against ballistic missiles, which is known as MEADS, or the medium extended air defence system? Why are we not considering the development of a European space-based observation system and an early warning system, which are essential for effective anti-missile defence and which should surely be on the agenda of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference of the European Union in relation to the future European defence community?
As ballistic missiles are at their most vulnerable before their descent, which was the central argument in support of President Reagan's strategic defence initiative, should we not be pursuing and sharing with our allies the research into an interception system that is space-based, as well as a ground-based theatre missile defence system, which has effectively replaced star wars?

509
On a parallel tack, what plans do we have to strengthen the missile technology control regime, which is what President Clinton prefers to star wars? It needs a formal, well-researched secretariat, and its guidelines need to take account of payload as well as range. Many of its members need to strengthen in their national laws the principles of the regime.
New attempts must be made to bring in the major suppliers of ballistic missile technology, such as Russia and China, that remain outside the regime. Certainly, future membership of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development should require it. Potential suppliers from the former Soviet Union, such as Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, should be encouraged to join, while second-tier suppliers such as India and North Korea should continue to be pressed to adhere to it.
As the war was coming to an end 50 years ago, London and the south-east were still living in fear of the first ever ballistic missile to be used in war against which we had no defence—the V2. Today, some 38 countries already have or are developing increasingly reliable and longer-range successors to the V2. That fact, combined with the spread of weapons of mass destruction to be used with those missiles, is giving our regional adversaries a political and military leverage that was inconceivable at the beginning of the decade.
If we do not have the capability to respond effectively to these threats, we will be deterred from taking action against Saddam Hussein and his kind in the future, and our enemies will know that they can have their way without a shot being fired. This represents the greatest challenge to the defence of Europe today, as well as to our ability to defend Europe's interests anywhere in the world, most notably in the middle east.
Mr. Freeman: As we are not as pressed for time as we are in some other debates, it might be convenient for the House if I comment briefly on the matters that my hon. Friend aimed directly at me.
The Government take ballistic missile defence extremely seriously. Nothing should be read into the fact that we are not participating in the United States MEADS programme. We are pursuing parallel initiatives, and I maintain a very close connection with my opposite numbers in the Pentagon on this matter.
When we have the conference in London in June to discuss ballistic missile defence, I shall be announcing on behalf of the Government not only the progress being made on the feasibility study led by British Aerospace but, more important, the fact that we have recently authorised the investment of some £8 million in technology demonstrators, especially in the sphere of radar defence against ballistic missiles.
I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend. I shall be sure to tell my hon. Friend the Minister of State who is winding up the debate, and who might not be able to respond to the points that my hon. Friend has made and has yet to make, that I have taken the liberty of dealing with some of them.
Mr. Atkinson: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has responded to some of my concerns. I am grateful to him, and I look forward to any further responses from my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am also pleased to hear about the announcement to be made at the eighth
510
multinational conference on theatre missile defence, which is to take place at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre next month.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces for the considerable role that he is playing in the organisation of the Government's programme of official VE day and VJ day events that are forthcoming this weekend and in August. That they are appropriate to the historic occasions they commemorate, and that they will be a considerable success, there is no doubt, and I believe that the whole House should acknowledge that today. Of course, we expect nothing less from the grandson of Sir Winston Churchill.
8.19 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not follow the lines of their contributions, as I wish to concentrate on RAF Valley, which is in my constituency.
The Minister of State will know that I corresponded with him in September last year about the Government's proposal for market testing certain services at Valley. I asked him whether it would be possible for an in-house bid to be made for those services. He wrote to me in September last year and said that there was an opportunity for a bid to be considered, although there were certain constraints about that bid. That was a less-than-fulsome assurance, but at least it confirmed that the in-house bid team at RAF Valley was to be given some assistance in preparing that bid.
On 20 April, the Ministry of Defence announced that it proposed not to allow an in-house bid to proceed, and that decision was greeted with anger and frustration by not only RAF personnel at the station and the civilian work force but the local community. I shall address some of our concerns about the proposal and, I hope, persuade the Ministry to think again during the consultation period.
RAF Valley was established in 1941 as a fighter base. It is now the only fully operational RAF airfield in Wales. The Ministry of Defence concluded that its future as a flying base should continue, at the expense of other locations, in 1993. Currently, 1,100 service personnel and 200 civilians are employed at Valley. They contribute about £20 million annually to the local economy. Many of the service personnel live in the camp village of Llanfihangel, but a significant number live in the adjoining villages of Caergeiliog, Rhosneigr, Llanfaelog, Trearddur bay and Holyhead. When I became aware that Valley was to be subjected to the market-testing exercise, I felt that it was incumbent on me to take up the matter with the Minister.
The market-testing exercise involves a total of 771 posts—573 are service personnel and 198 are civilians. The in-house bid team commenced work on the premise that the 771 posts would be reduced to 580, with 300 service personnel, the current 198 civilians, and the balance recruited as civilian staff. The fact that 300 service personnel needed to be included in the in-house bid at the outset was a clear demonstration of the need to retain sufficient staff with the appropriate skills in aircraft-related tasks.
Alongside the market-testing proposal, as the Minister of State has explained, we had the publication of the White Paper, "Front Line First", with its requirement to

511
reduce RAF manpower from 73,000 at present to 52,200 by March 1999. Given the time scale for the market-testing proposal and the manpower service reduction requirements, the in-house bid was clearly damned from the outset. Set against that background and that time scale, it could not possibly succeed.
The Ministry made it clear that a total of 300 service personnel, although it would mean a reduction of 273 on the current levels, was unacceptable because it could not otherwise meet the manpower reduction requirements. Therefore, for all those months—from September last year until January this year—the in-house bid team worked with one hand tied behind its back, and a trawl of the whole of north Wales for people with the appropriate skills in aircraft-related tasks and in specialist aircraft-related tasks produced the inevitable results: there were simply not enough people with those skills available so that they could be included in the bid.
The next step, of course, was to see whether sufficient people could be trained in time to be included in the bid. That, of course, is where we came up against the time scale constraints. The time scale for the implementation of the contractorisation programme meant that it could not be achieved. The original timetable was: May 1995, the invitation to tender—I understand that there might he some slippage—then November 1995, the choice of contractor; January 1996, a six-month handover period to commence; and July 1996, total handover to the contractor. Even the most optimistic person would have to agree that, if 300 service personnel with specialist skills had to be taken out of the bid, it would be impossible to train 300 people from the local community within 14 months in time for the handover.
Because there are no aircraft-related industries within the local community, there is no pool of ready, available labour to take the place of the service personnel. If the work were handed over to an outside contractor, the loss of jobs in Anglesey would be catastrophic, and the impact on the local community enormous. Contractors will say that they will do their best to employ local people, but the reality is that, because some of the jobs require specialist skills, many people from outside the area will have to be brought in.
The RAF station is located in the north-west quadrant of the island, which is part of the Holyhead travel-to-work area. The population of that part of the island is 53,000, with unemployment at 15.4 per cent.—the second highest in Wales; nearly 60 per cent. have been unemployed for more than six months. In March this year, there were 269 unfilled vacancies, which would meet 10 per cent. of the current demand. Average incomes in the area are substantially below the United Kingdom average.
The tremendous problems that the community faces—structural, economic and social problems, low incomes, and so on—will be significantly compounded if an in-house bid is not allowed. We will see not only the loss of 573 service personnel and their purchasing power in the community but 198 civilian jobs in jeopardy. That will have a significant impact, as I have said, on shops, schools and the housing market. I have already said that a significant number of service personnel live in several villages surrounding the base at Valley. If all those service personnel were transferred to other locations, the impact on the housing market in those areas would be
512
unbelievable. When, on 20 April, the Ministry of Defence announced the decision not to allow the in-house bid, the condemnation in my constituency was universal. Morale at the station hit a new low, and people were angry at the way in which they had been treated.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who I believe is to wind up the debate, sent me a reply saying that, apart from the global in-house bid covering both civilian and service personnel, the Ministry had also considered the idea of a separate in-house bid for the civilian staff alone, but it had rejected that as well. Unfortunately, the Ministry had not discussed that option with the trade unions representing the civilian staff, and the first they knew about such a bid having been considered and rejected was when they received the letter from the MOD.
I do not believe that the civilian staff should have been treated like that. They should at least have been given the opportunity to mount an in-house bid on their own, if that was what the Ministry was considering. Will the Minister ensure that during the consultation period the civilian staff and their representatives are fully consulted at each stage, so that they know what is planned for themselves, their jobs and their families? I should welcome that assurance.
What is the way forward from here? I realise that the Ministry applied certain criteria that made it impossible for the in-house bid to succeed, but I want the Minister to give us an assurance that, because of the impact on the local economy and community of a decision not to allow the bid, the Government will think again. I want the Minister to reconsider the criteria that meant that the bid could not have succeeded.
In my constituency there is not only universal condemnation of the way in which the original bid was treated but universal acceptance of the need to do everything that we can to retain those jobs in the area. In my eight years as a Member of Parliament this is the most serious problem that has faced one workplace.
The consultation period was originally set to finish on 5 June, but it has been extended until the end of that month. I understand that the Welsh Office has intervened and tried to ensure that we now bring people together, such as the Ministry, Targed—the training and enterprise council—the Welsh Development Agency, other agencies and the local authority. We are conducting an urgent skills review to find out what is possible in the area, because we want the Ministry to accept that some service personnel who accept redundancy might want to return as civilians later, although not within the current time scale.
Clearly we shall have the opportunity to discuss matters in detail at the meetings, but I ask the Minister now whether he will consider our case according to the following principles. First, the market-testing programme within the current time scale should be withdrawn. Secondly, the target date for achieving the manpower service requirements should be relaxed in the interim. Thirdly, we should assess the number of skilled service personnel in RAF Valley who may wish to convert to civilian service in the area. Next, we should allow the technical college, Coleg Menai, and other training agencies to set up courses in engineering and other disciplines to train enough people within the local labour pool to take on the jobs at Valley. Finally, the Ministry should be sensitive to the impact of any decision on the area.

513
If, without giving a commitment on the detail tonight, the Minister will assure us that we can agree on those principles, I shall ensure that the local committee puts up a strong case to persuade him and his Department to think again, so that the impact on the local community can be minimised.
8.34 pm
Mr. Keith Mans: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words—but I hope that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) will forgive me if I do not follow his speech. Although I am familiar with the airfield at Valley, on Anglesey, I am not familiar with the matters that he was discussing. I also apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement for not having been here for his opening speech. I warned him beforehand that I could not attend then, and I have managed to be here for most of the debate.
I very much welcome the White Paper this year—more so than many previous White Papers—and I am especially delighted by the section on air cadets. Perhaps at this stage it is appropriate for me to declare an interest as a pilot in the Royal Air Force Reserve. The cadet movement is most important. It is not only a recruiting ground for RAF airmen, but a link between the services and the civilian community—that applies to the other two cadet movements too. As is dwelt on in the White Paper for the first time, there is also the importance from a social point of view of encouraging worthwhile pursuits for youngsters, who learn initiative and self-reliance, and do all sorts of things that we should encourage tomorrow's citizens to do.
My right hon. Friend the Minister will know that there is something else in the White Paper that I welcome—the firm commitment to no more defence cuts. I should probably have preferred us not to have gone quite so far as we have; none the less, I am delighted that we seem finally to have come to the end of the session of defence cuts that has taken place over the past five years.
It is worth while to reflect on what has happened so far. A few years ago, the Royal Air Force was just under 90,000 personnel strong. This year, the number will be down to 66,500, and, as has already been said, by 1999 it will be only 52,200. That is a dramatic change, a 40 per cent. reduction over about seven years.
Alongside that reduction in numbers, there has been a large reduction in the amount of equipment. Across the range of aircraft in RAF service, there has been a reduction of between 30 and 40 per cent. in the front line. We now have a total of 72 strike attack aircraft, 65 offensive air support aircraft and 80 air defence aircraft. Those are the teeth of the Royal Air Force.
We should take into account all the things that those aircraft, their air crews and the supporting ground staff are doing now. They do not operate simply from one or two bases; they are deployed all over Europe and further afield. There is no doubt that, just as the British Army has suffered from overstretch in the past, the air force, as other hon. Members have said, is on the point of suffering the same fate.
Many hon. Members have also mentioned the shutting of RAF stations. I support those who have suggested that we question the retention of our two stations in Germany. We should retain some presence in Germany, but I favour
514
withdrawing most of the front-line units to the United Kingdom. I am thinking especially of the Tornado squadrons.
Now that the cold war is over, the RAF can no longer operate down to 250 ft or even 500 ft over Germany. Therefore, most of the training of the Tornado air crews has to be done elsewhere. They have to move away from their base in Germany to train. We must therefore question whether there is any point in keeping them there. Moreover, if they returned to this country, there would at least be the possibility that we should not have to shut quite so many RAF stations in Britain.
Although we have stopped the cuts, it must be recognised that the effects of previous defence reviews will remain with us for some time. I very much welcomed the comments by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on the Bett report. I would have liked to have seen Mr. Bett as a member of a team led by a service man, rather than the other way round. I know that the way in which the report has been produced has caused a certain amount of concern in some quarters of the three services.
Having said that, there is much good in the report. It has made people look afresh at a number of matters. My right hon. Friend will know that, during an earlier RAF debate, I questioned the need for so many ranks in the RAF, and I was interested to see that Mr. Bett himself asked the Ministry of Defence to look at that matter. I hope that that will be done.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments that there was a need for considerable reassurance and consultation following the Bett report, and that must happen. We must use the opportunity given by that report to allow people within the armed services to give their views freely and fully. That is the best way to reassure people that the report is not just another review or another part of the series of cuts which have had a dramatic effect on the RAF in the past seven or eight years. The Bett report has provided us with the opportunity to do precisely what I said.
Mr. Martlew: Does the hon. Gentleman support performance-related pay?
Mr. Mans: It would be perfectly acceptable to consider performance-related pay in some parts of the RAF, but I would not support it if it were applied universally throughout the RAF. There are areas where the use of performance-related pay could be of benefit, and that is what I meant about considerable consultation. It is totally wrong to rule out something which may create greater efficiency and better operational effectiveness simply because it happens to be performance-related pay. It should not be discarded without being considered.
Bearing in mind the size of the RAF now, it is vital that it has the right equipment. In this context, I would like to say a word about my right hon. Friend's job as the procurement Minister. We have seen some considerable changes in the past year in the way in which we look at those matters. Decisions have been taken which may not have been to my liking, but they have been taken in a much more practical, clear-sighted and understandable way. I am thinking in particular about the decisions on the future large aircraft, the C130J and the EH101.
I have been particularly encouraged by what my right hon. Friend has done in terms of looking at procurement in partnership with other countries, which must be the

515
right way forward. Weapons systems are hugely expensive, and when other nations want similar weapons themselves, it is pointless for us to try to produce something on our own. I have been encouraged by what has happened—particularly in Europe—and by the merging of companies on an international basis, which avoids the awful choice that has to be made between a national project and one brought from overseas.
Mr. Michael Colvin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as I have only just walked into the Chamber. The Select Committee on Defence has just been in Italy looking at the southern flank of NATO, and I am glad to see so many members of the Committee in the Chamber.
My hon. Friend has just referred to the EH101 and the importance of co-operation. We gave the Italians 50 per cent. of the manufacturing of the EH101 helicopter, which was a very good arrangement. Notwithstanding Italy's severe financial difficulties—it is trying to cut its defence budget even further than we are—would it not be nice if the Italians were to place some orders for the EH101? They have not yet done so.
Mr. Mans: I can answer that with one word—yes. It would be a very good idea indeed.
I have been encouraged also by the moves taken towards the future offensive aircraft, or FOA. We are always dealing in these three-letter abbreviations, and a number of similar abbreviations are associated with the studies on the successor to the Harrier aircraft. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to look not just to the United States in that context, but at what collaborations we can have with Europe. I do not think that we should go for one or the other, but we should look at both at the same time if possible.
There is one decision, however, with which I and a number of earlier speakers have decidedly disagreed—although it was taken before my right hon. Friend filled his present post. I refer to the decision to cancel the tactical air-to-surface missile. The RAF may have been partly responsible for that decision, as it wanted a weapon that was probably too grand and too expensive.
I am convinced that we shall be in considerable difficulty in the future if we cannot provide the RAF with some sort of stand-off nuclear capability after the WE177 is withdrawn from service in the next two or three years. My reasons for that view follow on from the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) a few minutes ago. If one looks at the threats that may be posed to this country in the coming decade or two, one must take account of something possibly going wrong in Russia and the appearance of a regime there that is much more militaristic and belligerent. It is right that, through NATO, we should have a deterrent that is capable of meeting that threat.
I would submit that a more likely risk to this country comes from precisely the nations which my hon. Friend mentioned in his speech. We must not just think about the conventional threat, as there is the potential for a nuclear threat as well. Until we have a system that is capable of defending us against such a threat, the only mechanism for defence is deterrence.
516
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) rightly pointed out, it is much easier to deter effectively if one can deploy an air-launched nuclear capability which can be seen by the whole world for what it is. The potential aggressor can then see for himself that this country is serious about being prepared to go to the brink to avoid being attacked. I feel that giving Trident a sub-strategic role to meet that threat is less credible than providing the Tornados or the Eurofighter with dual capability into the next century.
I shall say a few words about air power in general. It is always said that it is very expensive to have air power, but it is even more expensive not to have it. We have seen in the past few days and weeks on our television screens air power in action during the second world war. A clear message has come out of that footage. From 1942 onwards, our troops operated on the ground with air superiority, while the German troops did not. If one speaks to German and British soldiers, one can see that that fact made a big difference.
In virtually every conflict since the second world war, with the possible exception of the Falklands—although I would argue that we at least had local air superiority there—the NATO armies, and the British Army in particular, have been able to operate in the knowledge that they had air superiority. I do not want to make a point in favour of the Royal Air Force versus the Army, but as a result the Army has become a tiny bit complacent about keeping an extra battalion of troops rather than procuring an extra squadron of aircraft. There is no point in having an extra battalion of troops if we do not have the air cover, because that will result only in considerable extra casualties.
Media coverage today is so pervasive that the results of a battle, for example in Iraq, are often on our television screens before the military commanders know what has happened. As a result, we constantly have to reduce the number of casualties, because otherwise what we are doing becomes politically. unacceptable. It is vital to ensure that we incur the minimum number of casualties when we carry out military operations. In the Gulf war, we saw a graphic illustration of the effectiveness of air power in the slaughter on the roads out of Kuwait as the Iraqis streamed out. The war was probably stopped at that time as a result of the pictures of that slaughter on our television screens. That was a clear demonstration of the effectiveness of air power and of the way in which it can prevent casualties on one's own side.
I have pointed that out because I strongly believe that, if we are to prevent such conflicts, we must ensure that we have adequate air forces to secure air superiority, so that we can do what we want. Without adequate air forces, we would just have to accept much larger numbers of ground casualties.
We have also to accept that modern weapon systems and air platforms need a fair amount of support. One of the unfairest manifestations of the defence debate in the national media was the implication that the air force had a larger tail to cut. Keeping a Tornado aircraft airborne for three or four sorties a day requires a huge amount of back-up. If one does not keep the aircraft airborne for those sorties, one has wasted the investment. The only way round the problem is to increase the number of aircraft and reduce the sortie rate—one can balance one against the other.

517
I am pleased that we are not making any more defence cuts. As hon. Members have said, we have to look very closely indeed at the amount of support that we give the front line, especially in terms of spares and training. I get the impression that we are operating at very close to 100 per cent. and that there is not a great deal of flexibility if, for instance, we need to expand our air effort for any reason.
We have to be careful about using commercial systems of spares provision. If something goes wrong and we do not have what is needed close by, £20 million worth of aircraft could be sitting on the ground unnecessarily. The 48 aircraft that make up the four squadrons at Bruggen are our strike attack wing. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces might like to write to me to let me know what the serviceability of those aircraft is and how many can be expected, on average, on the front line every morning for people to fly. I suspect that it will be less than 50 per cent. of the 48.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman must have inside information.
Mr. Mans: I do not. I am basing the assumption on my own experience. If there are 12 aircraft in a squadron, six are likely to be available to fly on any one day. I am merely saying that we are down to such small figures that we need to up that rate so that a greater percentage of the aircraft available are able to fly at any one time, to give people the training that they need.
I must say a few words on Opposition defence policy. For the past 30 years, I have been a member of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies. Indeed, I think that I have every quarterly magazine that it has produced. Every so often, an Opposition spokesman—normally the shadow Defence Secretary—speaks to the institute about Opposition defence policy.
I am pleased to see the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on the Opposition Front Bench today because he spoke to the institute not too long ago. I read his speech and there was very little in it. I also looked at what all the predecessors who had filled his role since 1962 had said when they spoke to that illustrious institute. Without exception, by this stage in a Parliament, they had a defence policy that they were prepared to put before the nation. The hon. Gentleman clearly did not have such a policy. I strongly believe—I am not speaking on a party political basis—that it is important for the nation to know what the Labour party feels that we ought to be doing.
The only thing that came over in the speech of the hon. Member for South Shields was the need for another defence review, which is the one thing that the armed services do not need. There is little point in Opposition Members suggesting that they must wait and look at the books when they supposedly get into office. There is no need for them to do that.
The available options are very clear. Do the Opposition want this country to continue to have a worldwide capability—perhaps to deploy troops to support peacekeeping operations anywhere in the world? Do they still want our armed forces to be able to take part in high-intensity operations, or would they consign them purely to peacekeeping? Do they want a comprehensive capability, or are they prepared to allow someone else to provide a particular element of that capability abroad? Those questions can easily be answered now and I strongly believe that they should be.
518
I shall end my speech with a comment made by Air Chief Marshal Slessor many years ago. He said that the first social service that any Government should provide for its people is to make certain that they remain alive and free. I strongly believe that the Government's defence policy will guarantee precisely that, but I doubt whether the defence policies of the Opposition parties could do so.
8.58 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: I apologise to the House for being absent for the best part of the debate. As our acting Chairman already explained, the Defence Select Committee was on duty this week in Italy and has only just returned this evening. I repeat the complaint that I made in the Chamber some time ago: all defence debates seem to be timed for periods when it is known that the Defence Select Committee will be elsewhere doing its job. When I registered that complaint in the Chamber, I was subjected to ridicule, not least from my hon. Friends, who seem to think that we toddle about on freebies enjoying ourselves. I freely admit that my job is one long holiday. I enjoy doing it, it is a great privilege and I shall continue to enjoy it and work hard at enjoying it. However, it is a bit much when every single defence debate is timed for a period when the Defence Select Committee is abroad.
I wish that I could leave the topic there, but next Tuesday when the House is to debate Bosnia, the Defence Select Committee has a long-standing engagement to attend Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That may be so, but the hon. Gentleman must make his complaints elsewhere, not in this debate. We are supposed to be debating the Royal Air Force.
Mr. Cook: I am deeply grateful for your admonishment and advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I accept it. I thank you for giving me the chance to complain anyway.
The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) provided me with some material that will help to substantiate my arguments about defence policy, but, first, I must pick him up on two points. The first is his remarks on the desirability of performance-related pay. Some grades may be entitled to performance-related pay and I simply ask that we start with war widows. Perhaps they could be given adequate pay as a reward for the contribution of their kin folk in times past.
Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman may have misheard me. I said that we should not simply discard the idea of performance-related pay without examining it. I did not suggest that we should definitely introduce it.
Mr. Cook: Then perhaps we might start examining it in respect of war widows.
The hon. Member for Wyre made an effective argument based on our memories of the scale of slaughter on the road to Baghdad. I agree that the scale of that slaughter was shocking. Indeed, it resulted in some American and British air crews refusing to go out on further missions because they were simply murdering people who were not even taking the trouble to fire back. As that was done with conventional weapons, which can deliver an impact with exceedingly precise accuracy, why does the hon. Gentleman want to put on the end of some of those vehicles a weapon of mass destruction in the form of a nuclear warhead? How many people do we want to kill?

519
I therefore ask the hon. Member for Wyre to reconsider not only the result of performance-related pay but the scale of slaughter that one needs to vent on a potential enemy.
Mr. Gallie: Having followed closely the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), I remember that he said that he saw their value as weapons of deterrence, not of mass destruction.
Mr. Cook: I understand that and I repeat the point that I am making: if it is a deterrent, it will deter anyway and we do not need the precision of a tactical air-to-surface missile to deliver it. Our old enemy, Russia, already possessed our nuclear deterrent. We could have hit Chernobyl or any one of a dozen other such plants whenever we liked and vented destruction and catastrophe on that nation, and we could have done it with conventional weapons with laser precision. We do not need nuclear warheads on a TASM; we already have them in Polaris and will have them in greater strength in Trident. How many more times does the hon. Gentleman want to multiply them at a time when we are supposed to be actively involved in extending a nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Where is the logic in that?
I have not even begun to discuss what I came here to discuss. I cannot put a theme together in such a short time, because I must conclude soon.
Hon. Members: Sit down then.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Cook: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I appreciate your guardianship.
The Select Committee has just come back from Italy, where we saw the incredibly impressive results of the co-ordination between Agusta and Westland. The standard of workmanship and engineering on the EH101 is astonishingly good. I say that as an experienced engineer who used to work for Richardsons Westgarth, which was capable of the finest fine limits engineering.
As has already been said—it almost shot my fox—although we have ordered variants of the EH101, the Italian Government have yet to do so. I suggest to the Minister, if he can draw his attention from the documents that he is looking at, that he might write a letter to the Italian Government expressing our gratitude for bearing half the cost of the research and development on that helicopter. He should stress that it will make a superb contribution to the resource of the Royal Navy and draw attention to the fact that the Italians have not decided to acquire it. Such congratulations might be an incentive for the Italians to contribute further to the production and to make the helicopter—not just the military version, but the civil and search and rescue ones—even more attractive to other countries. I know that the Italians are seeking to extend their role in search and rescue.
Mr. Colvin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are not just looking for purchasers of the EH101 from the United Kingdom—we know that we now have them—and from Italy, which we hope we will get, but we need the stamp of approval from both nations that are building the helicopter for it to succeed in selling to third countries? If Italy refrains from giving it that stamp of approval, other
520
countries—for instance, Japan, which probably has the biggest and fastest expanding market for military and civilian helicopters—will hesitate before purchasing.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman shot my first fox earlier and I thank him for shooting my second one now. I agree with him, which saves my repeating the argument.
The attack helicopter, which has little to do with the RAF, but a lot to do with air power and strike power, is now under consideration. We saw a version of it this week, the 129, which is not on the tender lists in this country.
In reply to the hon. Member for Wyre, I say that as responsible politicians of whichever party—it is not a party political point—we have a moral responsibility to see to it that the young men and young women we send out to do our bidding, regardless of how sensible that bidding might be, have the right kind of equipment to do the job and receive the right training to use that equipment. Those men and women could be involved, as the hon. Gentleman said, in a high intensity conflict or in a lower profile activity, to which the hon. Gentleman made a rather demeaning and unfair reference. He spoke about "only peacekeeping". One does not refer to it in such terms, because peacekeeping is a most essential operation in today's world of greater instability. If we are not going to do it, who is? Do we leave it to others to sort it out? Do we wash our hands of all the slaughter that we see? Have we been to Bosnia?
We must not give our service men and women second-best. If we provide attack helicopters, we must have a weapons platform that is capable of hitting at the longest range, of inflicting great injury and of delivering the biggest punch. It must carry out that function with the greatest effect, having selected its targets with absolute accuracy. Frankly, only one aircraft could do that. There is only one helicopter that can fly from London to Bosnia, select 256 targets and take out 40 of them in one strike.
I shall close by quoting Lewis Mackenzie, the Canadian United Nations commander of Sarajevo. When he came out of Sarajevo, with all sorts of question marks hanging over him, especially over what he had said, he made a remark that struck home to me at an informal briefing of the Defence Select Committee in 1992. He said, "When you go into a knife-fight as a peacemaker, you don't go in with a knife—you go in with a bloody gun".
If we expect our young men and women to go to war on our behalf, we must ensure that they are trained with the best gun, and that they have the best gun in the homestead. There should be no half measures.
9.10 pm
Lady Olga Maitland: The publication of the defence estimates must come as a relief to our airmen. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for confirming that the size of our armed forces is stable and will remain so. That is the good news. The other side of the coin is alarming.
Our airmen now have every right to be deeply worried about where the Labour party stands on defence policy. They have a right to know, and what little they have learnt could only cause the deepest despondency. Much greater dangers lie ahead for them in the Labour party's proposals on defence than could ever have been the case when they worried about cuts in the past.

521
The time has come to place the Labour party under a severe spotlight on defence. The public have a right to be fully aware of what it believes. It is not a great deal. Will Labour really stand up for Britain's interests far and wide? Even if it wanted to, I very much doubt that it would have the capability.
I found it hard to take to hear the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) weeping crocodile tears about the capability of the Royal Air Force. Would his party make a commitment to support the Eurofighter 2000? Would it update the Sea Harrier, the Nimrod? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Labour Members say that today, but I am certain that, come a Labour Government—God forbid that it happens—they would cancel it all.
Labour will always be shackled by the Labour party motions that have been passed every year since 1988, which have supported the reduction of British defence spending by £6 billion a year. That would be an insult to all our security responsibilities. In the end, Britain's role as a force for good would disappear; our commitments in Bosnia, Rwanda or other places far afield would be seriously jeopardised.
It is not valid to argue that we should reduce our defence spending to the western European average. We are not an average nation. We have much wider overseas interests and commitments to secure. Labour therefore tries to dodge the issue, demanding a defence review, destabilising the whole of our armed forces just when they are settling down. We are told by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that such a review would specifically match commitments to resources. Therein lies the truth. Labour will run down our defence capability to dangerous levels. It will not have the resources available to safeguard the national interest.
The RAF will be especially at risk. As the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said:
"The Labour party will consider our overseas commitments and the … role for the forces, including the RAF."—[Official Report, 27 January 1994; Vol. 236, c. 449.]
If that is not a threat, what is?
A future Labour Government will be met with heavy demands from powerful lobby groups who, in the interests of political correctness, will receive priority. It would be hard to envisage their refusing the disability lobby's demands for extra cash, even though there is ample provision today. Signing up to the social chapter and introducing a minimum wage will put thousands of people on the dole.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I would very much like to hear something about the Royal Air Force.
Lady Olga Maitland: The point that I am trying to make, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that Labour's threat to pour thousands of pounds into other areas means that there will not be sufficient resources for defence, let alone the RAF. The truth is that defence spending will fall.
522
We must look carefully at Labour's defence policy. It stands for nothing. The only firm views that we have heard so far from Labour Members are their views on homosexuality. Those views will delight Peter Tatchell of OutRage! and all the other gay rights groups—
Mr. Henry Bellingham: A poofter's charter.
Lady Olga Maitland: Stonewall, the lesbian and gay equality group, was thrilled, saying:
"this ban is widely recognised as cruel."
What will that do for the RAF, however?
Mr. Eric Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right for the Minister's parliamentary private secretary to describe the Labour party's views as "a poofter's charter"?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not hear that. [Interruption.] However, I think I hear the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) saying that he did not make the remark. The Chair will accept that.
Lady Olga Maitland: The Labour party's policy on homosexuals appals everyone. Chiefs of the armed services have expressed deep concern, and I think that Labour should note what has been said. If this is the Labour party, it is hardly the stuff of serious government. Perhaps Labour should take the hint from President Clinton: when he tried to remove the ban on homosexuals and admit them to the armed services, he ran into a load of trouble with a furious debate that has not yet ended. Labour, however, seems to know better. Not surprisingly, its views have been condemned by respected figures in the armed services. I can only say that I think it disgraceful that a party that claims to be responsible for security and defence should have such a policy on homosexuality.
Our airmen deserve much more. They have a great history. They honoured us during the last war, and we owe them a great debt. The last thing that they need now is an undermining of their standing by the policies of the Labour party.
9.17 pm
Dr. John Reid: I shall attempt to raise the debate above the morass of primitive prejudice to which it seems to have sunk.
Approaching the Dispatch Box on occasions such as this, one has a genuine sense of humility and privilege. We realise how insignificant we are when we think that 50 years ago today our predecessors would have been debating not the comparatively minor issues that we have debated today, but the fall of Rangoon, the meeting of the fifth and seventh armies, the crossing of the Brenner pass and the advance on Berlin. At that time, we would have celebrated meeting our allies on the Elbe a few days ago, and looking forward to the "sunlit uplands" for which so many sacrificed their lives and on which so many hopes rested. That is the spirit in which we should approach today's debate, and—within the limits placed on us by traditional party antagonisms—I shall try to do so.
I apologise to the Minister for being unable to hear most of his speech. As he knows, I was collecting my mother and my aunt—my father's sister—for tomorrow's VE day celebrations. Like millions of people throughout

523
the country, they lost kith and kin who were fighting in the armed services. We remember all those people tonight.
I welcome the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who has been on a day trip to Germany with his chum. I am not cynical enough to say that if I were a Conservative Member and had been asked to work in the local elections I too would have chosen a locality in Germany. But the Minister's visit, with his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, was significant: I think that the presence of a member of the royal family, along with the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, will be widely appreciated, and is a measure of how far we have gone on those sunlit uplands—although we have not yet seen the full light of day.
The debate has raised a plethora of questions of both a strategic and a general nature. I will try to answer them all, but if I do not it is because I also wish to respond to some of the challenges that Conservative Members have issued. I always find the speeches of the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)—who unfortunately is not in his place—fascinating and informative, and tonight he raised one or two strategic issues to which I think we should give much thought.
The hon. Gentleman questioned the value of a sea-based sub-strategic nuclear system. I am not sure that I agree with his views, but the Labour party has considered that matter. More importantly, he raised the question of nuclear deterrents. In one sense, like the generals, Members of Parliament are always fighting the last war. We all accept that the nature of the risk and the threat has changed, but I do not think that hon. Members on either side of the House have applied themselves to the full implications that that will have for our nuclear deterrence policy.
The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood referred to the extension of ownership of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Rather than the 11,000 prospective Soviet missiles, we are now talking about maverick missiles in countries which did not have that capability previously. As the risk becomes more complex, we must pay further attention to that area. Significantly, the hon. Gentleman also mentioned anti-ballistic missile systems.
The important question of the balance between personnel management and war fighting was raised again. The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) posed a problem which preoccupies us all: striking a balance between high and low intensity conflict. We must strike such a balance. As a member of the Security Council, we must fulfil our role on the world stage. We have a moral and a political imperative to retain the capacity for low intensity, peacekeeping operations. However, if our armed forces were applied only to peacekeeping operations, we would undermine our defence role and the first obligation of any Government: to defend their own shores, their dependent territories and their interests.
As always, the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) raised a number of interesting points, including the future of high standard training. I will return to his other points in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), who has always been a forceful advocate for his constituency, spoke out against the closure of RAF Finningley. In a very good speech
524
the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) mentioned the Cazalet report, which was issued a few days ago.
As to the report, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) made the Labour party's position clear in various television interviews which the producers chose not to broadcast—mainly because they were not as sensational or as forceful in attacking individuals as some others. My hon. Friend spoke on behalf of the Labour party in broadly welcoming the report. The criticisms that he made were not levelled at any individuals or the officer group within the armed forces, but at the obvious deficiencies of financial management and control in the Ministry of Defence. I am glad to put that on the record.
I also record my admiration for the present and past officer corps in the British armed forces. It may amuse Conservative Members to hear me express my admiration for what was traditionally an officer class. However, I believe that they were the only members of the upper class who were prepared to make some sacrifices in return for the many privileges that they enjoyed. From a good class position, I express my admiration for the upper classes as represented in the British armed forces.
A number of hon. Members mentioned performance-related pay. I know that the Government will not take a blinkered view and say that, as it has been recommended, it must be accepted. For all the attractions of efficiency and cost-cutting, it must be obvious that simply to impose market-related performance pay on the armed forces is not only a dangerous precedent, but undermines and undervalues the reasons why so many people join the British armed forces—to serve their country—a much unappreciated and undervalued attitude today.
Search and rescue was mentioned by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), specifically the move from Leuchars and the delay in response time. A large number of issues were raised and the theme running through the debate was inefficiency and waste.
One speech which did not deal with that theme was that by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who is not in his place. He spoke about land mines. We all agree about land mines, but my hon. Friend seeks a simple definition of a land mine which is so broad that it includes almost everything that lands or sits on the ground. The issue is more complex than he makes out.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) mentioned Eurofighter. We have always supported Eurofighter, but we would not be doing our duty—and nor would Conservative Back-Bench Members—if we did not point out that it is two years behind schedule, it has overrun planned expenditure by £2,200 million and it is still dogged by difficulties. Raising those important questions does not diminish our commitment to Eurofighter.
There are political problems, because, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), after that overspend and delay, many of us would not be happy if the Germans, having reduced the number of Eurofighters that they ordered, were to insist on maintaining their 33 per cent. of production. According to convention and practice, we get production in accordance with the resale of the fighters that we buy. I see no reason why we should not stick to that precedent.

525
Mention was made of the Tornado midlife update, which is a classic example of the lack of financial control. It is now five years late; it is £270 million over budget for fewer aircraft than planned to a lower standard than envisaged. The Government cannot point to anyone who shares the responsibility for that, as they could for the Eurofighter.
We need a clear definition of the criteria for the Government selling off land. When the Minister of State for Defence Procurement was asked why the highest bid was not accepted, he said that money was not the only criterion, yet when he was questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) about the rather bizarre case of RAF Bentwater, which was sold off to the Maharishi Foundation, presumably as part of the transition from Tornado flying to yogic flying, the only excuse that the Minister gave was the money that we were to receive. We need a clearer definition.
A number of hon. Members mentioned overstretch. We should bear that issue in mind, particularly because it was examined by the Select Committee on Defence, several of whose members are here tonight. We commend them for making the effort to get here and speak.
The Select Committee on Defence issued a warning, saying that it was
"disturbed at the extent to which decisions on United Kingdom participation in military operations are henceforth to be distorted by the availability of scarce resources rather than taken primarily in the light of the dictates of national interests and international obligations."
We all must bear that in mind.
On market testing and contractorisation, once again I urge the Government to listen to what was said tonight and to the Select Committee, which recommended that
"any proposals … into future RAF support arrangements must have due regard to the operational needs of the front line for timely reinforcement and equipment support.".
It is fine to have the garage at the corner carrying out market-tested contractorisation during peace time because that will show enormous savings and will probably be reasonably efficient. To do that in circumstances of war or the prelude to war, or times of high tension, is another matter. I am sure that the Government would not find such an approach cost efficient in those circumstances. It would certainly not be operationally successful.
I have tried to do justice to the detailed criticisms that have been made. They have been heightened, naturally, by our style of parliamentary politics. I understand that defence is a polarised issue because it has served both parties well to debate it on that basis. Circumstances are arising, however, that facilitate and, indeed, necessitate a more consensual approach to our debates on defence and to defence itself.
The armed forces have enough enemies. There is no good purpose in having debates when one side of the House calls the other side warmongers and the response of the accused is to chant "appeasers". The reality is that we have all made mistakes. Despite their rhetoric, the Government have made substantial cuts. Some of the ideas that we, the Opposition, have advanced have grudgingly been accepted by the Government, often not publicly. Some of our ideas are gradually creeping into
526
their thinking. It does not serve the armed forces well for us intentionally, for party political purposes, to continue to polarise defence issues.
Mr. Gallie: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to make such statements. I recognise that his commitment to defence is wholehearted and that over the years his words have been pretty consistent. In the main, however, the Members who sit behind him—this is true especially of the annual conferences of the Labour party—continually undermine the hon. Gentleman's words. It is difficult for us to accept his words now.
Dr. Reid: When the hon. Gentleman was saying that about the Labour party conference in 1988—that Labour was calling for huge defence expenditure cuts of up to 30 per cent. and that it should be reduced to the European average—he expressed great criticism. The reality is that the Government have done what the Labour party was urging. The Government have reduced defence expenditure by 30 per cent. Defence expenditure has been reduced over 10 years to 2.8 per cent. of overall expenditure, which in 1988 was the average for our European allies.
I am asking only for an absence of hypocrisy. Let us admit that the Government have cut defence expenditure massively. They have cut it like no other element of their budget. I see Conservative Members nodding in agreement. What I have stated is a fact. If we can begin to get rid of party political sloganising and paranoia, perhaps we can adopt a more consensual approach.
We welcome parts of the Statement on the Defence Estimates, for example, the explicit statement that foreign policy is becoming increasingly interlinkedߞ"interleaved" is the word used on page 9 of the statement—with defence policy. We, the Opposition, have been saying that that is one of the three elements of a defence review. We welcome the Government's recognition of that.
We say also that there are two other elements that have not been recognised. One of those elements is the strategic industrial nature of the British defence industry. The second is the matching of resources and commitments. Without sufficient study, analysis and ammunition, we shall have no strategic argument to deploy from the Ministry of Defence whenever the Treasury comes knocking on the door, as it will after the general election, whichever party is in power. The MOD will, in those circumstances, be unable to resist the Treasury's whims. I ask Conservative Members to accept that a full defence review is not a recipe for the Treasury taking money. That has happened anyway. It is a recipe for the strategic ammunition to argue against it happening.
As for the Labour party having no policy, it is not true. Labour Members have argued with the Government over policy issue after policy issue. We argued that we needed more infantry. The Government said that we were wrong and then they were forced to make a U-turn and accept that we needed more infantry. We argued that it was a waste of money, in the harsh financial circumstances, to spend up to £2,000 million on a new tactical air-to-surface missile. The Government said that we were wrong. We said that we were right. Two years later, the Government did a U-turn and accepted that we were right.
We argued that, in the spirit of the approach to non-proliferation, the Government should consider decommissioning the WE177 nuclear bomb. They said

527
that we were wrong; we were appeasers; we were all in CND. Three years later, the Government accepted that we were right and they did another U-turn. We told the Government that they were wrong in their personnel policy towards pregnant women. Just as we saw tonight, the primitive prejudices came out and Conservatives Members told us that we could not possibly be right about that. That decision has taken £47.5 million out of an already overstretched defence budget and it was all because the Government would not accept that the traditions of prejudice could be overcome by some European-wide legislation.
Incidentally, one of the main reasons why we want to look at the issue of homosexuality is to prevent a similar problem from occurring. I see several Conservative Members nodding. Let me repeat that we in the Labour party have never given the green light to homosexual activity, conduct or relationships in the armed forces. It is a malicious misrepresent tation to suggest that. We fully accept the particular conditions of the armed forces and that homosexual, indeed, in some circumstances heterosexual, relationships, can undermine and be prejudicial to good order and morale. However we also accept that because the present policy discriminates against the person and not their conduct, activity or relationships, it is being taken through the courts and may leave us wide open to exactly the sort of claims of discrimination as were made by pregnant women.
Conservative Members may not want to review the situation, but I can tell them that we will review it on that basis. We do not want to introduce relationships that will undermine good order and morale, but we want to ensure that the armed forces cannot be accused of discrimination against persons. I will tell Conservative Members another thing. The Ministry of Defence, under this Government, is conducting a review as well. Therefore while the policy is being reviewed by the MOD, it is sheer hypocrisy for Conservative Members to pluck at their primitive prejudices. In this case, prejudice, not patriotism, is the last refuge of scoundrels in such an important debate.
Finally, I shall give Conservative Members some policies. I have outlined our policies already, but still more is demanded.
"it is impossible for an Opposition to draw up a detailed and fully-costed defence policy when in Opposition."
It cannot be done. Hon. Members should not demand the impossible.
"Such a process can be carried out only after full consultation with the Services, with our Allies and with industry."—[Official Report, 31 March 1976; Vol. 908, c. 1353]
Those are not my words. I was quoting the words of Sir Ian Gilmour, the Conservative defence spokesman in 1976. I hope that we can let that matter rest.
To end in the spirit in which we started, tomorrow is VE day and VJ day. Tomorrow we shall commemorate the end of the war. Let us not be accused of forgetting the forgotten army once again. I say to those of us for whom responsibility has passed that it may serve us all well—the RAF and our armed forces—if, somehow in the present conditions, we could try to attain some measure of agreement. The legacy of those who struggled, to whom it was not given to live through those awful yet glorious days, passes to us and we bear a heavy burden of responsibility on our shoulders. Let us hope that all of us,
528
on all sides of the House, can so bear ourselves—if I may put it that way—as to discharge that responsibility in a manner that does justice to our predecessors.
9.39 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): It is always a great pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) on these occasions. It is a source of great angst to my hon. Friends and to me that he does not sit on the Government side of the House. Indeed, he must feel the same.
Mr. Cohen: He will sit over there after the next election.
Mr. Soames: I would not bank on that.
As is so often the case, this has been a stimulating and wide-ranging debate. A number of wider defence issues have been touched upon, not surprisingly in view of the publication yesterday of the annual Defence White Paper. I shall do my best to answer the points that have been raised. If I do not do that in the time that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North has kindly and generously allotted to me, I will write to hon. Members.
I should like first to take up the theme with which the hon. Member for Motherwell, North started his speech in such a genuinely moving manner. Tomorrow we begin our commemorations of the end of the second world war. It is fitting to remember the RAF's contribution to secure peace in 1945, a peace that was hard won with more than 70,000 of our young air men killed in action. Their sacrifice helped to ensure the freedom that we have enjoyed since and that perhaps we now so often take for granted.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North was good enough to mention the visit that the Prince of Wales made yesterday to Hamburg. That was a very moving and extraordinary occasion. When he went to lay a wreath at the Commonwealth war graves in the Ohlsdorf cemetery, knowing that I was going to speak in this debate today, I came across the grave of Sergeant J. A. Ward, a holder of the Victoria Cross at the age of 22. He was killed on 15 September 1941. He was a member of the Royal New Zealand air force attached to a Royal Air Force squadron and he lies between Britons, Canadians and Australians. Truly we have a great deal of remembering to do this weekend.
The themes of this weekend's events will include a thanksgiving for the end of the war, 50 years of peace and reconciliation in Europe and the benefits that the wartime generation, through their toil, service and sacrifice, won for us.
More than 50 Heads of State representing those countries that contributed major formations to the war in the European theatre on either side of the conflict will meet in London to mark the occasion. There will be three days of ceremonies, performances and exhibitions in Hyde park, culminating in the lighting of a beacon by Her Majesty the Queen on VE night, Monday 8 May.
A fitting centrepiece to the commemorations will be the service in St. Paul's cathedral on Sunday. At the same time, the Government have sponsored events which will take place in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. The House will pay what I am sure will be a very moving tribute of its own tomorrow.
The RAF will provide its own unique contribution to the VE day commemorations with every type of operational aircraft participating in more than 100 events

529
throughout the United Kingdom. As for the Government programme, the battle of Britain memorial flight and the Red Arrows will be in the skies over London. The sight of RAF uniforms and the sound of RAF bands will be much in evidence on the ground and, in view of the tremendous and almost overwhelming support that the air cadets have rightly received tonight, I am particularly pleased to tell the House that the air cadets will also be heavily involved in the commemorations.
Veterans all over the land and, I am sure and hope, many young people, will mark the anniversary in their own towns, cities and villages and remember with us the great debt that we owe. I draw the attention of the House to just one of those events outside London. The special ceremony at the United States war cemetery at Cambridge will remember those members of the US air force stationed at bases throughout East Anglia who lost their lives flying so many day-time raids, particularly in the period leading up to the Normandy landings.
Mention of the United States air force brings to mind the many other allies with whom the RAF worked during the second world war. The wartime RAF was a force that included many nationalities. Among the most famous squadrons were the Polish and Czech squadrons of which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke so movingly. At the very gate of his constituency stands an incredibly beautiful memorial to them. One of the welcome benefits of the end of the cold war has been that the RAF is now able to rebuild closer ties with the air forces of those countries.
There were, however, also Belgian, Dutch, French, Greek, Norwegian and Yugoslav squadrons and, of course, the very many from the Commonwealth who fought and died in the air battle. It is entirely appropriate, therefore, that this weekend's commemorations will have a thoroughly international flavour.
The Royal Air Force of 1995 may be vastly different from that of 1945 in many respects, but today's service still maintains the devotion to duty, the professionalism, the determination and the ethos that characterised the service's contribution to the second world war and helped to establish an enduring peace between the major powers.
In the six years of that war, air power grew from adolescence to maturity. Fifty years on, air power continues to provide an ultimate insurance in high-intensity conflict and increasing flexibility for peace support operations. I wholly endorse the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) on the question of peacekeeping operations. Incidentally, the reason why British troops, our Air Force and, indeed, the Navy are so very good at such operations is that they are trained to fight in high-intensity conflicts. It is only by training to keep those standards that we shall continue to be able to meet our obligations.
We should not let anyone say that peacekeeping is a soft option. What is happening in Bosnia now represents a difficult and challenging form of soldiering made all the more difficult by the requirement to exercise constant and almost unbelievable restraint.
Mr. Robert Key: Other members of the Select Committee on Defence and I have just returned from Naples where we briefed at NATO headquarters. I wish to put on record our gratitude to the men and women of the Royal Air Force who are playing their part in the conflict to which my hon. Friend referred. May I also
530
point out that we have a new ally in Italy, and it is becoming increasingly strange that Italy is not a member of the contact group. As we shall rely increasingly and almost exclusively on Italy in that enterprise, I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that fact.
Mr. Soames: I thought that my hon. Friend had been to Italy because of the colour of his trousers. I take his point and will bear it in mind when the contact group and associated discussions come about again.
The Royal Air Force meets the vital requirement for mobility and the rapid projection of power. Its inherent flexibility makes it well qualified to react to a broad range of contingencies. The RAF today has a proud tradition to maintain, a tradition that was forged in the skies of Europe, Africa and Asia and that continues daily, most visibly in the skies over Bosnia and Iraq.
I know that Opposition Members are always amused by the fact that, whenever I speak, I catalogue the places where I have visited our armed forces, so I shall not let them down this time. I have just returned from visiting British forces deployed in Italy, although I restrained myself in my trouserwear.
I visited the aircraft carrier Illustrious in the Adriatic and the various deployments in Yugoslavia. As always, I was hugely impressed, as hon. Members of all parties have been, by the commitment and dedication of the service men and women and the civilians who work alongside them.
I was struck by the progress that had been made at Gioia del Colle since my previous visit there. There is no doubt that, with the increased experience of the operating environment, the Royal Air Force organisation at the base has become extremely impressive. I met the ground crews and support staff, who sustain the Tornados and Jaguars in their very important roles.
Since April 1993, when the Jaguars and Tornados started operations at Gioia del Colle, the Tornados have flown more than 2,300 operational sorties, the Jaguars more than 2,800. They are doing a wonderful job, and I know that the whole House will wish to pay a warm tribute to them.
I would also like to take this opportunity, in the spirit that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned, to pay a warm tribute to our Italian hosts. It is quite plain that they value and enjoy the presence of the Royal Air Force. No trouble has been too much for them. I am extremely grateful particularly to the base commander and his immediate staff for all their kindness, help and support for the British forces, which is greatly appreciated.
We should also remember the wonderful work that the Hercules detachment has been doing from Ancona. Since February 1992, it has dropped 24,000 tonnes of humanitarian aid in more than 1,700 sorties. Two TriStar tankers provide air-to-air refuelling. Royal naval and allied aircraft taking part in operations over the former Yugoslavia are sustained by them, while sentry aircraft fly from Aviano in northern Italy, as part of the NATO airborne early warning force monitoring the air exclusion zone over Bosnia.

531
The RAF has also played an important part in the crisis in Rwanda, and has helped to deploy our troops to Angola. In fact, not a single front-line operational aircraft in the Royal Air Force has not been deployed somewhere in the world on operations.
Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Soames: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way. I am trying to deal with the points that have been raised.
The value placed on those prolonged and demanding activities by the international community is testament both to the efficiency of the Royal Air Force and to the commitment and efforts of those who serve in it. That ethos of dedication and professionalism binds aircrew support staff and their families, and forms the very backbone of the Royal Air Force.
I pay particular tribute to the families of those who are deployed overseas. They make real sacrifices, and the Government recognise and understand the difficulties that separation can cause. We have a firm commitment to try to bring a greater stability in order to shorten such separations. Certainly, the Jaguar squadrons at Coltishall, for example, have had an extraordinarily demanding year and have spent a great deal of time away.
Closer to home, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Royal Air Force, as you will know only too well, continues to provide the most splendid support in Northern Ireland. Although the ceasefire arrangements are to be welcomed and have allowed some relaxation of our security arrangements, it remains necessary to maintain a high state of vigilance.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, as a result of the ceasefire, for the first time in 25 years, RAF Aldergrove will hold an open day for members of the public at the end of May, and the Queen's Colour Squadron will parade through the streets of Belfast.
Since RAF matters were previously debated in the House, we have had the "Front Line First" exercise, to which several hon. Members have referred. For the RAF, it has meant a period of very extensive and profound change. It has meant that some airfields that have played a prominent role in the past, such as Scampton and Finningley, will close and flying training will be concentrated at four stations. We now no longer need two RAF bases in Germany, and the Harriers and support helicopters currently based at RAF Laarbruch will be redeployed.
We do not underestimate the very hard work that is required at all levels if the ambitious targets that have been set are to be achieved. I have been fortunate to visit a large number of Royal Air Force establishments, at both command and unit level, and have been hugely impressed by the attitude and quality that I have seen.
In the time remaining, I propose to try to deal with some of the points that have been made. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) for his gracious and kind words about my presence at the Dispatch Box. Indeed, it is genuinely a source of huge pride that, 50 years on, I should be able to speak in this debate from the Dispatch Box. I also warmly endorse the hon. Gentleman's views on the quality of
532
our aircraft, and I join his tributes to Dowding and Harris. I also join his warm and handsome tribute to all those who serve in the Royal Air Force.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will write to the hon. Gentleman about the questions that he asked on the procurement side, about the European fighter aircraft and Tornado, although he has already dealt with some of those points. The hon. Gentleman also asked about search and rescue, with which I shall have to deal at greater length in a letter. I shall write him one tomorrow.
I accept the anxieties that we all have about the Bett report, but the whole point of that report is that it is a Green Paper. Nothing in Bett is cast in tablets of stone. There is still a great deal of work to be done on it—but no one should be deceived into thinking that there is any element in it that is not worthy of the most serious, worthwhile, hard work and staffing to find out whether its recommendations are suitable for our services. I believe that the report represents a sensible way forward in many respects, although plainly there will be areas that we are less happy about than others.
I do not wish to break the consensus in the debate, but the remarks of the hon. Member for Carlisle about the attitude of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in his dealings with Sir Sandy Wilson were wholly strange to the truth—I shall say no more than that. I shall deal in more detail with Sir Sandy Wilson when I respond to the hon. Gentleman, so I am afraid that I cannot say such warm words about the end of his speech as I did about the beginning.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), who is extremely knowledgeable about the aviation industry, praised my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement for the successful policies that he has put in place to sustain the defence industrial base.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon also spoke about the university air squadrons. I am well aware of his close interest in that subject. He and I have engaged in a protracted correspondence about it, and I have high hopes that if that continues we may yet be able to have a meeting to discuss the matter. Work is in hand to find out whether greater cost-effectiveness and efficiency can be achieved in the air squadrons, and I take note of what my right hon. Friend said. I assure him that we have much detailed work to do yet, and that I shall ensure that his views are fed in.
I understand the views and feelings of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) about RAF Finningley. He was good enough to bring a delegation to see me, and we had an interesting conversation. I listened carefully to what the delegation said and I assure the hon. Gentleman that our people will work closely with the local authorities to come up with what I hope will be the best solution for Finningley. I greatly regret that such historic stations are being caught up in the great sweep of change that is taking place, and I praise the hon. Gentleman for his vigorous fight to try to retain Finningley.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) was good enough to take the trouble to alert me this morning to some of the points that he intended to raise. If I may, I shall deal with some of them by correspondence. The findings of the board of inquiry into

533
the tragic Chinook accident are still under consideration, and a summary of findings will be published in due course, but not until they have been carefully considered and the next of kin informed.
My hon. Friend also mentioned ALFENS—the automated low flying planning enquiry and notification system. Again, I shall write to him about that. He then talked about separation and stability, both of which are matters that exercise us greatly. He also referred to the Bett report, and I hope that he will feel that I have already dealt with that. Of course, I wholly endorse the tribute that he paid to the Royal Air Force.
As usual, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) made an extremely good and well-informed speech. As the Member of Parliament for Leuchars, he knows a great deal about the RAF. I endorse the tribute that he paid to the work and the report of Sir Peter Cazalet. The hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was knowledgeable, and what he said about the role that the RAF would play in the event of a withdrawal from Bosnia is most important. I take all his points about the essential balance on civilianisation, concerning the need to get it right and not to go too far. Indeed, I wholly endorse all the views that he expressed on that subject. I shall write to him about the changing tactics that have evolved since the Gulf war.
As one would expect, my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) paid a warm tribute to the Royal Air Force. Understandably, he has concerns about the defence costs studies. I shall leave his questions about procurement matters to my right hon. Friend, but plainly I take to heart what he said about RAF training. He is a commissioned RAF officer and I note what he said. He believes that there are high risks, and plainly it is true that we take risks with some of those decisions. I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend on low flying, and it is extremely good that people are prepared to put their money where their mouths are. I noted also my hon. Friend's remarks about Bett and overstretch.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) made an extremely well-informed speech—as one would expect from a former RAF service man—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood. I noted my hon. Friend's warm tribute to the Poles and the Czechs, and I agree. Other hon. Members made distinguished contributions to this debate with which, I am afraid, I do not have time to deal. It was a pleasure, however, to welcome those members of the Select Committee who managed to come back in time. I was glad that they got here.
The RAF faces huge challenges, as it has done in the past. We are supremely conscious that we owe the RAF a great debt of gratitude, and we will continue to support it in every way we can. The nation can be proud that it has such a splendid RAF.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Water Charges (South-West)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
10 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: This is the fifth occasion on which Ministers have been forced to the House to respond to a Liberal Democrat-initiated debate on the water bills crisis in the south-west. Ministers have been required to respond to debates so often—despite their promises of reviews, consultations and even action—because the problem of unaffordable bills is still with us in the south-west.
In the previous Adjournment debate which I obtained on this matter more than a year ago, I said that residents in the South West Water area were being hit by a crisis, and were struggling to pay the highest water bills in England and Wales. The average bill for the region for that year was £304. The problem has not gone away, and the average bill is now £322, with many customers—often pensioners—having to meet bills of £600 or £700.
Nor has the anger in the south-west subsided. In March this year, the chair of the South West Water consumers committee, Jessica Thomas, reported that her office had been deluged with calls from dismayed South West Water customers who had expected cuts in their bills following Government statements. She said:
"We have had more angry and abusive calls in the last fortnight than at any time since our office opened."
Ministers have developed three excuses for the problem. First, they say that they could not have predicted it, either at the time of privatisation or when they set higher standards for the clean-up. Secondly, it is not their fault, and it is down to Ofwat to take action or to Europe. Thirdly, they are reviewing matters, and we should pay now in the hope that things will be sorted out next year. I call the latter the "never-never land" excuse.
Let us take each of those excuses in turn, starting with the first. The Government were warned about this. On 8 December 1988—during the final stages of water privatisation—I told the House:
"I represent an area where people are on low incomes, where some villages do not yet have their own sewerage systems and where many beaches are polluted. It is they who will have to foot the bill for the improvements that are required."
I also warned that both future British Government funding and much European funding would be cut off following privatisation, a statement which has been confirmed subsequently by the European Commission. I continued:
"I hope that the Minister can assure the people of Cornwall that they will not be expected to meet all the cost of cleaning up the beaches, which are used by citizens of the United Kingdom and Europe, purely because the Government, by their ideological approach, are cutting off the potential to obtain money in other ways."—[Official Report, 8 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 535–536.]
Yet none of the Conservative Members in the region—who are now wringing their hands as they lose votes due to rising water bills—joined me in opposing the Water Act 1989. By February 1989, the proposed increase for South West Water customers was 13.1 per cent in a single year. Such was my concern that I then sought and got an Easter Adjournment debate on water and servicing in the south-west. That was more than six years ago, yet Ministers now say that they could not see the problem coming.

535
with the Conservative Government refusing to help, further increases in bills inevitably followed, as night follows day. After all, just 3 per cent. of the national population—those living in the south-west—are being forced to pay for more than 30 per cent. of the national coastal clean-up.
In July 1990, I initiated a further Adjournment debate, after a new Government announcement that they were bringing forward the clean-up programme dramatically, which saw much the same response. They were bringing forward extra requirements on the water companies, but they were not increasing the so-called "green dowry" allowed to companies at the time of privatisation to meet some of the costs of the environmental obligations on them.
The 1990 proposals came not from Europe, but from the then Minister responsible for the environment, Mr. Chris Patten, who is perhaps fortunate to be Governor of Hong Kong rather than having any role in Devon and Cornwall, where he might get an even worse reception than the one that he is getting out in Hong Kong. He estimated the cost at £1.5 billion. The real cost of his initiative proved to be £6 billion.
That brings me to the second excuse—that it is someone else's fault, particularly Europe's. Not only is it a fact that European standards could be set only with the agreement of British Ministers, who had a right to veto them, but the British Government decided to increase and speed up the clean-up in 1990, and to do so without proper costings, or any financial support for those areas that would be hardest hit.
In 1989, the European Community had proposed the municipal waste water treatment directive—precursor to what is now the urban waste water directive—but it was not agreed by the EC until 1991. In 1990, the United Kingdom Government not only brought forward the beach clean-up, but jumped the gun on the municipal waste water treatment proposals by unilaterally adopting them for immediate application. I stress again that they did so without offering any financial support for the area to be hardest hit—the south-west.
That fact, which Conservative Members, especially those in the south-west, have denied—that it was their initiative that was at fault, not that of the EC—is confirmed by the fourth report of the Select Committee on the Environment, which was published in December 1990. Although I have brought it to the attention of the House before, I have never had any response.
In the introduction to its response to the Select Committee, the Department stated:
"the Government decided to press its own review to a conclusion and not to await the results of the committees' deliberations … In March the Government announced a major change of policy to require higher standards of treatment before sewage is discharged to sea. The Secretary of State for the Environment said that in future all significant discharges of sewage to sea should first be treated at a sewage treatment works: the additional cost associated with this change was put at around £1.5 billion".
That was a wild under-estimate, as we now know.
I must re-emphasise that it was a Government decision, not a European one. Indeed, the introduction to the response to the Select Committee concluded:
"Government policies in this area are in advance of Community environmental policy development as contained in the draft EC Directive on Municipal Waste Water Treatment which is currently the
536
subject of negotiation. This Directive if adopted will establish uniform minimum standards throughout the EC. The Government strongly supports this draft Directive and is working towards its early adoption."
In other words, they were pushing Europe to bring the directive forward as fast as possible, and we know the results for South West Water consumers.
I do not criticise the environmental objectives, but I do criticise those who seek to escape the Government's responsibility for those decisions, and those who failed to foresee the impact on South West Water consumers.
Yet, while the Conservative Government set the standard, they insisted that the customers should meet the costs. The Minister who replied to the 1990 Adjournment debate concluded:
"It is much better for private companies to raise money from charges to customers. The Government apply that system generally, and Cornwall will be no exception."—[Official Report, 16 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 842.]
Well, we were not. As a result, the Director General of Water Services announced that South West Water bills would increase, not at 6.5 per cent. a year over inflation as planned after privatisation, but 11.5 per cent. plus inflation each year.
The fact that prices have doubled in the past five years is, in every way, the Government's responsibility. Not surprisingly, the result was big advances for the Liberal Democrats in the general election in the south-west The Western Morning News reported:
"MPs returning to Westminster after the election have spoken of widespread anger and concern on the doorstep over soaring water bills."
One of the beneficiaries of that anger, my hon. Friend the newly elected Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), pressed the matter in another Adjournment debate at the beginning of June 1992. By that stage, Conservative Members were belatedly backing our concern, but the Secretary of State remained dismissive, describing South West Water's rising charges as
"good value to a household".—[Official Report, 2 June 1992; Vol. 208, c. 805.]
That view is not prevalent among those who must pay those charges.
When I raised the issue with the Prime Minister on 4 March the following year, he wrongly argued that I would find that water prices
"are similar in other counties to those in the west country."—[Official Report, 4 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 451.].
The message about the scale of the problem had not got outside the west country, but it did so as a result of the angry reaction to what the Prime Minister had said on people's television screens at Prime Minister's Questions, which many people in the west country had seen in the ensuing news programmes, which gave the figures and revealed that he was simply wrong.
Following that outcry, the Prime Minister gave a more positive response when I questioned him a week later. He said:
"I am examining the matter with the Secretary of State for the Environment."—[Official Report, 11 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 1105.]
That was the start of the third excuse—that something might be done, but, to adapt a phrase as we approach VE day, "don't know where, don't know when". It was not so much an excuse as a muddle.

537
By April, the Prime Minister was writing to Conservative Members to tell them that there were "difficulties" in bringing down bills. Meanwhile, the Environment Minister disclaimed responsibility, arguing in a letter to south-west Liberal Democrats on 27 April:
"Responsibility for water charges rests with the Director General of Water Services";
and denying that they were considering a review of water prices. He even refused to meet to discuss the issue.
The Director General of Ofwat, Ian Byatt, was reported at almost the same time—on 7 May 1993—as confirming that
"only the Government can stop South West Water bills spiralling … He said price limits were based on environmental obligations laid down by the Government, and he had little room for manoeuvre."
Last April, the constant delays, excuses and confusion from Ministers led me once again to try to get a proper response from the Minister in another Adjournment debate. Since then, the Government have developed another excuse—excuse No. 4—that action has been taken, the problem has been resolved, and the rise in bills has been capped. No sooner was the excuse made than it too began to unravel. A year on, even Conservative Members admit that the crisis continues, as one west country Conservative Member said within the past couple of weeks.
First, we are told that the Secretary of State accepted advice from Conservative Members that only a substantial cash injection into the south-west coastal clean-up—a second "green dowry"—would bring bills down to the national average. That is the position that we have argued all along, yet we are told, in the words of the Western Morning News on 13 March this year:
"his request for £100 million from the Treasury last year was turned down flat".
As a result, bills are not being cut and they continue to rise. Conservative Members in the region, and even the Secretary of State, accept that yearly bills of £600 or £700 with no relief for pensioners, or those on low incomes or living alone, are literally unaffordable. Many bills are already at that level.
Secondly, unable to offer a cut in bills, the Minister cut the clean-up programme, to slow the rate of increase. That, however, does nothing to cut bills. It does not tackle the fundamental problem, which is that they have already been allowed to get too high.
Even that policy has begun to unravel, because the NRA has overturned the Minister's ruling and said that substantial parts of the schemes must, after all, still go ahead, with the extra costs to the consumers still to be calculated. In any case, South West Water is challenging the price increase limits imposed on it, and I am advised that it may well win the case. What will Ministers do then, given that bills are already unaffordable?
Thirdly, in an extraordinary decision, sneaked out just before Easter, Ministers announced that water bills would still be calculated according to the out-of-date rates system—a system abandoned in the 1980s for local government because it was judged out of date and unfair.
Liberal Democrats and many water companies have suggested using the council tax system to calculate water bills, so that, even if bills could not be cut, they might be based on modern valuations, and help offered to those living alone or on low incomes. If rates were judged unfair and outdated for council use in the 1980s, how can that system be acceptable to Conservatives for calculating water charges in the 1990s?
538
Finally, it emerged that, this year, Ofwat would cut bills for business and the minority of customers with meters, by increasing the bills of everyone else—the vast majority—well above the inflation rate, yet again. Worse still, the same principle could mean different charges for ordinary customers who are cheap to supply—those in cities—at the expense of rural customers.
On 22 March, Western Morning News reported:
"Water consumers in remote and rural areas of the South West could soon be facing even higher bills because they are more expensive to supply."
The newspaper revealed that, on the basis of Ian Byatt's comments, the water regulator—frankly, he raises economics to a fine art, but he does little to meet the needs of the consumers who are on the receiving end—Labour-controlled Plymouth city council was prepared to bring a test case, demanding lower charges in the city on the basis that it was cheaper to supply, like large businesses. That would mean higher bills for rural customers.
The Labour chairman of the city's housing committee, John Coyle, confirmed:
"We are investigating the legal position. The early indications look like we will be able to go forward with a case to bring down water bills for every city resident."
Ofwat admits that such a challenge would be "a difficult case". If water tariffs were broken down between urban and rural groups, it would provoke outrage in areas where bills were forced up—the rural areas that have already been hit. Ofwat's south-west consumers' representative, Jessica Thomas, said that she was extremely worried at any moves that would hit rural customers.
Conservative policies have hit people in the rural south-west in many ways. Our schools are allowed £100 per child less than the average for England, and business gets less support than in any other region, despite high unemployment and low wages, but water bills are the most clear-cut example of unfairness. The Conservative party is reaping the reward it deserves: electoral defeat after electoral defeat.
At the general election, rising water bills meant Liberal Democrat gains. They delivered us victories in the county elections, and helped us to win our first European seats. Tonight, as the early local government results come in, it is clear that the Conservative party is losing over and over again in the south-west local elections.
The Minister has to answer the following questions. Why did the Treasury refuse to cut water bills, despite the Conservatives' own Secretary of State for the Environment asking for £100 million to do that? What will the Conservative Government do if the NRA requires the clean-up to go ahead, as it has, and South West Water possibly wins its appeal on the price cap and bills start to shoot up again?
What does the Minister say to customers without meters—the majority—whose bills have gone up well above inflation again this year, despite Government promises, while big businesses have had their bills cut? Will the Conservatives just stand by if Ofwat allows those living in the cities to have their bills cut at the expense of higher bills for customers in rural Cornwall and Devon?
If the Minister cannot answer those questions, he cannot expect Conservative fortunes to revive. He should expect a rout of the Conservative party, once again, come the general election.
10.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I thought that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) was going to go on for so long that I would not get a word in.
The hon. Gentleman has attempted to prove himself the knight in shining armour, but that posture is rather misplaced. The people who have been working in the south-west are my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), my hon. Friends the Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), for South Hams (Mr. Steen), for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes), for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) and for Torbay (Mr. Allason), just to mention the key players.
They have striven—[Interruption.]—perhaps the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) would listen, bearing in mind that I have sat quietly and listened to his version of the story—for a balance of better standards, which we definitely need in the region, and for the keeping down of costs in the long term.
Even the hon. Gentleman will accept that, after years of neglect under the previous Labour Administration, a massive programme of capital investment was required to modernise and upgrade the water and sewerage infrastructure in the region. That need would have arisen regardless of whether the industry had remained in the private sector or was privatised, and it would have been reflected to some degree in the water charges.
However, what water privatisation has done—the hon. Gentleman will be unable to reflect on that because he will not even see it—is to allow the companies access to the financial markets, which has helped South West Water to fund its investment programme. South West Water has made enormous strides in improving the infrastructure in the first four years.
About 400 individual schemes, totalling £760 million, have been completed. In 1992–93 and 1993–94, investment was running at £200 million a year. In the six months to 30 December 1994, a further £78 million was invested; 50 major schemes were completed, 377 were on-going. They were all the type of schemes that had been demanded by the Conservatives and by the Liberal Democrats in the region.
The company has borrowed extensively to finance that programme and, at 31 March 1994, loans and financial obligations amounted to an enormous £507 million. That means that financing was predominantly through loans, which spread the costs over time to the customers.
Even the hon. Member for Truro must accept that that huge capital programme, by enabling better water quality and higher environmental standards, has removed 100 restrictions on commercial and residential development. That has meant a dramatic increase in the customer base, and by that I mean an increase in industry and households in the region. It has helped the economy in the region and it has spread the tax base and the cost base. For instance, in 1993–94, there was an increase of 5,000 customers for South West Water. The overall economic benefit to the region has also meant, as I have said, an increase in the spread of the financial load.
540
The Government and my hon. Friends have been acutely aware of the rate of increase in charges, and we have carefully considered means by which we can keep those down. The first and most logical approach of the Government has been to try to clarify the new water quality and environment obligations, which all the water companies must meet in the next 10 years.
The Government, backed by my hon. Friends, have been emphatic that, in meeting the requirements of existing European Community and domestic legislation, the water companies, including South West Water, must achieve that as efficiently and possible. There needs to be a major effort by the companies to manage their investment programme at the lowest costs appropriate to circumstances. To put it simply, the company must avoid any "goldplating" of schemes, and must ensure that opportunities for cost reduction of technical innovation are not overlooked.
In addition, an important policy statement—"Water Charges: The Quality Framework"—which the Secretary of State for the Environment published in 1993, drew attention to the crucial role of the drinking water regulators. By that I mean the National Rivers Authority and the drinking water inspectorate. They are required to avoid excessive regulatory caution and not to demand too heavily that discretionary improvements are proceeded with at an excessive rate.
In addition, the Government remain committed to continuing to pursue, with their partners in the European Community, the case for deferring some of the urban waste water treatment directive's deadlines, so as to be able to implement the directive at a pace that consumers throughout the Community, especially South West Water customers, can more easily afford.
South West Water customers will be aware that the company has an extensive bathing water programme—also the sort of thing campaigned for and supported by Conservatives, and pushed by that double-horsed, two-faced reaction of the Liberals. That is well under way. It includes 24 schemes, covering 55 bathing waters. Nine of those schemes, involving 21 bathing waters, have already been completed. In other words, the bulk of them are on the way, if not completed. The effect is that we estimate that almost all those schemes will be completed by the end of the year.
The hon. Member for Truro should be interested to note that the recently completed Mount's bay section, which is a substantial scheme, linking St. Ives on Cornwall's north coast with Penzance on the south coast, is already having a dramatic effect on the quality of bathing waters, which formerly had nearly the worst compliance record in the United Kingdom. As an example, a local newspaper drew attention to the fact that windsurfers competing in Mount's bay during the Easter weekend said that the water was so much cleaner that they could see the sea bed even at 20 ft depth. As I have said, the other side of the coin has been substantial increases in water and sewerage bills for South West Water's customers; but the Government and my hon. Friends have looked very carefully at the obligations—particularly the environmental obligations—that South West Water must meet.
The success of this action has meant that the clarifications that we were able to provide for Ofwat greatly helped its task of reviewing the company's price limits and setting new and tight limits last summer. For example, this year's average increase in charges has been limited to 4.1 per cent. The original limit for price increases for the

541
five-year period 1995–2000 was 5.5 per cent. per year over and above inflation. Following the Government's clarification, Ofwat was able to reduce that to an average of 1.1 per cent. per year in real terms. For the second five-year period, Ofwat has set a zero price limit—by which I mean no increase in prices in real terms.
In addition, the Director General of Ofwat has impressed on the water companies that they must adjust the tariffs, so that meter customers now pay a fairer charge. That means, in the case of South West Water, that its unmeasured charges have risen by 5.3 per cent., but the measured water charges have been cut by 8.1 per cent., and measured sewerage charges by 9.3 per cent.
Furthermore, to assist customers, the company cut its charge for meter installation by 33 per cent. last year. That price reduction will obviously be beneficial to many customers, particularly single householders, those paying a high rateable value basic charge and those whose water consumption is relatively low, making meters a sensible option.
The Liberals—including the hon. Member for Truro this evening—have strongly advocated the use of council tax bands as a basis for charging for water. Of course, what the Liberal Party either fails to understand or chooses conveniently to ignore—the latter, I suspect—is that to move to the council tax banding system would merely produce a different set of gainers and losers.
A change along these lines for a charging system for water would not be any more equitable than any other unmeasured basis. In particular, the introduction would
542
give rise to widespread and arbitrary changes in bills, including the possibility of substantial increases in charges for many of those least able to pay.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: It would help with their incomes.
Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman plainly does not understand. Perhaps he should read Hansard tomorrow and see whether he can wrap his mind around the facts. What he suggests would not produce the benefits he seeks.
It is plain that South West Water is successfully implementing a huge capital investment programme that is raising bringing water quality to the necessary level. It is improving environmental standards, underpinning the area's efforts to revive the tourist industry, and attracting new industries.
After a number of years of rapid price increases, much tighter price limits have been set. I congratulate my hon. Friends whom I mentioned earlier on joining the Government in maintaining pressure on South West Water to ensure that it provides its customers with an efficient, high-quality service, but now in particular with the emphasis on keeping costs down.
It would pay the Liberal party to take a leaf out of my hon. Friends' book, and cease its continual attempts to ride every convenient horse at the politically opportune time. At one moment they clamour for improved standards; at the next, they whinge about costs as a result of the improvement of those standards. Action is happening on charges, but not at the expense of improved standards.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Franchises
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the foreign national rail companies which are free to submit a bid to operate rail franchises in the United Kingdom. [22589]

  Mr. Watts
  There are no restrictions preventing foreign national rail companies bidding for franchises.

  Railtrack
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what budget his Department has allocated for advertising and promoting the sale of Railtrack plc. [22590]

  Mr. Watts
  Costs of the sale will be published in due course.

  Railways (Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the total capital expenditure on British railways, including rolling stock, in 1994–95. [22444]

  Mr. Watts
  Capital expenditure on British railways, including expenditure on European Passenger Services Ltd., is expected to be over £1 billion in 1994–95.

  The Minch (Vessel Traffic)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps have been taken to monitor the traffic of vessels in the Minch since publication of the Donaldson report; and if he will make a statement; [21420]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the number of large vessels currently using the deep water route in preference to the Minch. [21421]

  Mr. Norris
  These are operational matters for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M Bradley to Mr. Robert Maclennan, dated 4 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Questions about monitoring tanker traffic in the Minch.
  In the light of the BRAER grounding in January 1993, the International Maritime Organisation adopted a number of ship routeing and reporting recommendations for areas around the United Kingdom coast, all of which entered into force in late November of that year. Laden tankers over 10,000grt are recommended to use the Deep Water Route to the west of the Hebrides rather than the Minch, except in times of adverse weather, when using the sheltered waters of the Minch is a safer option for the ship and the marine environment. At the same time, all tankers intending to use the minch should report their movements to the HM Coastguard station at Stornoway.
  256
  This Agency has systematically analysed those ship movement reports to check for infringements of the international routeing recommendation. From January 1994 to March 1995 the Agency analysed reports from 814 ships, 603 of which were tankers. Of those tankers, 203 were laden and 53 of those were over 10,000grt. In only one case—in January 1994—was the routeing recommendation for the Minch infringed. The Agency took immediate action with the owners.
  Lord Donaldson's report into measures to prevent pollution from merchant ships welcomed the Agency's monitoring of tanker traffic in the Minch and supported the retention by Masters of the option to use the Minch in times of adverse weather. The Agency is continuing to monitor closely the ship movement reports received by Stornoway Coastguard, and to follow-up any reported sightings of tankers that it receives periodically from other local sources.
  The Agency is taking forward Lord Donaldson's recommendation that mobile radar should be used to survey the density and type of maritime traffic around the United Kingdom coast, and to ensure compliance with existing ship routeing and reporting recommendations. Planning is at an early stage, but it is envisaged that the waters of the Minch will be surveyed in this way over the coming year.

  M25
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will set out the timetable in respect of his plans(a) to widen the existing carriageway of the M25 to five lanes in each direction between junctions 12 and 14 and 15 to 16 and (b) to create six lanes in each direction between junctions 14 and 15; [21577]

  (2) what public inquiries will be held in respect of the proposed M25 widening between junctions 12 and 16; [21584]

  (3) when he proposes to publish his environmental statements in respect of proposals to accommodate projected M25 traffic growth for the next 15 years. [21583]

  Mr. Watts
  The Highways Agency has embarked upon design work and an environmental assessment of the widening proposals following my right hon. Friend's announcement on 3 April. The agency expects to publish details of the scheme between junctions 12 and 15, including an environmental statement, early next year. A series of local public exhibitions will be held to provide an opportunity for people to see the proposals and discuss them with agency staff.

  Preparation of the scheme between junctions 15 and 16 will take longer. Subsequent progress on both schemes will depend on successful completion of any necessary statutory procedures. If design work were to confirm that the proposals could be contained within the curtilage of the existing road layout, there would be no statutory obligation to hold a public inquiry.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he proposes to minimise the effects of noise arising from proposals to extend the M25. [21574]

  Mr. Watts
  This will be achieved by a comprehensive set of mitigation measures, including additional and heightened noise barriers.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out his budget and precise proposals for land purchase in respect of the proposed M25 widening between junctions 12 to 16. [21578]

  Mr. Watts
  The precise amount of land, if any, to be purchased has yet to be assessed following further design work and the projected cost will depend upon estimates provided by the Valuation Office Agency.
  257
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he now has to introduce measures to enable the M25 motorway to perform its function as part of the strategic road network; and if he will make a statement. [21579]

  Mr. Watts
  The M25 is presently performing its function as part of the strategic road network.

  New Motorways (Cost)
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average cost per mile of new motorways. [21670]

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

  Letter from Laurie Haynes to Mr. William O'Brien, dated 4 May 1995:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts MP, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning new motorway costs.
  The cost of building a new motorway varies from site to site and is dependent on the standard of provision—ie, the number of traffic lanes in each direction, location, terrain and ground condition.
  The typical cost of constructing a mile of new three lane motorway is shown below at 1994 prices.

  £ million

  Road standard environment

  Typical cost

  Dual 3 lane motorway in rural environment

  8 to 17

  Dual 3 lane motorway in urban environment

  14 to 20

  The above includes the cost of design and the cost of purchasing land but excludes VAT.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 5 December 1994,Official Report, columns 35–36, if he will list those projects in privatised companies which have received European regional development funding since privatisation indicating (a) the level of funding and (b) the dates when it was received. [20574]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy, on 1 May Official Report, column 14.

  London Underground
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many safety-related track speed restrictions were imposed on the London Underground network in each year from 1990 to 1995.

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not available in the form requested.

ENVIRONMENT

  "Remedying Environmental Damage"
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the 258
  Government's response to the report, "Remedying Environmental Damage", by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities. [23139]

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of the Environment has today published the Government response to the Committee's report and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the cost to public funds which has been expended on legal aid in all vaccine damage cases in each year since 1979, giving the figure for(a) legal fees and (b) medical expenses. [21418]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not available.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made within his Department on equal opportunities matters. [21491]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has an equal opportunities policy statement in place. To support this, the Department has three separate action plans to achieve equality of opportunity for people of ethnic minority origin, for women and men and for disabled people. These action plans are regularly monitored and any necessary corrective action is taken to ensure that the policy is properly implemented.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress he hopes to achieve in his Department over the next three months to push forwards the declaration signed in October 1994 at the Vienna conference in preparation for the fourth UN conference on women; and if he will incorporate a section on equal opportunities in his Department's annual report. [21493]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government are committed to the principles set out in the regional platform for action agreed at the preparatory conference in Vienna for the fourth UN world conference on women. We have taken these forward through a wide range of programmes and initiatives and will continue to do so. Our Department's annual report already incorporates a section on equal opportunities. We shall continue to cover equality issues in our annual report.

  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which Minister has responsibility for equal opportunity issues. [21490]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I am the Minister who has responsibility for equal opportunities within the Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish the gender assessment being prepared by his Department. [21492]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This Department's policy, in line with guidance issued in 1992 by the ministerial group on women's issues, is that policy proposals should ensure
  259
  that unlawful or unjustifiable race or sex discrimination does not occur and that similar principles should apply to people with disabilities.

  Mrs. Kuldip Kaur
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when permission for an appeal by Mrs. Kuldip Kaur—Ref:Imm/ECR/0152/94s—was granted; on what date the post in Delhi was informed; on what date the explanatory statement was received; if the post has informed him of the correct case references; and if he will make a statement. [21730]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The regional adjudicator will decide as a preliminary issue on 12 May 1995 whether the appeal by Mrs. Kuldip Kaur may proceed out of time. If permission is granted, the immigration appellate authorities will request the post in New Delhi to prepare and forward the explanatory statement.

  Public Records
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consideration has been given to reducing the time in which records held by the Public Record Office are kept confidential. [21986]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Consideration was given at the time of the July 1993 White Paper on Open Government, Cm 2290, as to whether the 30-year closure period prescribed by the Public Records Act 1967 should be reduced.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what is the reason for the withholding from release at the Public Record Office of the 1956 Medical Research Council paper on the report on Hiroshima and Nagasaki pregnancy studies, document reference D314/49; [22016]

  (2) what is the reason for the withholding from release at the Public Record Office of the 1956 Medical Research Council report on leukaemia radiation, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, containing mutation rates and minimum effective doses of radiation in various plants and animals, document reference D314/46. [22015]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Although the Medical Research Council is not governed by the Public Records Acts, it has acted to ensure that its archives are properly preserved and made accessible to researchers by transferring historical records to the Public Record Office. Questions of this nature should normally be directed to the MRC. Nevertheless, I am able to say on this occasion that the continued retention of these files by the MRC is due to preparation activity in relation to the transfer of MRC material.

  National Survey of Court Users
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to make an announcement about the results of the national survey of courts users. [23141]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The report on the findings of the survey is published today, and copies have been placed in the Library.

TREASURY

  VAT Audits
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many VAT audits have been conducted into the returns of the unlicensed private car hire or minicab firms in Greater London during each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement. [21173]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information is not available. Customs central records do not distinguish licensed from unlicensed operators of taxis and other private hire.

  EU Convergence Plans
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the EU Commission will make public its reactions to the convergence plans submitted by member states of the EU; [22552]

  (2) how many member states have now submitted their convergence plans to the EU Commission; when the United Kingdom submitted such a plan; and if he will publish it; [22551]

  (3) what consideration has been given to national convergence programmes by the Monetary Committee of the EU and by the ECOFIN council. [22553]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The ECOFIN council has generally assessed each member state's initial convergence programme, on the basis of a report from the Commission and the Monetary Committee. The practice has varied for updated programmes, depending on the scale of any changes to the plans. Where there is no specific discussion, subsequent convergence programmes will be one of the sources of information used by the Commission in preparing reports for the council's regular multilateral surveillance discussions.

  The Commission does not publish its assessment of national convergence programmes but when ECOFIN considers a convergence programme, it publishes the conclusions of its discussion in the form of a press notice.

  All member states—apart from Luxembourg and the three new members, Austria, Finland and Sweden—have adopted convergence programmes. Revised and updated programmes have also been adopted, where appropriate, in the light of economic developments.

  The UK produced an updated programme in March this year, based on the 1995–96 "Financial Statement and Budget Report". A copy of this and previous convergence programmes can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much staff time, and at what estimated cost, was put into compiling the departmental annual report; and what were the figures for each year for which figures are available since 1990. [20171]

  Mr. Nelson
  To estimate the staff time for each year since 1990 would incur disproportionate cost. For the 1995 report—"Chancellor of the Exchequer's small Departments", Cm 2817—it is estimated that across the seven departments covered by the report approximately 50 man days, at a cost of some £17,000, was spent compiling the departmental report.
  261
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures the Department takes to assess the cost and staff implications of compiling material for the departmental annual report. [20172]

  Mr. Nelson
  The departmental report sets out spending plans, priorities, targets and achievements of the departments for which the Chancellor is responsible. The cost and staff implications for compiling material are kept to the minimum necessary to produce a clear and informative report.

  Financial Institutions
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what role the Bank of England has taken in promoting and encouraging the merger or takeover by other financial institutions of building societies. [21905]

  (2) what encouragement his Department is giving financial institutions to merge, amalgamate or takeover competitors. [21929]

  Mr. Nelson
  None. Such decisions are a matter for the commercial judgment of the directors and owners of those institutions.

  Abbey National
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when was the most recent meeting he had with the chairman of the Abbey National. [21930]

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not had a meeting with the chairman of the Abbey National since becoming Chancellor.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made within his Department on equal opportunities matters. [21517]

  Mr. Nelson
  In the last year, the Treasury ran a comprehensive programme of equal opportunities awareness training—attended by 75 per cent. of staff—issued a booklet to all staff outlining all aspects of equal opportunity policies which also included targets to fulfil the Treasury's undertakings as a member of Opportunity 2000 and an action plan on ethnic minorities. A survey of provision and arrangements for disabled staff was undertaken and an action plan is being prepared.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he hopes to achieve in his Department over the next three months to push forward the declaration signed in October 1994 at the Vienna conference in preparation for the fourth UN conference on women; and if he will agree to incorporate a section on equal opportunities in his Department's annual report. [21519]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government are committed to the principles set out in the regional platform for action agreed at the preparatory conference in Vienna for the fourth UN world conference on women. We have taken these forward through a wide range of programmes and initiatives and will continue to do so.

  The Treasury's latest annual report—March 1995, Cm 2817—set out the Department's progress on equal opportunities issues. The Treasury will continue to publish information on equal opportunities issues in its annual report, in accordance with the recommendations in the Oughton report,—"Career Management and
  262
  Succession Planning in the Civil Service, Cabinet Office (OPSS), 1994," and the White Paper,—"The Civil Service, Taking Forward Continuity and Change", Cm 2748.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the gender assessment being prepared by his Department. [21518]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury's policy, in line with guidance issued in 1992 by the ministerial group on women's issues, is that policy proposals should ensure that unlawful or unjustifiable sex or race discrimination does not occur and that similar principles apply to people with disabilities. This scrutiny is part of a continuous and routine process, as part of policy advice to Ministers.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Minister in his Department has responsibility for equal opportunities issues. [21516]

  Mr. Nelson
  I am the Minister responsible for equal opportunities issues.

  Industrial Production
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the rate of increase in industrial production on the United Kingdom in each year since 1992; and what were the comparable figures for (i) the United States of America, (ii) Italy, (iii) Germany and (iv) Japan. [22208]

  Mr. Nelson
  Industrial production data for the United States of America, Italy, Germany and Japan can be found in the monthly OECD publication "Main Economic Indicators". UK industrial production data can be found on the CSO database, which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Export-led Growth (Definition)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his definition of export-led growth, with particular reference to the inclusion of(a) North sea oil and gas and (b) imports of manufactures. [22160]

  Mr. Nelson
  Changes in both gross and net exports are considered when assessing the sources of GDP growth. More detailed analysis looking at the commodity composition of exports and imports may also be relevant.

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) of 26 October 1993,Official Report, columns 571–72, providing estimates for 1994–95 and 1995–96 for the number of taxpayers with gross and taxable income in income bands up to £150,000 supplying data at intervals of not more than £10,000. [21004]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 25 April 1995]: Available information is given in the tables. The increase in taxpayer numbers is largely due to economic growth. Net effect of tax changes this April was to take more than 100,000 people out of tax. In addition, the number of people in work is increasing—the United Kingdom work force in employment went up 174,000 between December 1993 and December 1994.
  263

  £

  Number of taxpayers by range of

  Gross income1 (000)

  Taxable income2 (000)

  1994–95

  Under 5,000

  2,200

  8,500

  5,000 to 10,000

  7,900

  6,600

  10,000 to 15,000

  6,000

  4,500

  15,000 to 20,000

  3,900

  2,700

  20,00 to 25,000

  2,300

  1,400

  25,000 to 30,000

  1,300

  720

  30,000 to 40,000

  1,100

  660

  40,000 to 50,000

  420

  280

  50,000 to 70,000

  280

  190

  70,000 to 80,000

  60

  50

  Over 80,000

  180

  140

  Total taxpayers

  25,700

  25,700

  1995–96

  Under 5,000

  1,900

  8,400

  5,000 to 10,00

  7,900

  6,600

  10,000 to 15,000

  6,100

  4,500

  15,000 to 20,000

  4,100

  2,800

  20,000 to 25,000

  2,500

  1,500

  25,000 to 30,000

  1,400

  790

  30,000 to 40,000

  1,200

  740

  40,000 to 50,000

  460

  310

  50,000 to 70,000

  330

  210

  70,000 to 80,000

  60

  50

  Over 80,000

  200

  160

  Total taxpayers

  26,200

  26,200

  1 Gross income is defined as total income for income tax purposes. It excludes income from certain social security benefits and some investment income such as National Savings Certificates.

  2 Taxable income is defined as gross income for income tax purposes less those allowances and reliefs which are available at the taxpayer's marginal rate.

  Annual compensation payment to age 60 (£ rate pa)

  Superannuation lump sum (£)

  Lump sum compensation payment (£)

  Compensation in lieu of notice (if any) (£)

  1990–91

  Flexible

  14,191.15

  39,087.10

  0

  0

  Flexible

  3,736.76

  10,299.15

  0

  0

  1991–92

  Flexible

  15,411.50

  44,680.00

  0

  0

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Equal Opportunities
    Ms Eagle
    To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) what progress has been made within his Department on equal opportunities matters; [21542]

    (2) if he will publish the gender assessment being prepared by his Department; [21543]

    (3) which Minister in his Department has responsibility for equal opportunities issues. [21541]

    Mr. Newton
    The Privy Council Office, of whose 38 staff 23 are women, continues to operate as an equal opportunities employer within the relevant code. My Department has no plans to prepare a gender assessment.

    Company Ownership
    Mr. David Porter
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which a company owned 51 per cent. by the Government of another European Union country and 49 per cent. by an American company can bid by competitive tender for British business. [22047]

    Mr. Nelson
    [holding answer 2 May 1995]: The EC treaty would normally require a company established in a member state to be treated equally with British suppliers. The treaty and the transparency directive—80/723/EEC as amended—will ensure that public funding which could give competitive advantage is subject to scrutiny. For public contracts and certain contracts in the energy, water, transport and telecommunications sectors, the EC procurement directives reinforce the treaty provisions and, as a rule, require competition. For Government contracts, the policy is to seek best value for money through competition, normally by competitive tender. However, it is not possible to give a definitive reply on the eligibility of a particular company without knowing the full circumstances.

    Civil Servants
    Mr. Milburn
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the individual value of each(a) compulsory early retirement and (b) flexible early retirement package received by civil servants leaving his Department on grounds of limited efficiency in each of the last five years. [22075]

    Mr. Nelson
    [holding answer 2 May 1995]: Compensation payments for early retirement on grounds of limited efficiency are age, salary and service related. There have been three retirements from the Treasury on grounds of limited efficiency over the past five financial years—all flexible early retirements—as follows:

    No Minister within the Department has particular responsibility for equal opportunities issues.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Civil Servants
    Mr. Peter Griffiths
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil servants of executive grade were in post in 1980, 1990 and 1995. [22539]

    Mr. Horam
    Information for the years from 1980 to 1994 can be found in table 4 of "Civil Service Statistics", copies of which are in the Library. Information for 1995 is not yet available.
    265
    Mr. Milburn
    To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the individual value of each(a) compulsory early retirement and (b) flexible early retirement package received by civil servants leaving his Department on grounds of limited efficiency in each of the last five years. [22091]

    Mr. David Hunt
    I am also answering on behalf of the Prime Minister.

    Four elements usually make up the package received by those leaving on limited efficiency grounds—compulsory early retirement. The first three are the payments which would be made under the principal civil service pension scheme. The fourth element is set out in the civil service management code. The four elements are as follows:

    Annual compensation payments to age 60 £ pa

    Superannuation lump sum £

    Lump sum compensation payment £

    Compensation in lieu or notice (if any) £

    1990–91

    Compulsory

    7,000.19

    18,025.17

    11,901.54

    11,974.00

    1991–92

    Compulsory

    14,007.71

    36,190.06

    18,481.91

    17,860.00

    1992–93

    Compulsory

    11,737.00

    33,480.60

    11,737.00

    0

    Flexible

    12,217.00

    33,477.73

    0

    0

    1993–94

    Compulsory

    8,541.59

    25,140.95

    4,103.33

    0

    1994–95

    There have been no instances of compulsory early retirement or flexible early retirement on limited efficiency grounds in the central Department, HMSO, COI or the executive agencies in the financial year 1994–95.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

    Educational Low-priced Book Scheme
    Mrs. Ray Michie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the success of the educational low-priced book scheme in furthering the education and training of students in developing countries. [22150]

    Mr. Baldry
    A review of the educational low-priced books scheme in 1994 revealed that about a third of books sold under ELBS went to prosperous countries, including Hong Kong, Malaysia and Turkey. Our assessment is that the scheme is not reaching poorer students in the poorest countries who cannot afford to buy books and therefore is not able to further the education and training of many students in developing countries.

    Mrs. Ray Michie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what was the result of the review of the educational low-priced book scheme; and if he will list those who were consulted during the review; [22153]

    (2) what measures he intends to take to ensure that the work of the educational low-priced book scheme is maintained and adequately funded; and if he will make a statement. [22155]

    Mr. Baldry
    The educational low-priced book scheme is being phased out over two years. During this period,266

    1. An annual compensation payment/pension based on l/80th of pensionable pay multiplied by the length of reckonable service. The reckonable service will usually include an enhancement of up to 6 2/3 years.

    2. A lump sum of three times the pension.

    3. A lump sum compensation payment of up to six months salary.

    4. Pay in lieu of notice of up to six months salary.

    Flexible early retirement does not include the third and fourth elements listed above.

    The figures below cover the Cabinet Office—including the OPSS and its agencies—HMSO, and the COL There have been four compulsory early retirements and one flexible early retirement on limited efficiency grounds in the past five financial years.

    new strategies will be developed to achieve improved targeting and access to key text books and other essential learning materials for poorer students in the poorest countries, in pursuit of our developmental objectives.

    The Publishers Association, publishing houses, the administrators of the scheme—International Book Development Ltd.—the British Council, ODA programme managers, ODA professional advisory groups and overseas students studying in the UK were consulted during the course of the review.

    Mrs. Ray Michie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the educational low-priced book scheme operational budget for 1994; how this is distributed; and how many administrative staff are involved. [22154]

    Mr. Baldry
    The total budget in the financial year 1994–95 was £1.53 million, including £0.2 million for administration. International Book Development Ltd. administer the scheme under contract to ODA.

    Details of sales by region, country and subject coverage from 1985 to 1993 will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses shortly.

    Mrs Ray Michie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the overseas countries, (b) the number of students and (c) the number of further educational establishments to have benefited from the educational low-priced book scheme. [22152]
    267
    Mr. Baldry
    The educational low-priced books scheme has been available in the following countries:Africa—Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi. Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
    Asia—Bangladesh, Bhutan, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, The Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Phillipines, Sri Lanka, Thailand.
    Pacific—Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu, Western Samoa.
    Caribbean and Atlantic—Antigua, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Trinidad and Tobago.
    Mediterranean and Near East—Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Turkey.

    Under the scheme, books are sold through local commercial outlets. There is thus no central record of the number of students who have purchased books or which further education establishments may have benefited from the scheme.

    Mrs. Ray Michie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what criteria he judges the value of the educational low-price book scheme in the sphere of higher education and vocational training in the developing world. [22149]

    Mr. Baldry
    The value of the educational low-priced books scheme is assessed against our normal developmental criteria. Our aim is to provide support for education for the poorer students in the poorest countries in the best targeted and most cost-effective way.

    Mrs. Ray Michie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of the discontinuation of the educational low-priced hook scheme on overseas students from developing countries who sit examinations set by the royal colleges. [22151]

    Mr. Baldry
    Phasing out the educational low-priced books scheme should not prevent developing country students who sit examinations set by the royal colleges from purchasing key text books. Text books provided under the scheme are predominately undergraduate rather than postgraduate. Since the books are sold through commercial outlets, the scheme cannot be targeted on specific groups of students. We intend to introduce a new strategy aimed at the needs of the poorer students in the poorest countries and which will not subsidise those students or others who can afford to pay the full price for books.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what status has been accorded to the Palestine Liberation Organisation at the non-proliferation treaty conference at the United Nations in New York. [22020]

    Mr. David Davis
    The conference has agreed to a request from the permanent observer mission of Palestine that Palestine be granted observer status.
    268
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list these states party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which accused the United Kingdom of breaking article I of the non-proliferation treaty, through the United Kingdom's military nuclear agreements with the United States of America, in representations made at the non-proliferation treaty conference in New York on 21 April. [22024]

    Mr. David Davis
    Mexico, quoting from an unsubstantiated report. UK-US collaboration is in full accord with the obligations imposed by the NPT.

    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response the United Kingdom delegation to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference in New York made to the criticisms made by Turkey in main committee II of the conference that existing safeguards at reprocessing plants are inadequate. [22021]

    Mr. David Davis
    The statement by the Turkish delegation in main committee II dealt generally with International Atomic Energy Authority safeguards. We do not accept that IAEA safeguards measures on declared nuclear materials are inadequate.

    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response has been made by the United Kingdom delegation to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty conference in New York to the proposal by the Netherlands at the conference that full scope nuclear safeguards should apply to all nuclear facilities and materials without discrimination. [22023]

    Mr. David Davis
    The Dutch Foreign Minister, Mr Hans Van Mierlo, urged the NPT review and extension conference to accept the principle of the application of full scope safeguards on all peaceful nuclear activities without discrimination in nuclear weapon and non nuclear weapon States. All civil nuclear material in the United Kingdom is subject to international safeguards.

    Mr. Menzies Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government will respond to operative paragraph 2 of the European Parliament's motion on the extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, adopted on 5 April. [22351]

    Mr. David Davis
    The extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is too important to be held hostage to any other issue.

    Mr. Menzies Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to the proposal made by the Government of South Africa at the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference for the establishment of a committee to meet between review conferences to consider ways of strengthening the treaty. [22353]

    Mr. David Davis
    We believe that the treaty's review procedures provide ample opportunity for states' parties to voice their concerns about the implementation of the treaty, but we are giving careful consideration to the South African proposals.

    East Timor
    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 March,Official Report, column 198, on what date the staff

    269
    attached to the jakarta embassy who visited East Timor on 14 to 19 November 1991 visited Wara Husada number 4 military hospital. [22285]

    Mr. Goodlad
    The member of the British embassy staff in Jakarta who visited East Timor from 14 to 19 November 1991 did not visit the Wara Husada number 4 military hospital.

    British Prisoners Abroad
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom citizens were serving prison sentences in overseas prisons

    British citizens and others in prison overseas for drugs offences on 18 April 1995

    1BC

    2BDTC

    3BS

    4BPP

    5CC

    6HKC0I

    7NONBRIT

    Total

    Angola

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    Argentina

    6

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    6

    Australia

    14

    4

    1

    —

    —

    3

    —

    22

    Austria

    4

    12

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    16

    Bahrain

    2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    2

    Barbados

    4

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    4

    Belgium

    24

    1

    —

    —

    1

    —

    —

    26

    Bolivia

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    Brazil

    8

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    3

    11

    Canada

    4

    2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    6

    China

    3

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    3

    CIS

    0

    1

    —

    —

    1

    —

    —

    2

    Colombia

    2

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    —

    3

    Costa Rica

    1

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    —

    2

    Cuba

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    Denmark

    17

    1

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    19

    Egypt

    —

    —

    —

    —

    4

    —

    —.

    4

    Equador

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    Ethiopia

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    Fiji

    2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    2

    Finland

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    France

    289

    —

    2

    —

    8

    —

    1

    300

    Germany

    20

    2

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    23

    Ghana

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    Grand Cayman

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    Greece

    10

    2

    —

    —

    14

    —

    —

    26

    Hong Kong

    3

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    3

    Iceland

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    India

    17

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    17

    Indonesia

    1

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    —

    2

    Israel

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    Italy

    11

    3

    —

    —

    3

    —

    —

    17

    Jamaica

    5

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    6

    Japan

    18

    9

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    27

    Kenya

    2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    2

    Korea

    2

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    2

    Luxembourg

    0

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    Malaysia

    1

    1

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    3

    Malawi

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    —

    1

    Mexico

    1

    —

    2

    —

    2

    —

    —

    5

    Morocco

    22

    2

    —

    —

    5

    —

    1

    30

    Nepal

    5

    —

    —

    —

    4

    —

    —

    9

    Neth. Antilles

    1

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    —

    2

    Netherlands

    17

    3

    —

    —

    1

    —

    —

    21

    New Zealand

    5

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    5

    Nigeria

    3

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    3

    Norway

    7

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    7

    Pakistan

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    0

    Papua New Guinea

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    Paraguay

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    Peru

    3

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    3

    Philippines

    2

    3

    —

    —

    —

    8

    1

    14

    Portugal

    9

    —

    —

    —

    5

    —

    —

    14

    270
    for drug offences on 18 April; and if he will list the figures (a) by gender (b) by country in what the sentences are being served. [22379]

    Mr. Baldry
    On 18 April 1995, there were 999 British citizens serving sentences for drugs offences around the world. In addition, there were a further 321 other British nationals, and others to whom we extend consular protection, for example, British dependent territories citizens, unrepresented Commonwealth nationals or EU nationals. Following is a table giving the breakdown by national status and by whereabouts.

    A division by gender could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.
    271

    British citizens and others in prison overseas for drugs offences on 18 April 1995

    1BC

    2BDTC

    3BS

    4BPP

    5CC

    6HKC0I

    7NONBRIT

    Total

    Singapore

    1

    2

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    4

    Slovenia

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    —

    —

    1

    Spain

    258

    10

    —

    1

    35

    —

    —

    304

    Sri Lanka

    4

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    4

    Sweden

    13

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    14

    Switzerland

    9

    2

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    12

    Taiwan

    3

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    3

    Tanzania

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    Thailand

    23

    62

    —

    —

    34

    19

    —

    138

    Trinidad

    9

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    9

    Turkey

    9

    —

    —

    —

    6

    —

    —

    15

    Turks and Caicos

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    1

    UAE

    0

    —

    1

    —

    1

    —

    —

    2

    United States of America

    112

    6

    —

    —

    2

    6

    2

    128

    Viet nam

    0

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    Zimbabwe

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    1

    Totals

    999

    130

    7

    1

    132

    40

    11

    1,320

    1 British Citizen.

    2 British Dependant Territories Citizen.

    3 British Subject (without citizenship) or a person who has British Subject status by virtue of a connection with Southern Ireland.

    4 British Protected Person.

    5 Commonwealth Citizen.

    6 Holder of Hong Kong certificate of identity.

    7 Where none of the above are applicable eg. Irish nationals.

    Mr. and Mrs. Anwar Jahan Rashid
    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is going to be taken on the application made to the United Kingdom post in Islamabad by Mr. and Mrs. Anwar Jahan Rashid to visit the United Kingdom, Ref: V95/000618; and if he will make a statement. [22591]

    Mr. Baldry
    I have instituted inquiries and shall arrange for the migration and visa correspondence unit to write to the hon. Member when these are complete.

  HEALTH

    Prescriptions
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of net disposable income is required to allow(a) a single and (b) a married person to get help with NHS prescriptions under the NHS low income scheme. [19397]

    Mr. Malone
    The figure will vary according to individual circumstances. Intending claimants are advised to consult leaflet AB 11—"Help with NHS costs"—a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

    Dental Services
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many additional staff will be required; and what will be the cost of introducing the more rigorous prior approval system for dental care; [20702]

    (2) if she will make a statement on the details of the proposed more rigorous prior approval mechanism for dental treatment under the NHS; and to what extent this has been influenced by a study of the system in Russia; [20680]
    272
    (3) what is the maximum delay in providing dental care she will approve following the introduction of the more rigorous prior approval mechanism for dental care; [20696]

    (4) what estimate she has made of the total additional administrative costs which will be incurred by dentists providing NHS dental care when the more rigorous prior approval mechanism for dental care is introduced. [20703]

    Mr. Malone
    The Government will develop more rigorous prior approval mechanisms for dental care to ensure that all treatments that are clinically essential are available through national health service dentistry, but that only those treatments which are clinically essential and for which there is no clinically acceptable, less costly, alternative are provided. This will promote better use of available resources. The Government's proposals were not influenced by study of the system in Russia. Details of the mechanisms will be developed in consultation with the dental profession.

    The aim is to develop guidelines and protocols which will promote a clear understanding among dentists of the conditions under which treatment may be approved. This should prevent the submission of inappropriate requests for approval. If there are fewer requests, then there would be fewer rejections.

    There is no reason to expect that patients would have to wait for a longer period for treatment to be approved under more rigorous prior approval than they do at present. Nor need there be an increase in administrative cost for the Dental Practice Board.

    NHS Charges and Receipts
    Mrs. Beckett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the planned increase in charges and receipts from the figure given in the estimated outturn for 1994–95 to that cited in plans for 1995–96 NHS current and capital expenditure. [21755]

    Mr. Sackville
    The Government's expenditure plans, published in the departmental report, Cm 2812, show that
    273
    total national health service income from charges and receipts is expected to be £1,470 million in 1995–96, comparable to 1993–94 outturn of £1,466 million. This is some £230 million more than the forecast outturn for 1994–95, although this is subject to revision at outturn—for example, to reflect late recording of some receipts.

    Junior Doctors
    Mr. Spearing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health from what date a compulsory requirement for junior doctors to serve in a casualty and accident department ceased to apply; what consultations took place between her Department and the relevant medical authorities concerning this change; and what estimate she has made of the impact of these measures on the supply of junior doctors to other departments. [21869]

    Mr. Malone
    The content of training programmes for junior doctors is the responsibility of the relevant royal college or faculty. Since January 1994, it has not been compulsory for doctors wishing to sit the fellowship

    Deaths assigned to ICD1 codes E950–E959 (suicide and self-inflicted injury) and E980–E989 (injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted), England, 1988–93

    Farmers

    Farm workers

    All persons

    E950–E959 suicide

    E980–E989 undetermined

    E950–E959 suicide

    E980–E989 undetermined

    E950–E959 suicide

    E980–E989 undetermined

    1988

    43

    6

    25

    3

    3,968

    1,987

    1989

    32

    5

    21

    6

    3,515

    1,868

    1990

    33

    8

    21

    9

    3,710

    1,884

    1991

    36

    10

    18

    2

    3,630

    1,937

    1992

    31

    7

    17

    8

    3,675

    1,866

    19932

    31

    3

    14

    11

    3,299

    1,323

    1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

    2 1993 figures are provisional. The system of coding underlying cause of death in England and Wales was changed on 1 January 1993.

    Numbers for 1993 may not be comparable to earlier years for some causes, including suicide and injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted. Work is continuing to clarify this, and further details will be available later in the year.

    Marriages
    Dr. Howells
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many marriages between British citizens and non-British, non-EU citizens were reported as bogus to the Registrar-General by individual registrars in each year since 1989. [21816]

    Mr. Sackville
    Superintendent registrars are instructed to send a report to the Registrar-General where they have good reason to suspect that a proposed marriage of a person from abroad has been arranged for the sole purpose of evading statutory immigration controls. The number of reports received from individual superintendent registrars since 1989 will be placed in the Library. Details of reports received of marriages between British citizens and non-British, non-EU citizens is not kept separately and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Residential Care
    Mr. Alan Howarth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimates she makes of the numbers of married people of each sex who are contributing(a) all or (b) part of their income from occupational pensions to
    274
    examination of the Royal College of Surgeons to spend a part of their training programme in an accident and emergency department, although it is strongly recommended that they do so. Consultation on changes to training requirements are a matter for the relevant royal college.

    We have consistently increased the number of junior doctors in recent years, both in accident and emergency medicine and in other specialties. The decision by some trainees, because of the change in the fellowship examination, not to opt to work in accident and emergency departments has also added to the supply of junior doctors in other specialties.

    Suicides
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many suicides occurred in England among(a) farmers, (b) farm workers and (c) the general population in each year since 1988. [21907]

    Mr. Bowis
    The information is shown in the table.

    the costs of local authority provided residential or nursing care; [22278]

    (2) how many married people of each sex in local authority provided residential or nursing home care have a spouse remaining in their own home; [22283]

    (3) how many married people of each sex are in receipt of occupational pensions and in local authority provided residential or nursing home care; [22276]

    (4) what is the estimated total amount of money deriving from occupational pensions contributed by married people to the costs of local authority provided residential and nursing home care. [22279]

    Mr. Bowis
    This information is not available centrally.

    GP Minor Surgery
    Ms Church
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what cost-benefit analysis has been carried out on the likely effect of retaining the restriction on the number of minor operations at the same time as improving general practitioner's surgeries; [22387]

    (2) what limit is placed on general practitioners per quarter in respect of minor operations and for what reasons; and what assessment she has made of the consistency of this policy with a primary care driver approach to health care. [22389]

    Mr. Malone
    General practitioners may claim specific fees under the statement of fees and allowances for up to
    275
    15 minor surgical procedures a quarter. This represents a balanced approach between the procedures on the minor surgery list and the other responsibilities of GPs to their patients. Procedures not on the minor surgery list may be performed by GPs under direct contract with a local purchaser, where this will provide an efficient and effective service to patients.

    Ms Church
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to review the limit on minor operations to take into account(a) general practitioner list size and (b) differential needs across the country. [22388]

    Mr. Malone
    None.

    Care in the Community
    Ms Jowell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those statutes, statutory instruments, circulars, advice notes and departmental letters concerned with provision of care in the community in a table showing(a) the full title and date of publication of each item, (b) a summary of its subject matter, (c) whether it is concerned with services provided by health authorities, local authorities or both, (d) the address of the location from which copies are available, (e) its costs, (f) whether the item is available to the public on request and (g) whether stocks are presently available. [21031]

    Mr. Bowis
    This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Clinical Audit
    Mr. Bayley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total cost of clinical audit in the national health service to date since 1991. [22458]

    Mr. Malone
    Between April 1991 and March 1995, £247 million was provided to health authorities and the royal colleges to support clinical audit in England. The main purpose of these funds has been to develop and sustain an infrastructure of clinical audit committees and audit support staff. The other cost associated with clinical audit is that of clinicians' time, which has not been costed, and is dependent on the pattern of each individual clinician's input to clinical audit.

    Personal Social Services
    Mrs. Beckett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total income generated from charges to receipts of personal social services in each year from 1982–83, expressed in 1995 prices. [22390]

    Mr. Bowis
    The information requested, up to 1993–94, the last year for which it is available, is shown in the table. The increase in 1993–94 reflects the growth in local authority care activity following the community care reforms.

    Fees and charges for personal social services

    Year

    Fees and charges (£ million)

    1982–83

    609.4

    1983–84

    613.8

    1984–85

    605.4

    1985–86

    672.5

    1986–87

    668.5

    1987–88

    625.1

    276

    Fees and charges for personal social services

    Year

    Fees and charges (£ million)

    1988–89

    599.4

    1989–90

    608.6

    1990–91

    568.6

    1991–92

    556.8

    1992–93

    530.2

    1993–94

    639.1

    England totals derived from local authorities' annual expenditure returns on form R03. Constant 1995–96 prices, based on gross domestic product indices.

    Public Bodies
    Dr. Wright
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department are under a statutory requirement to(a) publish their advice to the Government, (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament; and if she will list those bodies with a statutory basis. [21161]

    Mr. Sackville
    [holding answer 27 April 1995]: The following Department of Health advisory non-departmental public bodies have a statutory requirement to:

    Publish their advice to the Government:

    The Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials.

    The Standing Dental Advisory Committee

    Publish an annual report:

    The British Pharmacopoeia Commission.

    The Committee on the Safety of Medicines.

    The Health Advisory Service

    The Joint Planning Advisory Committee.

    The Medicines Commission.

    Lay an annual report before Parliament:

    The British Pharmacopoeia Commission.

    The Medicines Commission.

    The following Department of Health advisory non-departmental public bodies have a statutory basis:

    The Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee.

    The British Pharmacopoeia Commission.

    The Clinical Standards Advisory Group.

    The Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials.

    The Committee on the Safety of Medicines.

    The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

    The Medicines Commission.

    The Standing Dental Advisory Committee.

    The Standing Medical Advisory Committee.

    The Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee.

    The Standing Pharmaceutical Advisory Committee.

    The Unrelated Live Transplant Regulatory Authority.

    Dentomycin
    Mr. Alex Carlile
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement outlining the reasons why Dentomycin was not included on the list of products available for dental prescribing. [22040]

    Mr. Malone
    [holding answer 1 May 1995]: The list for dental prescribing contains medicinal products which patients can obtain.on national health service prescription. Dentomycin is solely for use by a dental professional during the provision of treatment and, therefore, should not be included on the list.

  SCOTLAND

    East Kilbride Development Corporation
    Mr. Ingram
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman and board of East Kilbride development corporation to discuss(a) the future of Scottish Nuclear and (b) the impact of the Rolls-Royce closure announcement on the local economy. [22383]

    Mr. Kynoch
    [holding answer 3 May 1995]: My meeting with the chairman planned for 1 May was deferred because of parliamentary commitments. It is currently being rescheduled.

    1988

    1989

    1990

    1991

    1992

    1993

    1994

    Farmers

    30,484

    31,348

    30,397

    29,531

    28,965

    27,741

    28,206

    Percentage of population

    0.60

    0.62

    0.60

    0.58

    0.57

    0.54

    0.55

    Farm workers

    41,141

    40,275

    41,850

    40,762

    40,749

    40,577

    41,226

    Percentage of population

    0.81

    0.79

    0.82

    0.80

    0.80

    0.79

    0.80

    Source:

    Agricultural Census and General Register Office (Scotland).

    Note:

    Farmers includes full-time and part-time occupiers. Farm workers include full-time and part-time spouses of occupiers doing farm work, and hired or family labour. Excluded are young people working under Youth Training. The figures are derived from the main and minor holdings' agricultural census.

    Suicides
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many suicides occurred among(a) farmers, (b) farm workers, and (c) the general population in each year since 1988. [21909]

    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
    The number of deaths from suicide registered in Scotland since 1988,(a) where the deceased's occupation was given as "farmer" or "farm worker" and (b) in the general population, is as follows:

    Deaths registered as suicide among farmers, farm workers and the general population

    Year

    Farmers

    Farm workers1

    General population

    1988

    7

    5

    598

    1989

    12

    7

    527

    1990

    13

    3

    535

    1991

    11

    7

    525

    1992

    13

    6

    569

    1993

    9

    8

    615

    19942

    12

    3

    622

    1 Includes farmers' wives.

    2 1994 figures are provisional.

    Geese, Islay
    Mr. Morley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many licences were issued under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to permit the killing of(a) barnacle and (b) Greenland whitefronted geese on Islay to prevent serious agricultural damage in each year since 1982. [22348]

    Sir Hector Monro
    [holding answer 3 May 1995]: The information is as follows:

    Hospitality
    Mr. Tony Banks
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department in 1994–95. [21209]

    Mr. Lang
    [holding answer 1 May 1995]: The total expenditure on official hospitality for the Scottish Office for the financial year 1994–95 was 153,806.

    Farmers and Farm Workers
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of(a) farmers and (b) farm workers for each year since 1988, giving the figures on a percentage of the Scottish population. [21858]

    Sir Hector Monro
    The figures are as follows:

    Year

    Number of barnacle licences

    Number of whitefront licences

    1982–83

    14

    —

    1983–84

    50

    —

    1984–85

    34

    —

    1985–86

    26

    —

    1986–87

    29

    —

    1987–88

    40

    13

    1988–89

    30

    2

    1989–90

    28

    8

    1990–91

    24

    13

    1991–92

    26

    12

    1992–93

    6

    2

    1993–94

    2

    1

    1994–95

    2

    2

    Ministerial Visits
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of times he has visited Brussels in the last year; with which Commissioners he has met on each occasion; and which policy matters were discussed. [16051]

    Mr. Lang
    [holding answer 29 March 1995]: In the last year, I have undertaken two visits to Brussels. On 8 and 9 September, I visited Brussels to participate in the 50th anniversary celebrations of the liberation of Belgium but did not meet Commissioners on that occasion. On 21 and 22 March, I again visited Brussels and met Commissioner Liikanen to discuss budget reforms and Commissioner Fischler to discuss Scottish agricultural issues and structural funds for rural areas. I also spoke to Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan about trade issues. My noble Friend the Minister of State visited Brussels on 8

    279
    March when he met Commissioner Bonino and discussed matters relating to fisheries policy.

    In addition to these meetings, Scottish Ministers have attended the following meetings of the European Council of Ministers in Brussels and other locations:

    Meetings

    12 April 1994

    Fisheries Council

    Minister of State

    27–28 May 1994

    Justice/Interior Issues

    Minister of State

    3–4 June 1994

    Regional Policy

    Mr. Stewart

    10 June 1994

    Fisheries Council

    Sir Hector Monro

    28 September 1994

    Fisheries Council

    Sir Hector Monro

    23 November 1994

    Fisheries Council

    Sir Hector Monro

    19–20 December 1994

    Fisheries Council

    Sir Hector Monro

    22 December 1994

    Fisheries Council (Continuation)

    Lord Fraser

    6 April 1995

    Fisheries Council

    Sir Hector Monro

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Official Receivers
    Mr. Garnier
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the digest of responses of official receivers to the consultation undertaken, prior to the laying of the draft order enabling the contracting out of various of their functions. [23140]

    Mr. Jonathan Evans
    Yesterday, I published a digest of the responses of official receivers and copies have been laid in the Libraries of the House. They are also available in the Vote Office.

    Government Assistance
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the president of the Board of Trade what will be the level of Government expenditure on the support for products under research and the small firms merit award for research and technology schemes in 1995–96.

    Mr. Ian Taylor
    Estimated Government expenditure in 1995–96 will be £9.75 million on the SPUR scheme and £13.75 million on the SMART scheme, including Scotland and Wales.

    Exports and Imports
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the proportion of United Kingdom exports in 1990 and 1994 which were(a) imported in the same form and (b) assembled in the United Kingdom from imported components. [22161]

    Mr. Needham
    The information is not available.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing for 1990, 1992 and 1994 the value and volume of production, imports, exports and home sales of the goods falling within SITCD75. [22162]

    Mr. Needham
    Information on trade for division 75 of the standard international trade classification is available from "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom". Information on production is not available under this classification. Information on trade and manufacturers'280
    sales for class 33 of the standard industrial classification 1980—office machinery and data processing equipment—in 1990 and 1992 was published by the central statistical office in business monitors PAS3301 and 3302. These publications are available in the Library of the House. Information for office machinery and computers in 1994 is expected to be published later this year by Taylor Nelson AGB in the 1994 edition of "UK Markets Annual Report 61".

    Computer Exports
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the United Kingdom export of computers is wholly or mainly constructed from imported components. [22163]

    Mr. Needham
    The information is not available.

    Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd.
    Mr. Wareing
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the report of the Director of Fair Trading on the activities of Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd. [22439]

    Mr. Jonathan Evans
    I understand that the inquiry by the Director General of Fair Trading into discounts in the brewing industry is near to completion. I anticipate that he will then announce his conclusions as to whether there is a case for further action under the Fair Trading Act 1973.

    Mr. Wareing
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what communications he has had with the European Commission respecting the activities of Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd. [22440]

    Mr. Jonathan Evans
    I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 3 March 1995,Official Report, column 751.

    Military Goods (Exports)
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, between December 1984 and August 1990, exporters were required to obtain end-user certificates for the export of goods, licensed under the Military List, to(a) Thailand, (b) Singapore, (c) Pakistan, (d) Portugal, (e) Cyprus and (f) Hong Kong. [19402]

    Mr. Ian Taylor
    I am having research done. I will be in touch in a short while.

  NATIONAL HERITAGE

    Acceptance in Lieu Scheme
    Mr. Fisher
    To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if it is his policy to maintain Her Majesty's Government's support for the acceptance in lieu scheme at its present levels. [22293]

    Mr. Dorrell
    I have no plans to change the present level of Government support for the acceptance in lieu scheme. This scheme, together with all my Department's spending commitments, is, however, being examined in our fundamental expenditure review. This is currently in progress and I cannot at this stage anticipate its findings.

  PRIME MINSTER

    Ministerial Documents
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ensure that documents originated or acquired by Ministers in the course of their official duties are not sold by them or their heirs and assigns. [22621]

    The Prime Minister
    By convention, Prime Ministers, on leaving office, have taken with them copies of certain documents which they dealt with personally while in office. These include some documents originated or acquired by them in the course of their official duties. This convention has not applied to Ministers other than former Prime Ministers. The extent to which former Prime Ministers or their heirs and assigns may dispose of such papers, and how, depends on the circumstances of each case.

    It is my policy that in future material removed from official custody at the end of an Administration should contain no official material other than that which is already in the public domain.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Prime Minister in what circumstances a document subject when originated to the provisions of the Official Secrets Acts may be classified other than a state paper. [22527]

    The Prime Minister
    Documents originating from other than official sources, and which contain official information that should not be disclosed, come within the provisions of the Official Secrets Acts but are not state papers.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Prime Minister (1) if retired Ministers are required to submit their memoirs for approval under the Official Secrets Acts before publication; [22531]

    (2) if the right hon. Nigel Lawson submitted his memoirs for approval under the official Secrets Acts before publication, with particular reference to mention of the Governor of the Bank of England. [22622]

    The Prime Minister
    There is no requirement for former Ministers to submit their memoirs under the Official Secrets Acts before publication. The report of the Committee of Privy Counsellors on Ministerial Memoirs, Cmnd. 7386, recommended that former Ministers who wished to make public an account bearing on their ministerial life should let the Secretary of the Cabinet see in advance the full text of what they propose to say. The Cabinet Secretary offers advice to the author of the text, including on whether it contains material contravening the requirements of national security.

    My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Lawson submitted his memoirs to the Cabinet Secretary in the normal way, without any particular reference.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Prime Minister if he will refer to the Nolan committee the propriety of Ministers or their heirs retaining and using for private gain information or documents acquired in the course of their official duties. [22526]

    The Prime Minister
    I have no plans to do so.

    Engagements
    Sir Peter Tapsell
    To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May. [21122]
    282
    Mr. Harry Greenway
    To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May. [21121]

    The Prime Minister
    This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Central Computer Database
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Prime Minister what plans there are to create a central computerised database on individuals using the database of the national insurance recording system 2—to be available to other Government Departments; and if he will make a statement. [22540]

    The Prime Minister
    The recently announced replacement of the national insurance recording system—NIRS2—does not include any plans to create a separate computer database on individuals, nor does it involve extending access arrangements to the NIRS2 database to other than existing users of the current NIRS system.

    Churchill Papers
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 27 April to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown),Official Report, column 978, what steps he has taken to establish whether the papers sold by the Churchill family to the national heritage memorial fund were at any time covered by the provisions of the Official Secrets Acts. [22423]

    The Prime Minister
    Churchill college has been advised on which papers in the Churchill archive can be released to researchers and which need to be withheld.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Prime Minister what steps the Government took to purchase the annotated eight-page typescript of Sir Winston Churchill's E1 Alamein speech sold by Sotheby's in December 1994; and whether this is included in the Churchill documents purchased by the national heritage memorial fund. [22421]

    The Prime Minister
    The manuscript to which the hon. Member refers was sold by a private owner and was one of many which Sir Winston Churchill gave away during his lifetime. At no time did it form part of the Churchill archive and it does not do so now. It is for the national institutions which maintain archives to decide whether to commit funds to the purchase of papers which appear on the open market.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Prime Minister how many of the papers sold by the Churchill family to the national heritage memorial fund are to be found in the Public Record Office in their original or a duplicate form; and what copyright fees have to be paid to the Churchill family when such documents in either location are reproduced. [22525]

    The Prime Minister
    The papers purchased by the national heritage memorial fund are the non-state papers. They are not normally to be found in the Public Record Office in either original or duplicate form. Copyright in the papers purchased by the national heritage memorial fund is a matter for the copyright owners.
    283
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Prime Minister whether he will request the trustees of the national lottery fund to hand back the Churchill papers to the family in return for the money they have received. [22419]

    The Prime Minister
    No. The integrity of the Churchill archive has now been secured for the nation by the purchase of the non-state papers from the Churchill family and by the transfer of the state papers similarly to Churchill college.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to reduce the fees charged for access to and reproduction of the Churchill papers; and if he will publish the proposed scale of charges. [22420]

    The Prime Minister
    No fees are levied on access to the Churchill papers at Churchill college. Reproduction is a matter for the copyright owners as is the question of charges. A licence has been granted which waives the copyright fee in respect of the reproduction of Crown copyright material for the purposes of research and private study. Other charges, for example the commercial use of the papers, will be levied in accordance with normal practice.

    Civil Servants
    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Prime Minister whether civil servants who have been allowed to publish material which relies in any particular on what they have learnt or done in the course of their employment by the Crown are expected to hand to the Crown any profit derived by the author from the publication. [22424]

    The Prime Minister
    The extent to which a civil servant may be required to account to the Crown for any profit made from such publication will depend on whether the author produced all or part of the work during official time and whether the work is based on or otherwise used Crown copyright material.

    Mr. Austin Mitchell
    To ask the Prime Minister in what circumstances civil servants may publish without prior approval any material based directly or indirectly on what they have learnt or done in the course of their employment by the Crown. [22422]

    The Prime Minister
    Civil servants must clear in advance material for publication which draws on official material or experience.

    Mr. Milburn
    To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the individual value of each(a) compulsory early retirement and (b) flexible early retirement package received by civil servants leaving his Department on grounds of limited efficiency in each of the last five years. [22092]

    The Prime Minister
    [holding answer 2 May 1995]: For these purposes my office is part of the Cabinet Office—Office of Public Service and Science. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

    Hospitality
    Mr. Tony Banks
    To ask the Prime Minister how much was spent on official hospitality in his official capacities in the financial year 1994–95. [21215]
    284
    The Prime Minister
    [holding answer 1 May 1995]: The provisional total is £30,000

    Rules of Succession
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Prime Minister (1) in which country of which Her Majesty is Head of State the inheritance of the Crown is prohibited to adherents of certain religions; [20852]

    (2) in which countries of which Her Majesty the Queen is Head of State (a) the oldest child and (b) the oldest male child of the monarch succeed to the throne. [20853]

    The Prime Minister
    [holding answer 25 April 1995]: I am not aware that any other Commonwealth realm has rules relating to the succession to the throne.

  WALES

    Equal Opportunities
    Ms Eagle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made within his Department on equal opportunities matters. [21471]

    Mr. Redwood
    My Department has a full programme to promote equal opportunities for all staff. It includes detailed programmes of action for women, for staff with a disability and for staff from ethnic minorities. Progress is monitored continuously and a report produced annually. Monitoring shows, for example, that the proportion of women in middle and senior management grades is increasing.

    Green Barriers
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning green barriers. [22112]

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    Green barriers are a matter for local planning authorities, which may if they wish include proposals for such areas in their development plans together with appropriate policies.

    Green Belts
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning green belts; and if he will make a statement. [22113]

    Mr. Gwilym Jones
    It is for local planning authorities to decide whether green belts are necessary and useful within their area. It is then for an authority to promote a green belt through the development plan system allowing public consultation and discussion of both the principle and the detail of any proposals in the context of the whole plan.

    Wales TUC
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the Wales TUC; and if he will make a statement. [22115]

    Mr. Redwood
    I last met the executive committee of the Wales TUC on 5 December last year, when a range of topics were discussed.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Training
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the planned level of Government expenditure on(a) TECs and (b) LECs in 1995–96. [22445]

    Mr. Paice
    In 1995–96, the Government are planning to invest in excess of £1.2 billion in training and enterprise councils in England. This funding will be provided by the Employment Department, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, through the single regeneration budget. It will cover the range of activities for which TECs are responsible, notably management of training and vocational education initiatives, business support services and local economic regeneration.

    The Government also invest considerable sums in local enterprise companies in Scotland and TECs in Wales. The

    Date

    Location

    Number of schools invited1

    Number of schools represented

    Number of delegates

    Cost2 £

    5 December 1995

    Manchester

    3,192

    61

    127

    9,273

    27 January 1995

    Swindon

    357

    24

    65

    5,446

    23 February 1995

    Gatwick

    3,114

    43

    81

    7,113

    1 March 1995

    Norwich

    1,660

    49

    101

    3,662

    10 March 1995

    London

    3,500

    75

    147

    7,327

    14 March 1995

    Bournemouth

    3,114

    75

    164

    7,044

    Total

    39,865

    1 The same schools were invited to more than one conference in order to give headteachers and governors more choice over date and location.

    Costs listed are those attributable to specific conferences.

    In addition, there are two on-going contracts: one for support services, under which for these six conferences some £48,000 can be attributed, and one for mailings, with £8,500 attributable.

    Mr. Blunkett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many delegates attended the GM speakers' conference at the Hotel Russell on 27 and 28 February; and what was the total cost of(a) the conference and (b) expenses claimed by delegates. [22452]

    Mr. Robin Squire
    A total of 190 delegates from GM schools attended this conference, which cost £32,676. They have claimed a further £8,743 in travelling expenses.

    Mr. Blunkett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total number of grant-maintained schools which submitted bids for the financial year 1995–96, for capital grant allocations for named projects; what was the value of the bids submitted; for how many schools an allocation for named projects was approved; and what was the total value of allocations for named projects. [22457]

    Mr. Robin Squire
    These matters are now the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman of the funding agency to write to the hon. Member.

    Grant Maintained Schools Foundation Ltd.
    Mr. Blunkett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the offices of the Grant Maintained Schools Foundation giving, in each case,(a) the number of (i) information and (ii) administrative
    286
    extent of this funding is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales.

  EDUCATION

    Grant-Maintained Schools
    Mr. Blunkett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 5 December 1994,Official Report, columns 53–56, if she will list, in chronological order, the "Going GM" conferences held in her Department on grant-maintained status since 21 November 1994 giving in each case, (a) the date, (b) the location, (c) the number of schools invited, (d) the number of schools represented, (e) the number of representatives attending and (f) the cost. [22596]

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

    staff employed, (b) the rent paid for the offices and (c) to whom the rent is paid. [22455]

    Mr. Robin Squire
    The Grant Maintained Schools Foundation Ltd. has a network of seven local offices. The London office also serves as the headquarters. At the six offices in England, a total of 15.5 full-time equivalent staff are employed as shown. It is not possible to distinguish between information and administrative staff.

    Location

    Staff employed

    London

    9.7

    Lancashire

    2.0

    Yorkshire and east Midlands

    0.8

    West Midlands

    1.0

    North east

    1.0

    South west

    1.0

    Total

    15.5

    The GMSF's budget application for 1995–96 includes a forecast of £68,816 for rent. Information on the amount of rent paid for each office, and to whom the rent is paid is a matter for the Foundation and the relevant landlords.

    The GMSF local office in Swansea is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

    Mr. Blunkett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of running the Grant Maintained Schools Foundation in 1994–95; and what is the level of grant provision for 1995–96. [22456]
    287
    Mr. Robin Squire
    The Department paid grant of £695,000 to the Grant Maintained Schools Foundation Ltd. in 1994-95. Grant to a maximum of £815,000 is available for the current financial year.

    History Curriculum
    Mr. Wareing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what changes in the history curriculum of schools she plans to make to ensure that children have an understanding of the background to, and the conduct of, the second world war; and if she will make a statement. [22438]

    Mr. Forth
    The second world war will continue to occupy a prominent role within the national curriculum for history, as it has always done. Under the new history curriculum, which will be taught in schools from next September, all 11o 14-year-olds in maintained schools will have to be taught about the second world war and its legacy for Britain and the world. The choice of teaching materials is a matter for individual schools and teachers.

    Proposed Primary School, Liverpool
    Mr. Wareing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she expects to announce a decision on the proposal to build a Christian primary school in Croxteth, Liverpool; and if she will make a statement. [22441]

    Mr. Robin Squire
    My right hon. Friend hopes to make a decision on these proposals shortly.

    Independent Schools
    Mr. Blunkett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many non-United Kingdom nationals were enrolled in independent schools in Britain(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of the independent school population (i) in 1980 and (ii) currently. [2453]

    Mr. Robin Squire
    The Department does not collect details of the nationality of pupils enrolled in independent schools. The annual census carried out by the independent schools information service, published on 25 April, found that nearly 6,800 foreign pupils enrolled last year in United Kingdom independent boarding schools.

    Funding Agency for Schools
    Mr. Blunkett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of running the Funding Agency for Schools in 1994-95; and what is the level of provision for 1995-96. [22454]

    Mr. Robin Squire
    Total grant paid to the agency in the financial year 1994-95 for its running costs—revenue and capital expenditure—was £10.927 million. Estimates provision for 1995-96 is £11.5 million.

    Expenditure, Cumbria
    Dr. John Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the effect on education in west Cumbria of the recent reductions in the education budget. [22741]

    Mr. Robin Squire
    It is for Cumbria county council to determine how much of its overall budget is allocated to education and how much to other services.

    Schools, Ealing
    Mr. Harry Greenway
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much is currently spent per pupil in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Ealing by (i) school governors under delegated local management of schools budgets and by (ii) the Ealing education committee in terms of its own administrative organisations; and if she will make a statement. [22207]

    Mr. Robin Squire
    The figures are derived from the budget statement for 1995-96 published by the Ealing LEA under section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988, in respect of expenditure on schools covered by its scheme for the local management of schools. The figures in the right-hand column relate to planned expenditure by the LEA under the head "management and administration".

    £ per pupil

    Sector

    Allocated to schools

    Management and Administration

    Primary

    1,729.63

    56.39

    Secondary

    2,208.21

    56.19

  DEFENCE

    Equal Opportunities
    Ms Eagle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made within his Department on equal opportunities matters. [21537]

    Mr. Soames
    A statement about progress on equal opportunities for my Department's civilian staff and Service personnel was published in the Ministry of Defence 1995 departmental report, Cm 2801, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

    Ms Eagle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he hopes to achieve in his Department over the next three months to push forward the declaration signed in October 1994 at the Vienna conference in preparation for the fourth UN conference on women; and if he will agree to incorporate a section on equal opportunities in his Department's annual report. [21539]

    Mr. Soames
    The Government are committed to the principles set out in the regional platform for action agreed at the preparatory conference in Vienna for the fourth UN world conference on women. Where appropriate, my Department has taken these forward through a wide range of programmes and initiatives related to service and civilian employees, and will continue to do so. A section on progress made on equal opportunities matters in my Department is incorporated annually in the departmental report, a copy of which is placed in the Library of the House.

    Ms Eagle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the gender assessment being prepared by his Department. [21538]

    Mr. Soames
    My Department's policy for both civilian and service personnel, in line with guidance issued in 1992 by the ministerial group on women's issues, is that policy proposals should ensure that unlawful or unjustifiable sex or race discrimination does not occur.
    289
    For civilian personnel, similar principles apply in respect of people with disabilities. This scrutiny is part of a continuous and routine process, as part of policy advice to Ministers and is included in my Department's policy on equal opportunities.

    Ms Eagle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Minister in his Department has responsibility for equal opportunities issues. [21536]

    Mr. Soames
    Responsibility for these issues is shared between myself and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence.

    Naval Gunfire
    Mr. Ian Bruce
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many incidents in the last 10 years in training exercises on the south coast there have been of naval gunfire landing where it was not supposed to. [21444]

    Mr. Soames
    There have been no recorded incidents in the period in question.

    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated extra cost of using helicopters for the spotters, at the proposed naval firing range at Dodman point, Cornwall, per annum. [22059]

    Mr. Soames
    Observation from helicopters during naval gunfire support would mostly be undertaken by the firing ship's own helicopter, in a dual role of range safety and fall of shot observation. There would, therefore, be no additional cost. However, for those Royal Navy ships which do not have their own helicopter, which we estimate to be approximately one fifth of the 70 or so firing serials each year, the cost to the Royal Navy would be in the region of £3,000 per two-hour serial. This would, however, be substantially less than the cost of continuing NGS training at Lulworth cove.

    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department will review the effectiveness and cost of the use of Dodman point for the proposed naval firing range after it has come into use. [22061]

    Mr. Soames
    Yes. The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of all aspects of naval training are kept under constant review.

    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department have assessed which other areas along the coast other than Dodman point which might be suitable for the proposed naval firing range. [22060]

    Mr. Soames
    The whole of the south coast area, from Start point to the Lizard, was considered in broad terms, and within this a number of specific sites were considered in details. Of these, only the site off Dodman point met the specific criteria required for naval gunfire support training. The viability of continuing training at Lulworth was also considered carefully, but would prove too costly in terms of both fuel consumption and manpower availability.

    Low Flying
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many interviews of people complaining of low flying have been conducted by the RAF police in the latest 12-month period for which figures are available. [21985]

    Mr. Soames
    Of the RAF police investigations into military aircraft activity initiated in 1994, 339 will have 290
    involved interviews with at least one complainant, and in some cases more than one. Statistics are not kept in such a way as to identify the precise number of complainants interviewed.

    Portland Naval Base
    Mr. Fatchett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the criteria used for determining the successful bid in relation to the role of the Portland naval base; and if he will make a statement. [22547]

    Mr. Soames
    The criteria used to select the successful purchaser for Portland naval base were complex. A number of bids were shortlisted and then evaluated by the marketing agents, specialist advisors and officials. There was wide consultation at local level with various agencies including the borough and county councils, South Dorset Economic Partnership and the trade unions at the naval base.

    The party finally selected was the one with the best proven track record to date, with viable commercial proposals that had financial backing, the best prospect of providing jobs and the best chance of obtaining planning permission for the proposed uses. The purchaser, Portland Port Ltd., has a strong management team and the resources to call on several marine oriented companies in the UK elsewhere. I believe that the company offers the best long-term solution for local people and reuse of the naval base.

    Rosyth
    Mr. David Shaw
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the nature of the contract on subcontract work undertaken at Rosyth by(a) KS Asbestos Removal Ltd. and (b) a company or partnership connected to Brooks; and what assessment he has made as to whether (i) the contract was obtained by means of a competitive tender, (ii) the lowest tenderer obtained the work, (iii) the work was actually carried out and completed satisfactorily and (iv) the company or its directors are eligible to obtain future work. [21572]

    Mr. Freeman
    Inquiries have failed to identify any ship work or works services contracts or payments to either KS Asbestos Removal Ltd. or Brooks Ltd. for work at Rosyth. Additional details will be required to enable further investigation.

    Arms Export
    Mr. Bennett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) under which military list specifications, as specified in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 to SI 1992 No. 3092 goods for export to(a) Taiwan, (b) Turkey, (c) the United States of America and (d) Yugoslavia were refused export licences in 1993; [20572]

    (2) under which military list specifications, as specified in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 to SI 1992 No. 3092 goods for export to (a) India, (b) Iran, (c) Israel, (d) South Korea, (e) Libya, (f) Mozambique, (g) Oman, (h) Pakistan, (i) South Africa, (j) Sierra

    291
    Leone, (k) Singapore (l) Slovenia and (m) Syria were refused export licences in 1993. [20573]

    Mr. Ian Taylor
    I have been asked to reply.

    The military list classifications of the goods in question are set out.

    ML classification

    India

    5, 6, 15

    Iran

    4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 24

    Israel

    1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18

    Korea (South)

    11

    Libya

    3

    Mozambique

    15

    Oman

    1

    Pakistan

    4, 15

    Sierra Leone

    1

    Singapore

    15

    Slovenia

    11

    South Africa

    10, 11, 16, 17

    Syria

    4, 7

    Taiwan

    4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15

    Turkey

    4

    USA

    11

    Yugoslavia

    17

    VE Day Commemoration
    Mr. Wareing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who will be representing the parts of the former Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia at Her Majesty's Government's official celebrations of the 50th anniversary of VE day. [22629]

    Mr. Goodlad
    I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 28 April 1995, Official Report, columns 743-45.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if cases which have had an award provisionally decided under the new tariff-based criminal injuries compensation scheme will now be automatically reviewed under the old scheme and have their appropriate level of compensation determined under the old scheme; [21728]

    (2) if cases rejected under the eligibility rules for the criminal injuries compensation tariff scheme will be reassessed following the recent court decision as if they had been submitted under the old criminal injuries compensation scheme; and if any applicant who would have been rejected under the tariff scheme will be approached directly by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to seek from them any additional information required to determine eligibility under the old scheme. [21727]

    Mr. Maclean
    : Yes.

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board will notify applicants of any 292
    additional information required if they are to have their applications determined under the old scheme rather than the tariff scheme; [21725]

    (2) in what circumstances applicants have to make a new application for a review of the award granted under the tariff scheme. [21729]

    Mr. Maclean
    I understand that the board has already written to every applicant or representative to tell them that their cases will now be decided under the terms of the old, 1990 scheme. The letters made it clear that where further information was required by the board for such assessment, it would be in touch with the addressees again. I further understand any such approaches will be made as soon as possible.

    Mr. Mike O'Brien:
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if applications now to be submitted to the CICA/CICB should be submitted using the old application form or the new application form based upon the tariff scheme. [21721]

    Mr. Maclean
    I understand from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board that new applications should be completed on the 1990 scheme forms. Extra stocks of these have been ordered for distribution around the usual networks. Some supplementary application forms are also being printed, in order to enable those who have already completed a tariff scheme application to provide all the additional information required for assessment under the 1990 scheme.

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to introduce new legislation to deal with criminal injuries compensation; and to what extent recipients of current criminal injuries compensation are safeguard against retrospective elements in future legislation abating their awards. [21723]

    Mr. Maclean
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) on 26 April, column 561.

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if cases rejected as out of time under the new criminal injuries compensation tariff scheme but which would have been in time under the old criminal injuries compensation scheme will now be re-opened; and if it will be necessary for applicants rejected under the new time limit on the tariff scheme to resubmit their applications. [21726]

    Mr. Maclean
    I understand that the chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board will be considering personally all "out of time" applications rejected under the former tariff scheme. It will not be necessary for applications to he re-submitted, and the chairman's decisions will be notified to applicants as soon as practicable.

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now reinstate CICB members who were given notice of termination to deal with reassessments of cases which have now become necessary following the court decision on the tariff-based criminal injuries compensation scheme; and what assessment he has made of the impact of staffing levels on the time taken to determine applications. [21722]
    293
    Mr. Maclean
    All board members who had not already stated a wish to stand down had already been offered reappointment to 31 March 1996, before the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. Invitations to join the board had also been extended to potential new members to keep the board at or near full strength. Present plans envisage an increase in support staff from 450 to 480 in the current financial year, but the position will be kept under review.

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases submitted under the criminal injuries compensation tariff scheme have not yet been decided; and if they will be decided under the pre-tariff scheme or under the tariff scheme. [21724]

    Mr. Maclean
    Some 72,000 applications were received under the tariff scheme. They will all be assessed or reassessed under the reinstated, 1990, scheme.

    Mr. Mike O' Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in cases where criminal injuries compensation would have been greater under the new scheme than under the old scheme, if applicants will receive less than the Home Secretary and the CICA have provisionally awarded to those applicants; and how many people are affected in each category of compensation. [21720]

    Mr. Maclean
    My right hon. and learned Friend has no direct responsibility for the assessment or award of compensation to individual applicants under the criminal injuries scheme.

    Where any award reassessed under the 1990 scheme is lower than the tariff award, the latter will stand. It will not be known how many people fall into that category until all the tariff awards have been reassessed.

    Mrs. Roche
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of(a) nurses, (b) firefighters, (c) shopworkers and (d) police officers awarded compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme were women; [22308]

    (2) how many shopworkers (a) in London and (b) in England and Wales have been awarded criminal injuries compensation awards under the new tariff scheme; how many of those awards were less than they would have received under the old scheme; and what was the average amount by which each claimant received a reduced amount. [22309]

    Mr. Maclean
    Information about awards made to occupational groups under the 1990 scheme is not recorded centrally. It is not therefore possible to make the comparisons required. For awards made under the tariff scheme the proportion of awards made to women was as follows:

    Per cent

    Medical Personnel

    67

    Firefighter

    0

    Police

    8

    The term "medical personnel" includes doctors and nursing grades.
    294
    Mrs. Roche
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many(a) firefighters, (b) police officers and (c) nurses (i) in London and (ii) in England and Wales were awarded criminal injuries compensation under the tariff scheme. [22310]

    Mr. Maclean
    [holding answer 3 May 1995]: The following tariff awards have been made:

    Occupational group

    London

    England and Wales (including London)

    Police

    30

    182

    Firefighter

    1

    10

    Medical personnel

    9

    51

    The term medical personnel includes doctors and nursing grades. No further breakdown is readily available.

    Mrs. Roche
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown by gender of those awarded criminal injuries compensation under the tariff scheme. [22307]

    Mr. Maclean
    [holding answer 3 May 1995]: Some 3,332 awards have been made to male victims and 1,774 to female victims. Further awards may be made since all offers of award outstanding at the date of the tariff scheme's withdrawal on 5 April will be honoured if the offers are accepted by claimants. The applications will then be reassessed by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board under the reinstated, 1990, scheme in the usual way.

    International Wildlife Crime
    Mr. Morley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will describe the areas of work currently being undertaken by the Interpol sub-group of wildlife crime. [21832]

    Mr. Maclean
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on the 29 March at column 674.

    Greater Manchester Police
    Ms Abbott
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an inquiry into the Greater Manchester police in respect of the charity dinner held on 25 April; and if he will make a statement. [21810]

    Mr. Maclean
    I believe that the event to which the hon. Member refers took place on 10 March. This is a matter for the chief constable of Greater Manchester.

    Firearms
    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his policies for(a) limiting the ease of use of stolen shotguns and (b) requiring them to be fitted with barrel locks when being stored. [22098]

    Mr. Maclean
    The primary purpose of the existing controls on firearms and shotguns is public safety. The firearms rules 1989 require all shotgun certificate holders to store their guns securely so as to prevent, as far as is reasonably practicable, unauthorised access and to take all reasonable precautions to prevent theft during transit. Appropriate. security arrangements will depend upon the individual circumstances in each case. Home Office guidance on security suggests that barrel blocks may provide extra security but should never be used instead of
    295
    a locked gun cabinet or other similarly secure container. The Firearms Consultative Committee, the independent body which advises my right hon. and learned Friend on firearms matters, recommended in its fourth annual report, 1992-93 that barrel block devices should not be made mandatory and there are no plans to do so.

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many shotguns have been stolen from authorised firearm keepers in each of the last five years. [22097]

    Mr. Maclean
    The available information relates to the number of incidents in which shotguns were stolen in England and Wales. The following table gives the figures for the years 1989-1993.

    Notifiable offences of burglary or theft recorded by the police in which shotguns were reported to have been stolen

    Number

    1989

    495

    1990

    479

    1991

    574

    1992

    570

    1993

    594

    Telephones
    Sir Terence Higgins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers exist to prosecute those who clone portable telephones and use the numbers belonging to others to make telephone calls; and if he will make a statement. [21806]

    Mr. Maclean
    Under section 42 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, it is an offence to use a cloned portable telephone. If it can be shown that the telephone was stolen from its owner it may be possible, subject to the evidence, to prosecute the user for handling stolen goods contrary to section 22 of the Theft Act 1968. There is no legislation which prohibits the actual cloning of a portable telephone.

    Electoral Voting
    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans the Government have to review the format of the absent voter forms to prevent fraud by misappropriation of proxy votes; what systems are in place to monitor the number of people claiming proxy votes in elections; and if he will make a statement; [22289]

    (2) what steps are being taken to monitor the exercising of proxy votes in the local government elections; [22288]

    (3) if he will consider the collection of statistics on the use of proxy votes. [22286]

    Mr. Nicholas Baker
    Absent voting application forms have been amended to ensure that electors indicate clearly whether they are applying to vote by post or proxy, and to ensure that all appointments of a proxy are signed by the elector. These amendments help to prevent fraud. The number of proxies appointed to vote was collated for the first time at the 1994 European parliamentary elections 296
    and similar statistics will be collated at the next general election. Figures relating to proxy voting at local government elections are not collected centrally.

    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to increase the penalties for electoral fraud where the offence involves the deprivation of a vulnerable elector of his or her vote. [22290]

    Mr. Nicholas Baker
    None.

    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the use in elections of travelling ballot boxes which can be taken to hospitals and residential homes where there are more than 10 residents. [22287]

    Mr. Nicholas Baker
    There are no plans to do so.

    Police Powers
    Mr. Waller
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy that the power to require the drivers of moving vehicles to stop should be confined to the police. [22339]

    Mr. Maclean
    The Government have no plans to change the law in this regard.

    Wandsworth Prison
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement as to the procedures that are now followed at Wandsworth prison in respect of inmates suspected of being a possible suicide risk. [22375]

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

    Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 4 May 1995:
    The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the procedures that are now being followed at Wandsworth prison for any inmates suspected of being a possible suicide risk.
    Mr. Butler, the Director of Personnel, wrote to you on 21 March in my absence, outlining the existing procedures at Wandsworth prison in respect of an inmate regarded as a possible suicide risk. The procedures which are followed at Wandsworth have not altered since Mr. Butler's letter.

    Live Animal Exports Protests (Costs)
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are the estimated additional(a) daily costs and (b) total costs to date incurred by the Essex police as a consequence of the live animal exports protests at Brightlingsea; and if he will make a statement; [22195]

    (2) if he will reimburse wholly or in part the additional costs incurred by the Essex police as a consequence of the live animal exports protests at Brightlingsea; and if he will make a statement. [22196]

    Mr. Maclean
    I understand from the chief constable that the average additional daily cost for the period to 15 April is estimated to be £19,580. The estimated total additional cost for the same period is £1,840,514.
    297
    The Home Office will reimburse 51 per cent. of the police expenditure incurred at Brightlingsea prior to 1 April 1995. After that date police grant is paid as a cash-limited sum and contributes to the cost of all police operations.

    Police (Firearms Deaths and Injuries)
    Mrs. Roche
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police officers have been(a) injured and (b) killed by firearms in (i) the Metropolitan police area and (ii) England and Wales in each of the last 10 years; [21893]

    (2) how many working hours were lost by police officers in (a) London and (b) England and Wales arising from injuries by firearms in each of the last 10 years. [21897]

    Mr. Maclean
    The following table gives the information available to me which relates to the years 1988 to 1993. Information for earlier years is not available. Full information for 1994 is not yet available, but no police officer was killed by a firearm in that year.

    Notifiable offences recorded by the police in which a police officer on duty was killed or injured by a firearm in England and Wales

    Metropolitan police

    England and Wales

    Injured

    Killed

    Injured

    Killed

    1988

    4

    —

    9

    2

    1989

    8

    —

    10

    1

    1990

    1

    1

    4

    1

    1991

    4

    —

    7

    —

    1992

    3

    —

    9

    11

    1993

    1

    1

    9

    1

    1 Special constable.

    The information requested on the number of working hours which were lost through injuries caused by firearms is not held centrally.

    Mr. Raghbir Singh Johal
    Mr. Winnick
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 May,Official Report, column 95. regarding correspondence over Mr. Raghbir Singh Johal, what is the average time taken for replies to be sent to members of the public over this case. [22597]

    Mr. Nicholas Baker
    Fifteen working days.

    Mr. Winnick
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if all information requested by the solicitors representing Mr. Raghbir Singh Johal has been supplied by his Department. [22542]

    Mr. Nicholas Baker
    Mr. Singh's solicitors have been provided with all the information requested, as far as is consistent with the interests of national security.

    Mr. Winnick
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requests he has had to meet representatives of the Sikh community over the case of Mr. Raghbir Singh Johal; and what reply he has made. [22543]

    Mr. Nicholas Baker
    There have been two requests. No reply has yet been given.

    Elections (EU Voters)
    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received about the requirement, under the arrangements outlined in the circular RPA 394, for EU citizens resident 298
    in the United Kingdom to apply if they wish to register as European parliamentary electors; what arrangements apply to their registration in respect of local government elections; and if he will make a statement; [22632]

    (2) when he proposes to bring forward legislation enabling arrangements to be made allowing European Union citizens resident in the United Kingdom to be included as local government electors on the register coming into force in February 1996; what is the latest estimate of the numbers of such EU citizens who may be included on the register throughout the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [22587]

    Mr. Nicholas Baker
    The treaty of European Union gave all nationals of the Union resident in a member state of which they are not nationals the right to vote and stand as a candidate in European parliamentary and local government elections. European citizens were eligible to vote and to stand as candidates in the European Parliament elections last year.

    No formal representations have been received on circular RPA 394 on EU citizens resident in the UK wishing to register as electors.

    Legislation to provide for registration of Union citizens as electors in future local elections will be presented to Parliament as parliamentary time allows. There are about 400,000 eligible EU citizens in the UK.

    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many EU citizens, resident in the United Kingdom, included on the register of those eligible to vote in the local elections on 4 May, were declared ineligible to vote before polling day. [22586]

    Mr. Nicholas Baker
    EU citizens, other than British and Irish citizens, were not eligible to vote in the elections on 4 May.

    War Crimes Unit
    Mr. Cyril Townsend
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers by rank, have been working in the war crimes unit in New Scotland yard, since 31 March; and what is the expected cost of the maintenance of this unit. [22595]

    Mr. Maclean
    Six police officers have been working in the war crimes unit since 31 March: two detective inspectors, one detective sergeant and three detective constables. The cost to the Metropolitan police of running this unit is approximately £77,000 per month.

    North Tyneside Council (Criminal Allegations)
    Mr. Trotter
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many inquiries the police have conducted into the activities of organised criminals in connection with the Labour party in north Tyneside within the last year; and if he will make a statement. [22631]

    Mr. Maclean
    Investigation into the activities of organised criminals in north Tyneside is a matter for the chief constable of Northumbria police. I am told, though, that the police are at present conducting a preliminary inquiry into certain allegations connected with the North Tyneside council.

    Deportation (National Security)
    Mr. Winnick
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of notice of decision to deport on grounds of national security have gone to the appeals panel in the last five years; and on what number of such cases the panel has differed from his own decision. [22541]

    Mr. Nicholas Baker
    The independent advisory panel has considered representations in 54 cases in the last five years, all but three at the time of the Gulf war. The panel's advice is confidential.

    Safer Cities Projects, Cardiff and Rhyl
    Sir Ivan Lawrence
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on when the safer cities projects in Cardiff and Rhyl will be established. [23136]

    Mr. Maclean
    I am pleased to announce that, following a tender competition, contractors have been selected to manage the two safer cities projects which I announced on 2 December 1994.

    After careful evaluation of the tenders, Crime Concern has been chosen to manage the project at Cardiff, and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders will manage the project at Rhyl.

    Both organisations have significant experience in crime prevention, project management and working with voluntary agencies. We expect preliminary work to begin shortly, and the projects will come on stream in the summer.

    Endangered Bird Species (Sales)
    Mr. Morley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Secretary of State for the Environment's answers of 3 March,Official Report, columns 757-58, and 22 March, Official Report, column 201, how many police forces monitor trade journals for sales of birds listed in the convention on international trade in endangered species. [21878]

    Mr. Maclean
    [holding answer 2 May 1995]: This is an operational matter for chief officers of police and is not recorded centrally.

    Market Testing
    Mr. Milburn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with market testing programmes in which his Department has been engaged since their inception. [21370]

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    [holding answer 1 May 1995]: From 1 April 1992 and 31 march 1995, expenditure on external consultancies in respect of the "Competing for Quality" programme is estimated to have been approximately £855,000 by the Prison Service and approximately £910,000 by the rest of the Home Office.

    The estimated annual savings figures so far as a result of the "Competing for Quality" programmes since April 1992 are £19 million for the Prison Service and £11 million for the rest of the Home Office.

    England v. Ireland Football Match
    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange the inquiry reports, by(a) the Irish Football Association, (b) Judge Finlay, (c) the Irish police and (d) all other relevant reports by English and Irish authorities into public disorder at the England v. Ireland football match in Dublin in February, to be placed in the Library; if he will list the main recommendations for action contained in these reports; and if he will make a statement. [22327]

    Mr. Maclean
    [holding answer 2 May 1995]: I understand that a copy of the report "Violence at Lansdowne Road" by Mr. Justice Thomas Finlay will be available shortly in the Library. It is for the relevant Irish authorities to decide whether to make their other corresponding reports publicly available. In respect of the report of the English Football Association I refer the hon. member to my written answer of 22 March, Official Report, column 199.

    Prisoners (Police Cells)
    Mrs. Roche
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently in police cells(a) in each police station in England and Wales and (b) in each division of the Metropolitan police; and how many there were in (a) and (b), (i) one year ago, (ii) five years ago, (iii) 10 years ago and (iv) 15 years ago. [21608]

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    [holding answer 1 May 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 4 May 1995:
    The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners currently held in police cells in each police station in England and Wales; in each division of the Metropolitan Police and the number held one year aged, 5 years ago, 10 years ago and 15 years ago.
    The information you requested is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
    Police forces are only required to provide the Prison Service with daily returns showing the total number of prisoners being held in police cells. Over the last 18 months the use of police cells has been confined to the north of England. The information about the number of prisoners held in police cells submitted by the police forces concerned over the last 18 months is contained in the attached table.

    Location of prisoners held in police cells on 25 April 1994 and 25 April 1995

    Police station

    Number of prisoners

    25 April 1994

    Greater Manchester

    Central Detention Centre

    28

    Collyhurst

    5

    Crescent

    4

    Mottram

    7

    Astley Bridge

    7

    Bolton

    15

    Ashton I M

    2

    Wigan

    11

    Stretford

    12

    Trafford

    12

    Bury

    7

    301

    Location of prisoners held in police cells on 25 April 1994 and 25 April 1995

    Police station

    Number of prisoners

    Littleborough

    11

    Rochdale

    72

    Oldham

    8

    Merseyside

    Main Bridewell

    41

    Crosby

    12

    Kirkby

    12

    Stanley Road

    12

    St. Helens

    11

    Lancashire

    Blackpool

    8

    Preston

    9

    West Yorkshire

    Eccleshill

    10

    Toiler Lane

    13

    South Yorkshire

    Bridge Street

    8

    Northumbria

    Gillbridge Avenue

    16

    25 April 1995

    Greater Manchester

    Central Detention Centre

    50

    Bootle Street

    6

    Collyhurst

    5

    Platt Lane

    4

    Crescent

    6

    Mottram

    5

    Astley Bridge

    5

    Bolton

    5

    Leigh

    7

    Wigan

    15

    Stretford

    10

    Trafford

    14

    Bury

    7

    Whitefield

    4

    Littleborough

    6

    Middleton

    5

    Rochdale

    9

    Merseyside

    Kirkby

    8

    Crosby

    8

    St. Helens

    10

    Wallasey

    8

    Lancashire

    Morecambe

    8

    Blackpool

    18

    Preston

    18

    Skelmersdale

    6

    West Yorkshire

    Halifax

    7

    Huddersfield

    12

    Eccleshill

    12

    Toiler Lane

    15

    Leeds

    18

    302

    Location of prisoners held in police cells on 25 April 1994 and 25 April 1995

    Police station

    Number of prisoners

    Cheshire

    Congleton

    7

    Wilmslow

    2

    Crewe

    6

    Mrs. Roche
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the cost of keeping a prisoner in a police cell, giving the proportion of the total spent on police officers. [21709]

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    [holding answer 1 May 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 4 May 1995:
    The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the breakdown of the cost of keeping a prisoner in a police cell.
    The average cost per night of keeping a prisoner in a police cell in 1994 was £250. A breakdown of this figure is given below:

    £

    Police officer costs

    197

    Civilian staff costs

    8

    Police support costs (travelling and subsistence)

    16

    Prisoner support costs (food, laundry, medical)

    13

    Administrative costs

    12

    Other costs (including nominal accommodation charge and prisoners' recreation

    4

    Closed Circuit Television
    Mrs. Roche
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who took the decision that CCTV bids in(a) Folkestone and Hythe and (b) Penrith and the Borders should be successful in receiving Government funding over the challenge scheme. [22312]

    Mr. Maclean
    [holding answer 3 May 1995]: I decided on all bids under the CCTV challenge scheme on the basis of recommendations made by an assessment panel of Home Office officials and consultants seconded to the Home Office.

    Road Accidents (Police Vehicles)
    Ms Jowell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many road traffic accidents involving police patrol vehicles were reported in each police force area in England and Wales for each year since 1991; and how many(a) police officers and (b) civilians sustained injuries as a result. [21029]

    Mr. Maclean
    [holding answer 3 May 1995]: The latest information which is available centrally on the total number of police vehicle accidents in 1991-93 is shown in the following table. The information on injuries relates to those where death or serious injury has arisen in the course of either police pursuits or responses to emergency calls.
    303

    Total police vehicle accidents

    Police fatal injury

    Police serious injury

    Force name

    1991

    1992

    1993

    1991

    1992

    1993

    1991

    1992

    1993

    Avon and Somerset

    577

    505

    672

    0

    0

    0

    3

    1

    11

    Bedfordshire

    144

    107

    108

    0

    0

    0

    4

    2

    0

    Cambridgeshire

    170

    91

    111

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    Cheshire

    194

    194

    218

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Cleveland

    271

    261

    253

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    Cumbria

    139

    140

    141

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Derbyshire

    170

    239

    237

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Devon and Cornwall

    711

    620

    474

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Dorset

    211

    134

    182

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    2

    Durham

    221

    160

    234

    0

    0

    0

    2

    1

    0

    Essex

    81

    415

    281

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Gloucestershire

    144

    170

    184

    0

    0

    0

    0

    6

    2

    Greater Manchester

    885

    885

    937

    0

    0

    0

    1

    2

    4

    Hampshire

    439

    401

    469

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    Hertfordshire

    185

    253

    247

    0

    0

    0

    3

    3

    5

    Humberside

    211

    255

    237

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    Kent

    422

    439

    655

    0

    0

    0

    4

    1

    1

    Lancashire

    354

    354

    357

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    5

    Leicestershire

    231

    253

    284

    0

    0

    0

    1

    4

    0

    Lincolnshire

    83

    75

    67

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    City of London

    60

    78

    80

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Merseyside

    528

    590

    442

    0

    0

    0

    3

    1

    7

    Norfolk

    229

    181

    196

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    Northamptonshire

    194

    183

    196

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    Northumbria

    700

    1,089

    938

    0

    0

    0

    3

    3

    0

    North Yorkshire

    160

    191

    172

    0

    0

    1

    3

    5

    2

    Nottinghamshire

    304

    316

    333

    0

    0

    0

    2

    1

    3

    South Yorkshire

    298

    289

    326

    0

    0

    0

    4

    1

    6

    Staffordshire

    470

    336

    315

    0

    0

    0

    0

    4

    1

    Suffolk

    159

    144

    135

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Surrey

    192

    183

    168

    0

    1

    0

    2

    0

    0

    Sussex

    296

    345

    296

    0

    0

    0

    2

    2

    3

    Thames Valley

    738

    709

    837

    0

    0

    0

    1

    3

    2

    Warwickshire

    253

    261

    158

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    West Mercia

    219

    210

    242

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    West Midlands

    847

    910

    987

    0

    0

    1

    9

    5

    0

    West Yorkshire

    993

    663

    870

    1

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    Wiltshire

    96

    114

    127

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Dyfed Powys

    77

    99

    116

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Gwent

    89

    165

    122

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    North Wales

    148

    142

    158

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    South Wales

    434

    992

    371

    0

    0

    0

    5

    7

    3

    Metropolitan police

    5,118

    5,419

    5,561

    0

    1

    2

    41

    56

    51

    Total

    18,445

    19,560

    19,504

    2

    2

    5

    101

    112

    113

    Civilian fatal injury

    Civilian serious injury

    Force name

    1991

    1992

    1993

    1991

    1992

    1993

    Avon and Somerset

    1

    4

    2

    5

    11

    5

    Bedfordshire

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    Cambridgeshire

    4

    0

    0

    0

    5

    3

    Cheshire

    0

    1

    0

    5

    6

    3

    Cleveland

    0

    0

    0

    3

    2

    0

    Cumbria

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    1

    Derbyshire

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    Devon and Cornwall

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    Dorset

    0

    1

    0

    4

    2

    3

    Durham

    1

    0

    0

    2

    1

    0

    Essex

    0

    1

    0

    1

    2

    0

    Gloucestershire

    0

    0

    1

    1

    1

    0

    Greater Manchester

    3

    3

    1

    15

    4

    41

    Hampshire

    0

    1

    0

    7

    0

    2

    Hertfordshire

    0

    0

    1

    5

    4

    2

    Humberside

    0

    0

    2

    1

    0

    6

    Kent

    1

    1

    1

    2

    2

    0

    Lancashire

    4

    1

    0

    7

    2

    4

    Leicestershire

    0

    0

    0

    0

    12

    2

    Lincolnshire

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    City of London

    0

    0

    0

    0

    3

    1

    Merseyside

    4

    0

    1

    26

    21

    4

    304 305

    Civilian fatal injury

    Civilian serious injury

    Force name

    1991

    1992

    1993

    1991

    1992

    1993

    Norfolk

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    3

    Northamptonshire

    1

    1

    0

    2

    2

    2

    Northumbria

    3

    1

    2

    4

    1

    10

    North Yorkshire

    0

    0

    0

    4

    5

    7

    Nottinghamshire

    0

    0

    0

    3

    3

    0

    South Yorkshire

    1

    1

    0

    9

    10

    4

    Staffordshire

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    Suffolk

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    8

    Surrey

    0

    0

    0

    2

    2

    0

    Sussex

    0

    0

    1

    5

    5

    6

    Thames Valley

    1

    1

    1

    6

    5

    11

    Warwickshire

    1

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    West Mercia

    1

    0

    0

    3

    0

    0

    West Midlands

    1

    3

    2

    0

    1

    1

    West Yorkshire

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    4

    Wiltshire

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Dyfed-Powys

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    2

    Gwent

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    North Wales

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    3

    South Wales

    0

    1

    1

    0

    12

    2

    Metropolitan police

    3

    7

    10

    40

    59

    45

    Total

    30

    28

    29

    170

    188

    187

    Prisoners (Drug Misuse)
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners received medical treatment in each of the past 10 years(a) within prisons or (b) transferred to outside hospitals for the symptoms of drug misuse. [22223]

    Mr. Michael Forsyth
    [holding answer 3 May 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 Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 4 May 1995:
    The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question on how many prisoners received medical treatment in each of the past 10 years (a) within prisons or (b) transferred to outside hospitals for the symptoms of drug misuse.
    The information requested is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. All Prison Service establishments provide detoxification, education and counselling facilities to prisoners with drug misuse problems through the health care centre, probation department or community drug agencies.
    As part of the new Prison Service drugs strategy, published on 25 April 1995, all prison governors are required to develop and implement local drug strategies which will form part of their contract with their area manager. The local strategies will include provision for education, treatment and throughcare for prisoners who misuse. have misused, or are at risk of misusing drugs.
    This year the Prison Service will be greatly expanding the number and types of drug treatment programmes. These programmes include therapeutic communities, 3-month treatment programmes, intensive counselling and education services, detoxification units and community linked throughcare programmes. Careful monitoring and evaluation of these programmes will help to determine the development of drug treatment in other establishments.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Equal Opportunities
    Ms Eagle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress he hopes to achieve in his Department over the next three months to push forward 306
    the declaration signed in October 1994 at the Vienna conference in preparation for the fourth UN conference on women; and if he will incorporate a section on equal opportunities in his Department's annual report. [21509]

    Mr. Burt
    The Department will reflect, in its wide range of programmes and initiatives, any final commitments on equal opportunities undertaken by the UK Government at the Vienna preparatory conference for the fourth world conference on women and elsewhere.

    The Department's 1996 annual report will include appropriate reference to equal opportunities.

    Income Support
    Mr. Mudie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the percentage of cases found in error and (b) the estimated financial value of the errors in respect of income support in each year since 1988–89. [21808]

    Mr. Roger Evans
    The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the acting chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

    Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. George Mudie, dated 3 May 1995:
    The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the accuracy of Income Support and the value of errors since 1988.
    The full range of information is not available. Although the Benefits Agency has longstanding procedures to provide information about the accuracy of benefit payments, a mechanism to establish the financial value of errors identified during checks was not put in place until April 1994. This information is not yet available for the full year ending March 1995. The information given in the attached table has been obtained from National Audit Office reports.
    I hope you find this reply helpful.
    307

    Extract of results of National Audit Office of income support 1988–89 to 1993–94

    Year

    Cases containing financial error (per cent.)

    Total monetary value of errors £ million

    1988–89

    13.5

    160.0

    1989–90

    14.4

    219.6

    1990–91

    13.6

    344.9

    1991–92

    16.9

    411.8

    1992–93

    16.3

    715.9

    1993–94

    16.8

    681.5

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost of providing income support to spouses of people whose occupational pensions are contributing to the cost of local authority residential and nursing home care. [22280]

    Mr. Arbuthnot
    The information is not available.

    Pensions (Expatriates)
    Mr. David Nicholson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what agreements exist for the payment of uprated UK pensions to UK expatriates resident in(a) Commonwealth, (b) EU and (c) foreign countries, what were the dates of these agreements; and if he will make a statement on the factors underlying the absence of such agreements with other countries in which numbers of UK expatriates are resident. [21784]

    Mr. Arbuthnot
    The information is in the table.

    In order to enter into an agreement with the UK, the other country's social security scheme has to be sufficiently similar to provide reciprocity. Increasingly, there has to be sufficient movement of workers between the two countries to justify the outlay of resources to negotiate, operate and maintain the agreement. Above all, any additional benefit costs have to be affordable.

    The great majority of UK pensioners overseas, over 350,000, who do not receive uprated pensions in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. Although the UK has reciprocal agreements with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, they do not allow for pension increases to be paid. Because of the considerable costs involved, the Government have no plans to revise these three agreements, or to negotiate an agreement with South Africa or any other country, to pay uprated pensions.

    Table of countries where annual pension increases are paid and the dates on which reciprocal social security agreements came into force

    Country

    Date

    (a) Commonwealth

    Barbados1

    1 April 1992

    Bermuda

    November 1969

    Cyprus

    18 May 1957

    Gibraltar

    26 March 1974

    Guernsey

    4 April 1966

    Isle of Man

    28 October 1948

    Jamaica

    1 October 1972

    Jersey

    4 April 1966

    Malta

    29 October 1956

    Mauritius

    November 1981

    (b)EU and EEA2

    Austria

    1 October 1972

    Finland

    1 Feburuary 1984

    308

    Table of countries where annual pension increases are paid and the dates on which reciprocal social security agreements came into force

    Country

    Date

    Germany

    1 August 1961

    Iceland

    1 August 1985

    Republic of Ireland

    4 April 1966

    Norway

    1 April 1991

    Portugal

    1 October 1979

    Spain

    1 April 1975

    Sweden

    1 May 1988

    (c)Foreign

    Israel

    1 November 1957

    Philippines

    1 December 1989

    Switzerland

    1 June 1954

    Turkey

    1 June 1961

    U.S.A.

    September 1969

    Yugoslavia (including the former Republics)

    1 September 1958

    1 This agreement fulfils a commitment given to the Government of Barbados in 1974.

    2 Annual pension increases must be paid to British citizens and other nationals of the European Union and the European Economic Area states living in the EU and EEA under the EC regulations on social security for migrant workers—regulation 1408/71. These regulations became binding on the Uk on 1 April 1973 and were extended to the EEA on 1 January 1994. The regulations largely supersede pre-existing reciprocal agreements with those countries. However, some such agreements remain relevant in respect of UK pensioners who are nationals of countries outside the EU and EEA, including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Those agreements only are listed under "EU and EEA".

    Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what consideration he has given to appointing a representative of pensioners, as stipulated in the Pensions Bill; [21834]

    (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of his powers to ensure that interested parties are represented in the new authority stipulated in the Pensions Bill [Lords]. [21835]

    Mr. Arbuthnot
    This answer is based upon the assumption that both these questions relate to the composition of the board of the new Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. There is no stipulation in the Pensions Bill that a representative of pensioners should be appointed to the board. The membership of the board will be drawn from a wide range of interests, following the model adopted for the Occupational Pensions Board which has long enjoyed a reputation for integrity and impartiality.

    Housing Benefit
    Sir Fergus Montgomery
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will exclude specialist housing for vulnerable people run by housing associations from comparison with average accommodation when he brings about changes to the housing benefit relations in October 1995. [22265]

    Mr. Roger Evans
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) that on 2 May,Official Report, column 165.

    Weekly Incomes
    Mr. Byers
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 4 April,Official Report, column 1074, on weekly income, to which tax year the table refers. [22659]

    Mr. Burt
    Pursuant to the reply by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), of 4 April,Official Report, columns 1074–76, the table provided shows the tax and benefits position for 1994–95. The original question did not specify the year for which information was required. The reply was therefore provided for the latest year for which all the necessary information was available.

    Water Charges
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has made to compensate benefit recipients for increases in water bills in excess of the rate of inflation. [22546]

    Mr. Burt
    Variations in the cost of water are reflected in the indices used to uprate benefits.

    Mrs. Jane Kennedy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the proportion of a singe person's income support spent on water rates. [22545]

    Mr. Burt
    The Department does not hold such information. Income support recipients may manage their benefit according to their individual preferences.

    War Widows
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his oral statement of 24 April,Official Report, column 532, if he will give full details of the calculations made to arrive at his estimate of £40 million in a full year as the costs of the Lords amendment to the Pensions Bill restoring war widows pensions to war widows who were widowed a second time, divorced or legally separated including, with particular reference to (i) the gross costs of this change, (ii) the amount of money
    310
    saved by consequential non-payment of old age pensions, (iii) the amount of money saved by consequential non-payment of other benefits, listed by benefit and (iv) all assumptions about the net savings made as a result of war widows pension not being disregarded for the purpose of other benefits, including the number of local authorities and the number of war widow pensioners in each authority where minimum or only partial disregard is given. [22660]

    Mr. Arbuthnot
    The available information is in the following table:

    £ million

    Gross Cost

    120

    Retirement pension/widow's benefit offset

    50

    Income support offset

    10

    Housing benefit offset

    20

    Council tax benefit offset

    5

    Total income-related benefit offset

    30

    Net cost

    40

    Notes:

    1. Figures are based on restoring war widows pension to an estimated 16,500 former war widows. It is estimated that about 16,500 might gain; 15,000 of whom are estimated to have been widowed again, and 1,500 divorced or legally separated.

    2. Figures are provided at 1995–96 prices; rounded to the nearest £5 million, but are estimates rather than being accurate to that degree.

    3. Gross figures are based on an average WWP of £140 a week.

    4. The estimate assumes that around 40 per cent. of the gross cost of restoring WWP would be offset through consequential non-payment of retirement pension widows benefits, and that around a further 25 per cent. would be offset through reductions in income related benefit expenditure. The income support offset ratio is estimated to be around 10 per cent.; the housing benefit offset at around 15 per cent.; and the council tax benefit offset at around 5 per cent.—rounded to the nearest 5 percentage points, but are estimates rather than being accurate to that degree. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

    5. These offset ratios are based on information from the 1991–92 family expenditure surveys, uprated to 1995–96 prices. Due to the uncertainties contained in these estimates, they should be treated as indicating broad orders of magnitude only.

    6. No assumptions were made about the war widows pension not being fully disregarded for housing benefit and council tax benefit. Had the law provided for such a disregard, the estimated cost of the Lords amendment to the Pensions Bill would have been greater.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Sheep Dip
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many claims his Department has received for compensation arising from the use of organophosphorous sheep dip. [20954]

    Mrs. Browning
    None. Any such claims would be entirely a matter for the individual and the company concerned.

    Live Animal Exports
    Mr. Dowd
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to obtain further legal advice with regard to taking action on the export of live animals from the United Kingdom. [20955]

    Mrs. Browning
    We have already taken extensive legal advice about the export of live animals. We are considering the new RSPCA legal opinion carefully alongside that advice.

    British Veal
    Mr. Pawsey
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to increase consumption of British-produced food, with particular reference to veal. [20957]

    Mrs. Browning
    Our marketing grants are helping UK suppliers to meet the needs of customers on both the domestic and export markets. In addition, MAFF Ministers initiated a catering project towards the end of 1993 to provide special encouragement in this sector.

    As regards veal in particular, I opened a seminar on 24 February in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which brought together all those with an interest in welfare friendly veal. The Ministry will be funding a demonstration project into veal production, to show the best practices for producing veal under welfare-friendly systems, and to provide economic data.

    Tobacco Regime
    Mr. Simon Coombs
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the reform of the common agricultural policy tobacco regime. [20958]

    Mr. Waldegrave
    The tobacco regime reforms agreed in 1992 and applicable from the 1993 harvest, were a step in the right direction, in reducing the quantities of tobacco eligible for support, removing the facilities for intervention and export refunds in all but exceptional circumstances and switching production to lower tar, more marketable varieties. However, we do not believe that tobacco production should be subsidised or supported at all and will continue to take every opportunity to curb the regime.

    Agri-environment Schemes
    Sir Kenneth Carlisle
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last visited the agri-environment schemes at the Halvergate marshes. [20959]
    312
    Mr. Waldegrave
    I visited the Halvergate marshes within the broads environmentally sensitive area on 5 April this year.

    Quarantine Regulations
    Mr. Sutcliffe
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to change the quarantine regulations concerning the entry of animals into the United Kingdom. [20960]

    Mrs. Browning
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-mare (Sir J. Wiggin) on 25 January 1995,Official Report, column 216.

    Mrs. Gorman
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures will be taken to inspect Spanish fishing boats entering the Irish box area for the first time next year. [20937]

    Mr. Jack
    Spanish vessels operating in the UK's section of the Irish box will be liable to fair and vigorous inspection by the Royal Navy as are all other fishing vessels found within British fishery limits. The resources necessary to ensure effective enforcement will be reviewed in the light of the final agreement on the detailed rules for this fishery.

    Mr. Wallace
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated cost to date to his Department of the appeal to the European Court regarding the legitimacy of the days at sea restrictions contained in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992. [20956]

    Mr. Jack
    The legal proceedings in question were initiated by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, not the Government. Liability for costs will depend on the outcome of the case. It is not therefore possible to give meaningful figures for the cost to MAFF of defending this action until final judgment.

    Dental Health Warnings
    Dr. Moonie
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to impose dental health warnings on drinks with a high sugar content. [20936]

    Mrs. Browning
    I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer given today to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell).

    Export Opportunities
    Mr. Michael Spicer
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he intends to develop export opportunities for the United Kingdom's food and drink industry. [20951]

    Mr. Jack
    The marketing development scheme introduced last June exists specifically to encourage industry to improve its marketing and export performance. We are also working closely with food export firms and Food From Britain on a plan for vigorous promotion of British food and drink over the next three years. For example, at the international food and drink exhibition in London last week, all the Ministers in this Department demonstrated their full support for British food companies aiming at international markets. We shall continue this support at every opportunity.

    Biodiesel Production
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the present biodiesel production in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) other EU nations and (c) the USA. [21867]

    Mr. Jack
    The UK biodiesel industry is at an early stage and there is currently no commercial production of biodiesel in the UK. However, a proportion of oilseeds grown for industrial use on set-aside land in the UK is exported for biodiesel production elsewhere in the European Community.

    No official information is available on biodiesel production in other member states or the USA.

    Animal Diseases
    Mr. Morley
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of Epizootic Lymphangitis occurred in each year since 1985. [22180]

    Mrs. Browning
    The last case of Epizootic Lymphangitis recorded in Great Britain was in 1906.

    Mr. Morley
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of paramyxovirus occurred in each year since 1985. [22171]

    Mrs. Browning
    [holding answer 1 May 1995]: The number of confirmed outbreaks of paramyxovirus reported in England for the years in question is:

    1985: 298

    1986: 247

    1987: 227

    1988: 199

    1989: 129

    1990: 252

    1991: 86

    1992: 123

    1993: 76

    1994: 29

    British Beef
    Mrs. Helen Jackson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many beef producers in each country have suffered losses as a result of the failure of British Beef. [22607]

    Mr. Jack
    The information requested is not held by this Department.

    Biocontrol Agents
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest evaluation of the research into the use of carnivorous snails and slugs to reduce the use of poisons in gastropod control. [22451]

    Mrs. Browning
    MAFF does not fund research into the use of carnivorous slugs and snails to control gastropods since the prevailing scientific view is that they are unlikely to offer any particular advantages as biocontrol agents except in a limited number of very specific control situations. MAFF is aware of work with carnivorous snails in France to control the snail vector of the liver fluke parasite which can be a problem in commercial watercress beds and on the use of carnivorous snails in Belgium for the control of garden slugs. However, other methods of biocontrol such as the use of nematodes, non-toxic chemical repellents and predatory beetles are considered to offer a greater potential for reducing the use 314
    of "poisons" in a wider range of pest control situations. Work on a number of these is supported by MAFF.

    As biocontrol agents, carnivorous slugs and snails have a poor record and considerable care needs to be taken to ensure that non-target species will not be predated, particularly if non-indigenous species of carnivorous snails are to be used. The most notable situation in which a carnivorous snail was used to control a gastropod pest proved not only unsuccessful but highly ecologically damaging to a number of indigenous non-pest snail species. Carnivorous snails from Florida were used in an attempt to control the giant African land snail, which had become a pest on a number of Pacific islands. Unfortunately, the carnivorous snails ignored the giant land snails and found the indigenous snail population more to their taste.

    Animal Health and Veterinary Group
    Mr. French
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what conclusions he has drawn from the responses to his consultation document on the review of his Ministry's animal health and veterinary group, and if he will make a statement. [23231]

    Mr. Waldegrave
    In a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) on 24 October last, I announced the issue of a consultation document setting out the initial conclusions which I had reached in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales on the review of the Ministry's animal health and veterinary group.

    I am grateful to the many individuals and organisations who responded to the consultation document. My right hon. Friends and I have taken into account the views expressed in reaching the following decisions.

    I intend actively to pursue consultations with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and other interested bodies on my proposal to make an Order under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 to permit tuberculin testing to be carried out by suitably qualified lay personnel working under veterinary direction. The use to be made of such a facility will be a matter for further discussion with interested organisations.

    I have considered carefully the future of the voluntary livestock health schemes in the light of the comments received. I now intend the Ministry to retain responsibility for the pig health scheme, the deer health scheme, and the poultry health scheme. Fees will need to be increased as necessary to meet the full costs of the schemes, but in view of the current position of the pig industry in this country I will forgo any increase in fees in that sector over the next three years.

    A number of industry organisations expressed an interest in taking over the sheep and goat health scheme and I intend to pursue discussions with them with a view to implementing a smooth handover of this scheme, with the exception of the scrapie-free category which meets the export needs for breeding animals and will be retained by the Ministry along with the existing scrapie export register.

    Similarly, the EBL-free category of the cattle health scheme will be retained by the Ministry, pending achievement of national EBL-free status. But discussions

    315
    will be held with industry groups who have expressed an interest in taking over the other elements of the scheme.

    As regards the Ministry's functions for animal welfare, I intend to proceed with my proposal. The number of visits to farms will continue at the same level but should concentrate where there is some reason to believe problems may be found. This should prove more effective than the current system of random visits.

    As regards the organisational structure for this area of the Ministry, I recently announced the merger of the veterinary investigation service in England and Wales with the Central Veterinary Laboratory in an enlarged executive agency of the Ministry with effect from 1 October 1995. The agency will be responsible for the continuation in the public sector of the very important disease surveillance work carried out by the VI centres. Diagnostic services will continue to be made available to private veterinary practitioners. While it will be the responsibility of the chief executive, Dr. T. W. Little, to meet demanding targets for the efficient management of the agency, any reduction in the external availability of diagnostic services would be a matter for ministerial consideration.

    Following a detailed study of the regional and divisional management structure of the veterinary field service, we intend to streamline this structure by moving from five to three regions and from 28 to 15 divisions in England, from two regions to one, and from seven to five divisions in Scotland, and by retaining one region and moving from four to three divisions in Wales. Although this will involve a concentration of administrative staff, the number of front-line veterinary staff will be maintained and will for the most part continue to be located in their existing offices. The restructuring should be mainly concluded by 1 April 1996. Consequential changes are proposed to the pay and grading of veterinary officers and their divisional heads, reflecting revised levels of responsibility and current circumstances of veterinary recruitment and retention.

    Finally, I would like to record my appreciation of the loyalty and commitment shown by Ministry staff affected by the uncertainty necessarily caused by this protracted review. I believe that these decisions, once carried through, will provide a sound basis for continued effective and efficient implementation of the Government's animal health had welfare programme.

    Meat and Hygiene Regulations
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many veterinary surgeons are employed in the United Kingdom from(a) Spain and (b) other EEC countries to advise on and enforce the Meat and Hygiene Regulations and to supervise at abattoirs; [22187]

    (2) how many British veterinary surgeon are employed in other EEC countries to advise on and enforce the Meat and Hygiene Regulations and to supervise at abattoirs. [22158]

    Mrs. Browning
    [holding answer 2 May 1995]: Records are not held centrally of the nationality or country of origin of all the veterinary surgeons employed in the UK at meat premises. However, in Great Britain it is known that the Meat Hygiene Service directly employs two veterinary surgeons with German nationality who transferred to MHS when it took over responsibility for
    316
    this work from local authorities on 1 April. The MHS also contracts with private veterinary practices for the provision of veterinary supervision at meat premises. As was the case when local authorities were responsible for this work, it is known that a small number of these veterinary practices employ a few veterinary surgeons who are not of British nationality.

    We have no information about the numbers of British veterinary surgeons employed in other EEC countries.

    Lawley's Mink Farm (Inspections)
    Mr. Morley
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many inspections of Lawley's mink farm, Brooksbank avenue, Scholemoor, Bradford, have been undertaken by the State Veterinary Service since 21 October 1994. [21169]

    Mrs. Browning
    [holding answer 1 May 1995]: The premises were visited by the State Veterinary Service on 16 November 1994, when no mink or Arctic fox were found there.

    Hospitality
    Mr. Tony Banks
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department in 1994–95. [21208]

    Mr. Jack
    [holding answer 1 May 1995]: Some £63,684.81, provisional figure, was spent on official hospitality by the Department, excluding its agencies, during the financial year 1994–95.

    The principal items of expenditure included hospitality:
    to overseas officials and other visitors including, for example, visitors from EC organisations and from other member states;
    to industry representatives, trade associations and professional bodies;
    in the course of work being undertaken for the Department by individuals in an advisory capacity;
    at agricultural and trade shows.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Departmental Expenditure
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of expenditure in the last financial year has taken place in each month in each Northern Ireland Department; what percentage variations occur between months; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in relation to surges in expenditure so as to avoid departmental underspends at the end of the financial year. [21787]

    Sir John Wheeler
    The information requested is given in the following tables and excludes the following departmental expenditure.Education—Teachers superannuation expenditure.
    Economic Development—Privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland. A total of £190,189,000 was received during the year from the second payment in respect of the sales of shares. This sum less expenses of £3,444,000 was paid over to the Uk Consolidated Fund.
    Finance and Personnel—£6 million payment made in March 1995 in respect of advance funding of early departure costs.
    317
    Departments should keep within annual budgets and decisions on spending should have regard to achieving the best possible value for money. Departments may carry

    Departmental expenditure

    Per cent.

    Finance and Personnel

    Environment

    Economic Development

    Agriculture

    Month

    Proportion of expenditure

    Variations

    Proportion of expenditure

    Variations

    Proportion of expenditure

    Variations

    Proportion of expenditure

    Variations

    April 1994

    7.59

    —

    5.5

    —

    6.7

    —

    5.2

    —

    May 1994

    7.52

    -0.84

    6.5

    +17.4

    7.4

    +8.7

    7.1

    +34.7

    June 1994

    6.67

    -11.26

    6.6

    +1.8

    8.5

    +16.4

    12.7

    +79.7

    July 1994

    7.10

    +6.40

    5.1

    -22.8

    7.3

    -14.2

    6.3

    -50.6

    August 1994

    7.34

    +3.39

    6.5

    +27.4

    8.1

    +10.4

    10.2

    +63.4

    September

    1994

    6.89

    -6.18

    13.3

    +104.6

    8.4

    +3.9

    5.4

    -47.8

    October 1994

    6.57

    -4.68

    5.6

    -58.0

    7.4

    -11.8

    4.4

    -17.0

    November

    1994

    7.11

    +8.20

    6.7

    +20.9

    8.1

    +9.9

    15.2

    +243.2

    December 1994

    7.51

    +5.64

    6.8

    +0.4

    8.9

    +10.1

    10.3

    -32.7

    January 1995

    10.28

    +36.89

    4.8

    -28.3

    8.6

    -3.2

    5.2

    -49.0

    February 1995

    13.94

    +35.67

    13.4

    +175.3

    7.2

    -16.5

    8.1

    +55.8

    March 1995

    11.48

    -17.62

    19.2

    +43.6

    13.4

    +86.3

    9.9

    +21.2

    Departmental expenditure

    Per cent.

    Education

    Health and Social Services

    Nothern Ireland Office

    Month

    Proportion of expenditure

    Variations

    Proportion of expenditure

    Variations

    Proportion of expenditure

    Variations

    April 1994

    8.1

    —

    4.64

    —

    7.43

    —

    May 1994

    7.9

    -2.5

    7.31

    +57.8

    8.84

    +19.02

    June 1994

    8.8

    +11.4

    7.65

    +4.7

    8.08

    -8.53

    July 1994

    7.2

    -18.2

    7.62

    -0.5

    8.13

    +0.55

    August 1994

    7.1

    -1.4

    7.47

    -2.0

    7.18

    -11.71

    September 1994

    7.9

    +11.3

    8.88

    +18.9

    8.72

    +21.48

    October 1994

    8.6

    +8.9

    7.61

    -14.3

    7.55

    -13.37

    November 1994

    8.4

    -2.3

    7.75

    +2.0

    8.41

    +11.39

    December 1994

    8.2

    -2.4

    8.44

    +8.7

    7.49

    -11.00

    January 1995

    7.9

    -3.7

    8.77

    +4.0

    7.91

    +5.64

    February 1995

    8.7

    +10.1

    8.59

    -2.0

    8.40

    +6.20

    March 1995

    11.2

    +28.7

    115.26

    +26.6

    11.86

    +41.12

    1 Including prior year payments.

    Advice Services
    Dr. Hendron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how the Department of Health and Social Services will apply the policy of targeting social needs to advice services; [22103]

    (2) what is the Department of Health and Social Services strategy in terms of funding advice services in areas of greatest need. [22104]

    Mr. Moss
    From 1 April 1995, new funding arrangements have been introduced for independent advice centres in Northern Ireland. The new arrangements will ensure that resources are targeted on areas of greatest need by taking account of the extent of social need in each area on the basis of objective indicators of deprivation. Additional resources are being made available by the Department of Health and Social Services to raise the grant available to district councils for their support of advice services from £260,000 in 1994–95 to £377,000 in 1995–96.

    Dr. Hendron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current level of Government
    318
    forward into the following financial year running costs and capital underspends under the end of year flexibility schemes.

    funding of advice services by (a) central Government and (b) local government. [22101]

    Mr. Moss
    The level of funding of advice services in Northern Ireland in 1993–94, the latest year for which information is available, is as follows:

    £

    (a) central Government

    1,466,190

    (b) local government

    281,731

    Dr. Hendron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the amount of increased income and increased benefit take-up generated on behalf of clients by independent advice agencies in(a) Belfast and (b) Northern Ireland; and what impact this has had on the local economy in (a) Belfast and (b) Northern Ireland. [22106]

    Mr. Moss
    The information required to carry out such estimates is not available.

    Dr. Hendron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the Department of Health and
    319
    Social Services' policy in terms of funding advice services in the areas of greatest need covering the making Belfast work area. [22105]

    Mr. Moss
    The Department's policy in this area is the same as applies throughout Northern Ireland. That is to ensure that resources are targeted to take account of the extent of social need in each area on the basis of objective indicators of deprivation. Under the Making 320
    Belfast Work initiative, additional funding has been made available to support the work of advice services in the greater Belfast area. In 1994–95 this amounted to £160,000. The aim of this initiative is to strengthen and better target the efforts being made by the community, the private sector and the Government in addressing the economic, educational, social, health and environmental problems facing residents in the areas of greatest need in Belfast.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Exeter): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Universities and Private Sector Finance
Lord Goold Lord Goold asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent they consider the private finance initiative will contribute towards meeting the future needs of British universities for capital investment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, many universities have already attracted private sector finance for their major capital projects. We believe that private finance options should be fully considered for all capital projects undertaken by bodies in receipt of public funds, including higher education institutions. On that basis, we expect that private finance will make a substantial contribution to the capital investment needs of universities and colleges.
Lord Goold: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, declaring an interest as the Chairman of Court of the University of Strathclyde, I ask whether he accepts that the cost of repaying capital and interest on borrowing for necessary building projects, which often cannot provide an income stream, will inevitably mean fewer recurrent funds being available for teaching and research. Will that not lead to a deterioration in the quality of university education?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not accept that a university such as the one in which my noble friend plays a part is involved in a deteriorating quality of education. If anything, rather the opposite is true. But, to a certain extent, capital and income are interchangeable, as I am sure the accountants among us will agree. One can spend capital in order to avoid spending income and spend income instead of capital. The extent to which any university needs buildings will depend on what it wishes to do with them. The whole thing is a package. The private finance initiative is intended to take the best advantage of the best structure to find the money to educate our young people.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving us a lesson in how to interchange capital and interest. I have done a little of it—not creatively, I hasten to add! Is not the noble Lord, Lord Goold, right? I am not opposed to the private finance initiative. However, are the Government saying that if money is required for both capital and interest, they will provide additional resources?
Lord Lucas: No, my Lords. What we are saying is that we will not tell universities, except within certain limits, how they should spend their money. They may use it as income or they may use it to finance borrowings to make capital investments.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the private finance initiative may be appropriate for buildings like student residences where rents can be used to repay the capital, but that buildings devoted to pure research, to most contract-based research and certainly to all teaching purposes will simply not generate an income stream sufficient to repay the borrowing? Should not the HEFCs issue guidance to universities on how to avoid the seductive allurements of short-term solutions?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, universities are grown up people. They understand these matters. Yes, the HEFCs have limitations on the amount of income which universities can use for debt servicing. Otherwise, we leave it very much to universities. I should point out to the noble Lord that most of a university's income depends on getting students. That applies to accommodation income as much as to anything else. So there is risk in the provision of accommodation, just as there is in the provision of teaching facilities. Some of the most successful private finance initiatives by universities have come through the provision of laboratories for research jointly funded by industry which uses the product of that research.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether the finance initiative is flexible enough to meet demands for modest amounts such as £5 million or £10 million? Is he aware that some universities are worried that while it may be possible to arrange for larger loans, they will not be able to arrange loans of more modest amounts?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, clearly some sources of finance are closed to small institutions. If one wants to make a public bond issue in the UK capital markets, it must be of a certain size and £5 million would not be a viable amount. So a smaller institution may end up paying more for its capital. On the other hand, being a small institution may be an advantage in seeking joint ventures with industrial companies which are not looking to spend £50 million a time.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that British universities might have a better chance of raising finance, both of a capital and an income nature, if the quality of education which they delivered—particularly in the teacher training, social sciences and humanities departments —were somewhat better than it is at the moment?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my personal view of university education is that we have an extraordinarily good system which shows every sign of getting better year by year. Universities are putting a great deal of effort into ensuring that they improve the quality of their teaching. We applaud them for the efforts they are making and are pleased with the results they achieve. However, as in all aspects of education, we believe that there are opportunities for making this year better than last.

Mr. Gordon Foxley: Legal Aid
3.7 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total cost to public funds of the legal aid granted to Mr. Gordon Foxley.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the total amount of criminal legal aid paid so far to lawyers acting on behalf of Mr. Foxley is £160,228, including value added tax. No money has as yet been paid from the legal aid fund in respect of the civil proceedings between the Ministry of Defence and Mr. Foxley.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that interesting Answer. Can he say whether payments of that size to those indulging in litigation at a cost to the taxpayer are common, or is this a rare example?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, first, one must remember that this was a criminal case brought against Mr. Foxley by the prosecuting authorities. Compared with recent examples which I have given in Answers to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the cost of this one is comparatively small. I inquired into the detail of how that could possibly come about. The answer was that the case was only over eight days, some of which were days when it was not possible for the court to sit. On one occasion, the trial had to be adjourned because of ill-health on the part of a juror. On another day, it was because of ill-health on the part of the defendant. So the total amount of work spread over those days was not as large as it might seem. However, the amounts are ultimately subject to taxation by the taxing masters of the court.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that there is significant public concern about moneys—however modest in the present case—being donated to people who are extremely wealthy, apart from being extremely dishonest and corrupt? Will the new regime which the noble and learned Lord envisages ensure that the likes of Mr. Foxley will not receive public money on this scale in the future? Can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that every effort will be made to recover from this man every single penny which he has received from public funds?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is no question of money having been donated from public funds to Mr. Foxley, or anyone else, in respect of legal aid. Mr. Foxley faced criminal charges before a criminal court and in accordance with the primary legislation approved by this House, and the secondary legislation made under that law, his means are assessed by the court. Legal aid follows on conditions related to that assessment if the interest of justice so requires. Subject to any changes that may be intimated in due course, that is the system at present and nothing that I have suggested would change it.
1476
I have recently made suggestions for bringing into account, for example, the equity value in a home which is more than £100,000. I made a change of that kind. However, the other aspect I have to emphasise is this. The Lord Chancellor and his officials are precluded from inquiring into the financial circumstances disclosed to the court of the legal aid authorities by the confidentiality provisions of the legal aid legislation. I am quite unable to find out, therefore, and it would not be proper for me to inquire into, the detailed circumstances of particular people. However, from what I have seen I have the impression that there may be some who are less than frank to the legal aid authorities in the detail of their finances. I have proposed, and I am pursuing, the setting up of a special unit to investigate the finances of such people. The difficulty is to give criteria in advance by which such a class of person can be determined. It is a difficult issue which I seek to address and I am sure that your Lordships wish to support me in that address.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the cost to the taxpayer of legal aid is in some cases out of control? A member of a rich family, on paper, may not have many resources, but his family does. If there is some laxity in the instructions to the independent Legal Aid Board, why do we not change the rules?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that I have intimated that I propose to change the rules to give a discretion to the authorities with responsibility for adjudicating on the financial entitlement of people to take account of benefits supplied by members of their families or friends where those benefits appear to be of assistance to the applicant. At present, the basis is strict ownership and entitlement. I have sought to open a discretion. Some commentators have suggested that it will be difficult to apply. However, I believe that it is well worth making the effort for such application.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, regarding the information available to the authorities which have to determine the eligibility for legal aid, will the noble and learned Lord consider the precedent of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act in which the assessment is made by the court on the basis of the proceeds of the crimes that the person has committed rather than the actual value of assets available to him?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am aware in general terms of the provisions relating to the proceeds of drug trafficking. Those provisions are applied after a conviction. Legal aid is decided upon at the stage in criminal matters when a person has the presumption of innocence in his or her favour. Therefore, a degree of discrimination is required to apply suitable procedures after conviction.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is there now, or does my noble and learned friend intend there to be in the future,

1477
an offence of seeking to defraud the taxpayer by concealing resources, thus qualifying for substantial amounts of legal aid? If so, what is the penalty?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, yes, there is indeed such provision. There are, as usual, difficulties in bringing home to people what is said. It may be thought that people have money. It may be thought that they have resources. It may be quite another thing to prove such factors to the level of the criminal standard of proof.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend say whether there have been any prosecutions of people who have concealed their means and have drawn large sums by way of legal aid at the taxpayers' expense?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, speaking from memory, I am not aware that people have been successfully prosecuted on that account for large sums. I perhaps need to refresh my memory; but I know that there are provisions for such proceedings. However, as I pointed out, the difficulty of proof is usually the obstacle to proceedings.

VE Day Celebrations
3.16 p.m.
Lord Sudeley Lord Sudeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the role he played in bringing his country over to the Allied side, an invitation to the VE Day celebrations has been issued to King Michael of Romania.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, King Michael of Romania has been invited to the Guildhall banquet on 6th May and the thanksgiving service at St. Paul's Cathedral on 7th May in recognition of his positive wartime role.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and warmly congratulate the Government on their positive response. Perhaps I may ask, first, why the Queen of Romania has not also been invited. Secondly, given that the King of Romania was ejected forcibly from his own country in 1989, do Her Majesty's Government agree that refusing entry to a Romanian national born of Romanian parents on Romanian soil is a violation of Romania's obligations under international conventions as a member of the Council of Europe? And, thirdly, do Her Majesty's Government agree that as Romania is now a member of the Council of Europe, investment from the West should be made conditional on the present Government of Romania improving their human rights record and renewing their commitment to ending intimidation and harassment of political opponents?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, heads of government and heads of state have received invitations to the various celebrations of 50 years of peace. I understand that restrictions have had to be made to allow more veterans to attend events in the cathedral, in
1478
Hyde Park, and various events throughout the coming weekend. I believe that that was right. On my noble friend's other points, I shall write to him with a detailed answer.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I hope that this House acknowledges the role and contribution of our Royal British Legion and that no one on either side of the Chamber despises our Royal British Legion. I hope that this House recognises what it has done in assisting our great country in times of stress. The statement made by the noble Baroness is much appreciated by our Royal British Legion.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as a member of the women's section of the Wallasey Royal British Legion, I know how much we owe to the work of the Royal British Legion. We have had a very happy partnership with the Royal British Legion over all the arrangements. Only yesterday the chairman of the Royal British Legion told my noble friend the Leader of the House how satisfied he was with those arrangements. He has seen what is planned for Hyde Park and again is satisfied.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, at the end of the war, by ousting his fascist government in Romania King Michael possibly saved the Russians three months' to six months' fighting. Is it not possible for the British Government to ensure that he receives some honour? The USA Government and the Soviet Government gave him honours at the end of the war in recognition of his great help to the Allies. Fifty years later, why cannot we do the same?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I note with interest what my noble friend says. This is obviously not a matter I can answer at the Dispatch Box. It is perfectly true. King Michael's wartime record was very honourable indeed. I shall look into the request that the noble Lord makes.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, since we are slightly wide of the main Question, will the noble Baroness tell the House whether there is any truth in the rumour I have heard that the Poles who fought so courageously on the Allied side have not been invited to participate in the celebrations? I hope that that is not true.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that it is not true. I am sure that they will have a very prominent place in all the celebrations this coming weekend. Checking my list for names, I can immediately say that the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland, Mr. Bartoszewski, will be attending this weekend and will be involved in all the events that are taking place.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, although Romania is a member of the Council of Europe, it is subject to monitoring to make certain that it has carried out the commitment made before it became a member? I will see that the point made by my noble

1479
friend about King Michael is examined to see whether Romania, by the action it has taken, is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that question. It is absolutely right that any countries which have had severe human rights problems are subject to monitoring. I look forward to hearing the results of his inquiries.
Lord Braine of Wheatley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is no doubt whatever about the wholly honourable role that the King of Romania played at a very important stage in the war? Does she agree that it is sad that the kind of recognition asked for was not granted earlier?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is nothing in what I have said to indicate, nor personally do I feel, any doubt whatever that King Michael's wartime record was honourable. Almost alone he led the coup against the dictator Antonescu which brought Romania on to the Allied side and, as noble friends said some moments ago, he may well have helped to shorten the war. However, at the Dispatch Box I cannot answer in the way my noble friend would like. I have said that I shall look into the matter. I shall do so and write to my noble friend.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is some anxiety that the celebrations this weekend seem to be dominated by London? Is she further aware that there is tremendous help, organisation and support within the small towns and villages throughout the length and breadth of the country? Once the celebrations are over, will it be possible for some information to be produced, through the press or television, on the way in which the general country has responded? London should not dominate the scene.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there will be plenty of events up and down the country. This is a national celebration. There are literally hundreds of voluntarily organised events. The Government have sought to support events in the four capitals of the United Kingdom. I am certain that the whole country will be able to join in the celebration of 50 years of peace. When we reach the VJ weekend, I hope that there will be even more opportunities for us to thank the veterans for our deliverance 50 years ago.

Spanish Strawberries
3.25 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why perfectly edible Spanish-grown strawberries were, on the instruction of government inspectors, banned from being sold because they were square rather than pointed.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My
1480
Lords, my noble friend is, I believe, referring to the examination by the Horticultural Marketing Inspectorate of a consignment of Spanish strawberries in Hull on 8th March. A significant proportion of the fruit was found to be white, rotten, hollow, or a combination of all three. Some of the fruit was also distorted in shape but that is allowed for in the legislation. It was the other defects that determined the inspector's decision to withhold a Class I or Class II designation from the consignment as a whole. On the inspector's advice, the consignment was re-sorted and the wholesome fruit legitimately sold on the open market.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very expansive response. Is he aware that the article in the Yorkshire Post, which is a highly respected daily newspaper not given to general tittle-tattle, suggests that it was the shape of the strawberries in that consignment that may have encouraged Her Majesty's inspectors to take their decision? Having said that, will be ensure that the whole question of inspection, environmental health, and so on is looked at with a view to examining the remit of those officials and at least give people the chance to make up their own mind on whether they wish to purchase fresh or rotten fruit? Can the decision not be left in their hands?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I can reassure my noble friend that the EC quality standards for strawberries and indeed other fruits permit defects in shape. The newspaper story to which he referred was incorrect. The point to note is that the quality standards that the inspectorate applied are applied to all stages of the marketing chain and not just to supermarkets. There is a value to consumers and traders in having a general level of assurance that produce is marketable and that the quality is consistent and predictable.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it is clear that the Government are in something of a jam over this. Is it correct that the inspectors did not insist that the strawberries were square but that they were flattened and not sufficiently strawberry-shaped?
Earl Howe: No, my Lords, that is not correct. The reason why the consignment was rejected was, as I said, that it was unfit to be marketed.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the references to the two-dimensional projections of a solid object are evidence of somewhat sloppy drafting? To be specific, to which of the five platonic solids—tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, and so on—is the ideal strawberry supposed to approximate?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not aware that Plato mentioned the platonic form of the strawberry.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, has it occurred to the Government that the final cost to the consumer of fruit and vegetables depends far too much on the packaging? Does the Minister agree that that would be reduced if strawberries, carrots or whatever were more square in

1481
shape? Having said that, is he aware that the House will be well relieved that the consignment was rejected on grounds of quality and not on grounds of shape?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point about packaging. There is a general awareness that packaging is an expensive ingredient in the marketing chain. We certainly encourage retailers in particular—not that they need encouragement, because they undertake it of their own accord—to make sure that packaging is economical and subject to minimum waste.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the shape does not matter and packaging does not matter? Does he agree that what matters is the taste of the strawberry, and the taste of the Scottish strawberry is superior?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is correct. That gives me the cue to say that over the past few years the British strawberry industry has been a major success story and, thanks to the innovation and skill of our breeders and growers, we can now grow strawberries from April till Christmas to a standard that cannot be beaten anywhere in the world. I commend to noble Lords some of our excellent British varieties such as Eros, Pegasus and Cambridge Favourite.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, even if the strawberries in question were condemned for their lack of quality rather than their shape, the same cannot be said for the London bus, our fishermen or lettuce growers? They are all facing genuine threat of extinction under the Treaty of Rome and the crazy bureaucracies in Brussels and in this country.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend highlighted a number of matters. The trouble is that many of the stories we read in the press are complete myths. Whether it is strawberries, the curvature of bananas, hairnets for fishermen, WI jam stalls or the Euro-lavatory, it seems that if one has a good story that can be dressed up so as to knock the European Union, it does not matter where the truth lies. Trivial as this instance may seem, the cumulative effect of such misleading stories can do great damage, and that is to be regretted.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on failing to slip on a straight banana skin.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that he is being slightly ungenerous in not congratulating our noble friend Lord Pearson on the extraordinary way in which he can propagate myths using all possible weapons?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I was merely seeking to ensure that the strawberry story was well and truly squashed!

Jobseekers Bill
3.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage of the Jobseekers Bill be marshalled and considered in the following order—
Clauses 1 to 18,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 19 to 38,
Schedules 2 and 3.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Dean of Harptree, the Lord Geraint and the Baroness Nicol be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health Authorities Bill
3.33 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Report on implementation of Codes of Practice
—(1) The Secretary of State shall annually lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the monitoring of the implementation of the Codes of Practice set out in subsection (2) as they relate to any function carried out before 1st April 1996 by a Regional Health Authority, District Health Authority or a Family Health Services Authority.
(2) The Codes of Practice referred on in subsection (1) are—

(a) the Code of Practice on Openness in the NHS;

(b) the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information; and

(c) any other Code of Conduct or Accountability.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the first amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington. It is a further and last attempt—this being Third Reading—to try to stiffen the Government's resolve regarding openness and accountability.
As the Bill proceeded through both Houses we heard a great deal about openness and accountability. Amendment No. 1 seeks to put on the face of the Bill a mechanism which will allow Parliament to review annually the performance of the National Health Service in terms of the three codes listed in the amendment:
"the Code of Practice on Openness in the NHS; the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information; and any other Code of Conduct or Accountability".

1483
It applies to the officials who will be taking over in large measure the responsibilities that were formerly the function of the regional health authorities.
In the course of the passage of the Bill the issue of complaints was discussed. For instance, we know that complaints in regard to hospitals have risen by 133 per cent. since the year before the reforms. In 1990–91 hospital complaints numbered 37,350; by 1993–94 they had more than doubled to 87,184—according to government figures. I mention that because although machinery has been devised to deal with complaints—we discussed this in the course of our debates—there is still a problem. It is not clear how the new machinery will work in practice. An annual report on compliance with the three codes would help to show how the NHS in all its forms is dealing with complaints and other matters of concern to patients, particularly as it is the NHS Executive which will be responsible for monitoring the procedure.
I am sure that the Minister will not agree with me but anyone who spends any time around the health service knows that to a large degree public confidence in the service has been undermined and staff morale is very low. That is because it is market mechanisms rather than public scrutiny which is used within the service. That has removed accountability from the process. The RHAs, which are to be abolished from April 1996, though they are not perfect, allowed for a degree of accountability. A number of their vital functions have been transferred to central government.
I was struck by a recent article in a magazine called the Health Director, a journal for directors of NHS boards produced by the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts. I shall paraphrase some of the remarks in the article to show why the machinery of accountability needs to be redrafted in the form we suggest. I remind your Lordships that this is an article written from within the health service and intended for directors of trust boards. It points out that the entire NHS reforms quickly ran into a communication mire. It continues,
"a new language of 'purchasers', 'providers', 'contracts' and 'extra-contractual referrals', which came across as meaningless bureaucratic twaddle … Yet inescapably throughout, there has been the imperative of the internal market, requiring trusts to compete with each other for patients; and health authorities and GP fundholders to shop around for the best deal. Encouraged to communicate with local communities, each part of the NHS has developed and honed its public relations skills and used them to establish its own position in the market".
The article is referring to hospitals, health services and the family doctor, not Tescos or Sainsburys. It continues:
"'Negotiation by press release' has become an essential addition to the skills of the modern NHS chief executive. Newspapers and airwaves buzz with NHS people, ever-available, buying, selling, criticising and marketing health services. And the public gets more and more confused by the messages and more and more dispirited as they listen to NHS people squabbling among themselves".
When one considers that those remarks come from within the health service and are written for a magazine aimed at directors of health service boards, one can see
1484
why openness and accountability are largely missing. Apparently a simulation exercise took place for officials regarding communication and,
"it becomes clear that 'the public', although in this case made up of NHS people, actually don't understand much of what is said, and much of what they do, they don't believe. They feel patronised and ignored, and quickly become genuinely angry and confused".
At Report stage I asked the Minister—and she was kind enough to reply to me—what would happen after the Government conducted their initial monitoring of the implementation of the codes of conduct and accountability in relation to public service officials. I asked when the exercise would be completed and whether the results of the monitoring would be made public. I said that I hoped that the Government would not wait to see the outcome of the exercise before deciding whether or not to publish the results. I am grateful to the Minister for replying to me. In her letter she said,
"I can confirm that this monitoring is almost complete and that the outcomes will be reported to the Secretary of State for Health in mid-May".
She concluded,
"It has not yet been decided how the results will be reported to a wider audience",
which rather confirms my suspicion that the Government are waiting to see what the monitoring exercise says before they decide whether or not to make the results public.
In Committee and on Report I gave a local example concerning hospital plans which I shall not repeat to your Lordships. I shall merely say that it is a classic example where the preparation of a secret business plan which was not made available to the people concerned has led to bitterness, distrust and disbelief in the whole operation in the area where I live.
I turn to the code of openness. I referred to this matter on Report but I think it is worth pressing the Minister again regarding the business of charging for information. The code says, entirely fairly:
"It is recommended that charging [for information] should be exceptional".
It says that the trusts and authorities may make a charge for providing information but are not required to do so. It is recommended that charging should be exceptional. It also suggests in the ground rules that there should be no charge for the first hour and a charge not exceeding £20 per hour for each hour thereafter. One can well understand how, with a small community that is trying to put together a scheme to save its local hospital, this could be a very useful weapon in the hands of the trust or authority concerned if it wished to stifle that group just by charging excessively for the information that is being asked for.
Finally, I wish to turn to the question of communication with the public and the media and the guidelines produced by the NHS Management Executive entitled Guidance for staff on relations with the public and the media. With regard to whistle blowing and the gagging of employees, the document states that,

1485
"any employee contemplating making a disclosure to the media is advised to first seek further specialist guidance from professional or other representative bodies and to discuss matters further with his or her colleagues and, where appropriate, line and professional managers".
One can see how that could be used to stifle employees.
For all the reasons I have given it is clear that there must be some means of monitoring these codes. I give credit to the Government for issuing the codes, but it is not just a case of having them available. We must see how they are actually working, how the health service is reacting to the codes and how it is performing against them. Although the Government are monitoring the code of practice on openness, is that information to be made available to the wider public? What we are asking for is an annual report to Parliament on how the three codes are working out in practice and what is happening with regard to openness and accountability. We want to see how this vast organisation is conducting itself in terms of the openness and the accountability which we all want to see. A report to Parliament would provide a mechanism to enable that to be done. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Lord has shown himself to be an avid reader of reports, in which case—I take that to be the case—he must be a very busy man indeed. I am glad to see him looking in comparatively good health compared with what one would expect.
It seems to me rather strange that the noble Lord should be so keen a reader of the reports when he is such a sharp critic of the contents of much of the literature, if that is the right terms, which is published on these subjects. However, there is one point on which I do rather warmly agree with him. I refer to the appalling jargon which is used in the health service today. They have gone into this proverbial market place and grabbed every epithet they could find and transferred them to the health service whether or not they fitted. Mostly, they do not seem to fit at all.
The noble Lord commented on the PR skills in the health service. The number of questions which are asked about the health service today and the number of people who go round scavenging for something that is amiss mean that the health service has every need of PR skills. Whether those skills are adequate, I do not know, but I would hazard a guess that they consume a great deal of time which might be better used in other ways.
If I may turn to the amendment, I wonder who will write these reports and who will read them. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is a glutton for punishment. He indicates himself as the first victim of this shower. I hope he will have some pity on himself. Who will be available to write these reports and how much of their time will they take? Who will monitor the information? It seems that we have a passion in this country for looking over everyone's shoulders to see what they are doing. This constant desire to interfere and to question and to have a report must be one of the most foolish activities. It seems to be based on the idea that everyone is either incompetent or dishonest. I think that that is stretching things a little far.
1486
I am reasonably confident that anyone with my noble friend's intelligence and perception will wish the House to reject the amendment but I hope that she will pause in doing so to say a word about the time which would be taken if these activities were to be encouraged.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, with the advice of a Sir Ernest Gowers in Plain Words, I shall try to speak in a simple and straightforward way. The codes of conduct and accountability published in April 1994 by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State make clear the expectation that all those who serve the NHS will maintain high standards of corporate and personal probity. All members of health authorities and trusts are required to confirm their acceptance of the codes which include, among other things, a requirement to declare interests which may be relevant to NHS business.
We introduced these codes so that there would be no doubt about what is expected of NHS members; and having introduced them, of course we intend to monitor how they have been implemented until we are certain that the codes are being followed. It may also reassure your Lordships to know that there is already within the codes a requirement for every health authority and trust to present at least an annual report, a practice that is very often followed by industry and commerce. In that way its performance may be assessed by the NHS Executive on behalf of the Secretary of State, by the Audit Commission and its appointed auditors and also by the local community.
The code of openness in the NHS was published in April this year and will be implemented from 1st June. We shall also monitor the way in which this code is implemented in its early years until we are confident that we have achieved the culture of openness that we are seeking to encourage. Furthermore, there is already an important safeguard in the system since the Health Service Commissioner may investigate any complaints referred to him by the public about the withholding of information. He will publish his own reports on his findings.
The code of practice on open government applies to the Department of Health and will apply to the regional offices of the NHS Executive when, subject to this legislation, regional health authorities are abolished in April 1996. The code does not apply to the NHS and it is not therefore appropriate to consider its monitoring or reporting arrangements under this legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised the issue of complaints. I am sure he will be aware that the complaints procedure has recently been reviewed in line with the Wilson Report. It is because people are aware now that if they make a complaint some action will be taken that they are more encouraged to do so. That partly accounts for the increase in the number of complaints that are received. Indeed, we encourage people to tell local management what needs to be put right and what we can do better within the National Health Service. We tell them the routes open to them in order to make complaints.

1487
From my experience in the direct running of health services, we should always remember that the tributes always far outweigh the complaints. The noble Lord asked about charging under the code of openness. The code makes quite clear that charging should be exceptional. It also states in paragraph 10 that people may complain about the level of charges, which is of course also a safeguard. My noble friend mentioned bureaucracy. He is quite right in that it can grow surreptitiously. It needs to be constantly checked. The whole purpose of the Bill is to reduce bureaucracy by abolishing regional health authorities and a whole tier of administration.
We are committed to ensuring that the codes of openness, conduct and accountability become an established part of the NHS. That is best done through appropriate management actions guided, as necessary, by Ministers and not through the statutory mechanism that has been proposed in this amendment. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to reject it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for his kind remarks about my ability to read government reports. I can assure him that I get some light relief from reading them. I also read the speeches of the noble Lord in Hansard. They soon send me to sleep.
I referred to the magazine called Health Director produced by the National Association of Health Authorities & Trusts. It refers to the PR skills of executives who negotiate by press release. I remind noble Lords of what happened in the Wessex and West Midlands areas. There were criticisms about national health procedures from the Public Accounts Committee. There was a great deal wrong. We hope that these codes will help to put these matters right. It will take some time, but if it saves the Government the sums of money which were lost in Wessex and the West Midlands, it will be time well spent.
I heard what the Minister said about monitoring, but it is the publication of that monitoring which is so important. I am willing to give way if the noble Baroness can tell the House what in fact the Government intend to do after they have monitored the performance against the codes. Do they intend to publish in full the results of the monitoring?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that the Government have not yet decided on that matter. The first reports are coming through, but we would in no way want to be secretive. Local government is closely monitored and councillors do or do not declare their interests. The same principle will apply to the National Health Service.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am surprised that the Government are unable to take a decision in principle before they have seen the results of the monitoring. However, they intend to make them public and that is significant. Of course the health authorities, the trusts and the department produce annual reports as regards their performance. But it is what is left out of the reports which is so important. How can one criticise an
1488
omission if it cannot be found? For all those reasons it is important to have a much firmer machinery to see that the codes are monitored and the results reported to Parliament.
The Minister mentioned complaints. Perhaps I may remind her of the things which have been left out of the recommendations of the Wilson Committee and the Acting on Complaints document:
"Publication of complaints statistics by trusts, health authorities and health boards; development of a system for recording and classifying complaints on a UK basis; that all the GP practices and trusts review their complaints handling on at least a quarterly basis and make an annual published report on these reviews to the relevant health authority or board or main purchasers; that organisations regularly find out what their users think about their handling of complaints; and that each Health Department publishes an annual complaints bulletin".
Those are the recommendations of the Wilson Committee to which the noble Baroness referred, but they were not included in Acting on Complaints. The answer which the Minister gave was unsatisfactory and I wish to ask the opinion of the House.
3.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 156.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jeger, B.

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Airedale, L.

Judd, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Listowel, E.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Longford, E.

Avebury, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Molloy, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller]

David, B.

Diamond, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Northfield, L.

Donoughue, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Rea, L.

Exeter, Bp.

Richard, L.

Ezra, L.

Falkender, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Haskel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayter, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howell, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

1489

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Harlech, L.

Addison, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Ailsa, M.

Harrowby, E.

Aldington, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Alexander of Tunis. E.

Hives, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hogg, B.

Alport, L.

Hood, V.

Ampthill, L.

Hooper, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Howe, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Astor, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton. L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bellwin, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Beloff, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Blake, L.

Lindsay, E.

Blaker, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Blyth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Borthwick, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McConnell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Burnham, L.

Manchester, D.

Butterworth. L.

Marlesford, L.

Cadman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Moyne, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Munster, E.

Chesham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Nelson, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Norrie, L.

Coleridge, L.

Northesk, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Courtown, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Craigavon. V.

Orkney, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Palmer, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Pender, L.

De Freyne, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

De L'Isle, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pike, B.

Denham, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Digby, L.

Pym, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rawlings, B.

Downshire, M.

Rennell, L.

Dudley, E.

Renton, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Richardson, L.

Elles, B.

Seccombe, B.

Elton, L.

Shannon, E.

Faithfull, B.

Sharples, B.

Ferrers, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Finsberg, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Foley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Stewartby, L.

Gainford, L.

Strange, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Geddes, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Goschen, V.

Sudeley, L.

Gray, L.

Suffield, L.

Haig, E.

Swansea, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Terrington, L.

Teviot, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

1490

Trefgarne, L.

Westbury, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wharton, B.

Ullswater, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wise, L.

Vivian, L.

Wynford, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.2 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Amendments]:
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 5, line 21, at end insert:
(" "(c) other persons with professional expertise in and experience of social care," ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that the new health authorities must secure advice from people with social services expertise and experience in the same way as they will be required to take advice from healthcare workers.
On Report, I moved an amendment to make the chairman of the relevant social services committee a full member of each health authority board. In reply, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that that would not accord with the Government's wish that non-executive members of health authority boards should all be generalists (col. 755 of the Official Report of 24th April). The noble Baroness restated that the Government are opposed to representatives of any outside bodies serving on health authorities. Although we do not agree with that position, I acknowledge that the Government will not at this stage be moved from it.
However, throughout our debates on the Bill and at other opportunities in your Lordships' House, great emphasis has been placed on the need for co-operation and collaboration between local health and social services agencies. Ministers have often spoken of their ambition to move more and more health services out of hospitals and into the community, and to improve health education and promotion through the so-called "healthy alliances" between different types of agency. Those goals will be smoothly and properly achieved only by formally establishing strong working links between health and social services authorities.
I expect that in reply the Minister may repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said on Report: that mechanisms such as joint consultative councils already exist and that, in general, it is best to rely on good practice and the local development of good personal relations. However, as we discussed on Report, joint consultative committees have a very limited power and agenda. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and I discussed our relative experiences of serving on such committees—hers was happier and more fulfilling than mine. Whatever the relative personal experiences, I am not sanguine about leaving very important matters, such as continuing and community care for the elderly, the mentally ill and the young disabled solely to the insubstantial hope of good practice in every health authority or to the rather frail mechanisms of organisations such as joint consultative committees.
The boundaries of health and social care are becoming increasingly blurred. The confusion about financial responsibility for different services is creating tensions and difficulties in many areas across the country, and in many areas local authorities often resent what they see as an additional burden on their tight budgets. If health and social service agencies are arguing about their relative responsibilities, the people who are suffering are their clients, their patients. I was talking this week to an executive director of a London health authority who was pleased by the development of good informal relations with social services colleagues in her borough, but she cautioned me at the same time that that was by no means universal. In her graphic phrase, "There's war out there".
We have a duty in framing the legislation to try to do everything that we can to ensure that the services that are often needed by the most vulnerable members of our society are delivered to a high standard throughout the country. If every health authority is required, as it would be by the amendment, by statute to take advice from social services, that would go some way towards establishing national standards of care.
The Government clearly think that it is essential that health authorities receive advice from people with experience and expertise in healthcare—from general practitioners, nurses and midwives among others. That is contained in the provisions of Schedule 1(3) as it now stands. Amendment No. 2 would strengthen the pool of professional advice available to health authorities by including those with the kind of social services experience and expertise that will be essential for the development of the National Health Service. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to debate an important aspect of health authority responsibilities: that of working with statutory, voluntary and private social care organisations to secure effective and co-ordinated provision for a range of needs.
I have made clear in previous debates that the Government are committed to close working between the new health authorities and local authorities on many issues, but especially on community care. There are mechanisms already in place to help health authorities and local authorities to comply with their statutory duty of co-operation. In particular, there are the joint consultative committees. I appreciate, however, that the noble Baroness has highlighted that there are mixed views on this, but joint consultative committees will continue after the reorganisation and we expect that their work will be made considerably easier by the streamlining of local NHS authorities in this Bill.
The high priority that the Government give to co-operation on community care issues is reflected in a great deal of guidance issued in recent years. The guidance issued in February on
"NHS responsibilities for meeting continuing care needs"
reinforces the need for effective local and health authority collaboration. Specific guidance on joint commissioning is being issued to local authorities and health authorities shortly. The guidance has sought to clarify the responsibilities of the different agencies and to ensure that they evolve effective means of working together.
1492
This amendment deals with a particular aspect of that co-operation: securing professional advice. Your Lordships will be aware that we have been consulting on draft health service guidelines on the importance of health authorities involving professionals in their work and some ways in which they might do that. The draft guidelines carefully distinguished between involvement of staff working in the NHS (who would often be directly approached for advice) and involvement of staff working for other agencies, such as local authorities, where the normal protocol would be for the approach to be made more formally and as part of an inter-agency agreement.
We fear that the amendment might have the effect of clouding the respective role of health care and social care authorities. The Bill currently makes clear that health authorities must make arrangements to take advice from health care professionals. I think that there would be a danger of undermining the role of, for example, social services departments, if health authorities were also required to take advice from social care professionals. The correct route for that advice, in so far as it affected health care, would be through inter-agency working. We must maintain parity of roles to avoid placing obligations on health authorities, which might result in their second guessing the social care agencies. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. The only phrase which surprised me slightly was the one about clouding the boundaries between social and health care, because it seems to me that in the development of health and social services, particularly in the fields of continuing and community care, we are seeing the clouding of those boundaries with what I had thought were intended to be positive results.
I am aware, as I said when moving the amendment, that there have been considerable difficulties about financial responsibilities between local authorities and health authorities. To describe the merging, as it were, of social and health care as clouding the boundaries in a pejorative sense is surprising. There will obviously be some further development of inter-agency working. The purpose of the amendment is to give that structure a formal mechanism and to ensure that all health authorities, both good and bad, would be forced to take the appropriate advice to help them through their new responsibilities for community care on both sides of the fence.
However, it is something upon which, in a sense, we shall never agree, because it concerns the formality of mechanisms and the understandings that we on this side of the House would like to see in regard to representation on health authorities of people with additional responsibilities which affect health care. As I say, this reflects a fundamental difference, but at this stage of the Bill I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 24, at end insert:
("(1 A) Every Regional Chairman shall make arrangements for securing that they receive from universities with undergraduate medical and dental schools advice appropriate for enabling the Health Authorities in their region effectively to exercise the functions conferred or imposed on them under or by virtue of this or any other Act." ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment too is concerned with professional advice. In earlier debates, we on these Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and others, expressed concerns about the possibility that links between academic medicine and the health service will be seriously weakened by the new arrangements proposed in the Bill. Potentially, the weakest link in the chain is at the regional level, and yet that is the crucially important level at which the academic world of medicine should be concerned with the health service.
That is where, until now, postgraduate medical deans have been full members of the RHAs, and where the complicated, but nonetheless essential, joint funding arrangements between the university medical schools and the NHS have been managed. The Department of Health now funds directly a large number of academic posts across the country. In some medical schools, I understand as many as 40 per cent. of clinical academic posts are funded through the health service. That is obviously of great mutual benefit to all the institutions involved and it is of great benefit to the patients and users of the health service. The link contributes greatly to this country's tradition of excellence in academic medicine and NHS care.
The universities have been given undertakings that that form of funding (support for those clinical posts) will continue, but precisely how the systems will be managed is still in doubt. There are no clear provisions in the Bill to create statutory mechanisms to organise joint funding nor to create joint working arrangements to ensure that the views and ideas of the medical and dental schools are available automatically to the NHS.
As so often in the Bill, the Government seem to be relying upon the development of good practice to solve everything. In Committee, I drew attention to correspondence earlier this year between the Secretary of State for Health and the chairman of the CVCP. The Secretary of State said that the regions had been reminded to take account of the views of university's inappropriate circumstances, but Dr. Edwards, chairman of the CVCP, writing in March replied that that was not good enough and,
"given the very great uncertainties ahead, it is our view that a formal mechanism which is clear and unambiguous needs to be in place from the start".
The Minister has told your Lordships that since then informal discussions have taken place to try to resolve that issue, but, so far as we know, nothing has yet been agreed about regional arrangements—certainly nothing appears on the face of the Bill. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said:
"Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to devise a mechanism whereby universities can play a major statutory, advisory role at regional level"—[Official Report, 24/4/95; col. 749.]
1494
I can only echo those words. Amendment No. 3 is designed to assist the wit of man to achieve precisely that purpose.
We know that the Government will not accept outside representation on the management boards of the new regional offices, but, as the Minister said on Report, regional chairmen will have a special responsibility even in that area. Amendment No. 3 seeks merely to bind those regional chairmen to securing advice from the universities in the same way that the local health authorities will be statutorily bound to involve local health professionals under Schedule I. In that way, the regional chairmen will have a formal stimulus to establish the kind of mechanisms the Minister commended on Report, to include the vital contribution of university representatives. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support the amendment which has to it the name of my noble friend Lady Robson. To suggest that the new health authorities receive advice from the academic medical establishment is not unreasonable or radical. As the noble Baroness said, to rely on good practice taking place in the future is chancy, because it may not take place. By having on the face of the Bill, "you shall consult" overcomes that problem, and will result in that necessary contact. I support the amendment strongly.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the amendment seeks to place a formal requirement on regional offices to set up liaison arrangements with universities. It would not be workable in its present form, and, more importantly, it is entirely unnecessary. I fully understand the reasons why the noble Baroness has tabled the amendment. I know it reflects the more widespread concern that the relevant interests of universities and their medical and dental schools might somehow be overlooked after RHAs have been abolished.
I can reassure the noble Baroness that there is no need for a new statutory provision to ensure that that does not happen. Effective liaison arrangements, both formal and informal, are currently in place, even though most of them are not required by legislation. Indeed, the recent report from the Joint Medical Advisory Committee of the Higher Education Funding Councils presents a very favourable picture of the effectiveness of liaison between NHS trusts and medical schools. There is no reason why that should be undermined once RHAs are abolished, nor will we allow it to be.
I have previously referred to the 10 key principles in your Lordships' House, during debates on the Bill. They provide a very clear and firm statement of the need for effective liaison. The Joint Medical Advisory Committee's report says that they are working well. The amendment proposes a statutory provision which is so vague that I believe it might well undermine the effectiveness of the 10 key principles. People might say, "We meet our statutory requirement, why should we comply with the 10 key principles as well?" We would not want that to happen.

1495
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has also made it clear to the regional chairmen, who are all members of the NHS Policy Board, that she expects them to take a particular interest in ensuring that there is good liaison between the NHS in their region and universities. Any problems will then come swiftly to our attention and can be dealt with quickly and effectively.
Finally, I should also report that a meeting has been arranged between senior people in the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and senior officials of the NHS Executive (including the chief executive) on 9th May. They will discuss the question of appropriate arrangements for effective liaison between regional offices and universities. I am sure that that meeting will be constructive and productive.
I hope that I have made it clear that the amendment would not be workable and is in any case entirely unnecessary. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, in particular for the information about the further meeting between the CVCP and the Department of Health on 9th May. We have had lengthy discussions about the subject during the various stages of the Bill. It is unfortunate that the final meeting to resolve the matter will take place after the Bill has passed all its stages in another place and in this House.
The arrangements are of great concern to the academic medical community and, as I have stressed several times in this House, to those of us who are anxious about the excellence of patient care. It is unfortunate that such important matters have been left until the last minute before being resolved and that they will be resolved when we will be unable to discuss them in the course of dealing with this legislation.
However, on the understanding that progress is being made towards an agreement with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 19, line 32, at end insert ("including at least one officer who is a registered nurse and who has had, in the twelve months immediately preceding his or her appointment, experience of managing services to patients.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move the amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. To do so may appear to he tedious in the light of the lengthy consideration given to the principle of professional representation and related amendments at each stage of the Bill. However, I have looked at the Minister's replies to the amendments, pleading not for professional representation but for a representation of the expertise that nurses bring to health authorities. In every case, the replies were in terms of professional representation.
I am the first to agree—as we did after the Second Reading and the Committee stage—that to plead for professional representation of every profession in the health service would be impossible. But it is the expertise which nurses bring to a health authority for which I plead.
If no obligation is laid on the authorities to include within their membership a registered nurse who has experience of managing services to patients that would create a notable departure from historical precedents. Your Lordships' House will know that since the days of Miss Nightingale the history of the health services of this country has been punctuated by a succession of redoubtable ladies—and in some cases gentlemen—who have managed those services with great expertise. They achieved national eminence as a result.
Since the first National Health Service reorganisation in 1974 each district health authority has had an executive nurse director. To manage the service without a lead nurse at each level would be departing from historical precedent. The chief nurse has not been in lead positions on health authorities as a professional representative. She has been there as an indispensable contributor to the work of the health authorities at every level. The reasons for that were well rehearsed during previous stages of the Bill. They include the size of the nursing service; its sophistication and complexity; its specialist roles; its intimate impact on patient care and on all other services; and the intricacies of skill mix.
Nurses provide 80 per cent. of the direct patient care and the cost of the nursing service is 40 per cent. of current National Health Service expenditure. It is unthinkable to leave the policy decisions of that great resource to the vagaries of personnel or lay managers, or even to the directors of public health who have no special knowledge of the manpower and legal requirements of the service. At district health authority level I have witnessed attempts at that and I have been appalled at the outcomes and failures in patient care that have resulted.
The Minister herself has endorsed the crucial contribution of nursing to the purchasing function. On Second Reading she expressed the view that she would be very surprised if the majority of health authorities did not appoint executive members with nursing experience. I refer your Lordships to col. 70 of the Official Report of 6th March.
Current evidence appears to be to the contrary. At the beginning of the year the Royal College of Nursing conducted a survey which revealed that only half of the district health authorities and the family health service authorities currently have nurses in executive positions on their boards. More significant is the Government's own research, Creative Career Paths in the NHS. A study by consultants for the NHS women's unit reported in March this year and showed that only 58 per cent. of the purchasing organisations surveyed had a nurse at director level.
For the purposes of our argument today, these trends can only impoverish the health service further as it diminishes the number of those who are available to take executive roles on purchasing authorities. I believe that the real argument for an executive member with experience of managing services to patients lies in the necessary expertise that they bring to the work of the authority. That was amply illustrated by the study commissioned by the nursing directorate of the NHS Executive. It took the form of structured interviews with chief executives and nurses working in purchaser organisations. It listed the contribution that nurses can

1497
make to purchasing. To summarise: they can challenge clinical practice because they are clinically credible; they can challenge the basis of prices because they have a breadth of practical experience across clinical areas, understand how nursing costs are calculated and have experience of managing budgets; they can evaluate alternatives because they have worked at the sharp end of "care"; they can interpret users' needs; and they can contribute to quality because they have working experience of setting up quality standards in processes and procedures and see quality from the users' point of view.
I spoke to an executive nurse on a health authority and I asked her what contribution she makes to the work of her authority in purchasing. She stated that she is able to give advice on nursing skill mix changes being proposed by a provider unit. She is able to provide a nursing focus on complaints and untoward incidents. She leads the quality standards programme for the health authority. She facilitates the involvement of users in commissioning and contributes to health needs assessment work. She advises on value for money in contracts. She contributes specialist knowledge and expertise in contracting for different care groups, and so forth. It is difficult to conceive how a health authority can function adequately without such expertise at its immediate disposal and not just at an advisory level.
I conclude by quoting the secretary to the Welsh Board of the Royal College of Nursing. She states:
"There is no doubt that the proper exercise of those statutory functions of the Authority which relate to nursing or midwifery practice or to the protection of the public will continue to require the expertise and vigilance of the most senior of nurses and for which that nurse will be accountable to the United Kingdom Central Council which endorses, strongly, the claim now being made".
I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this is a reasonable amendment which provides that representatives of the nursing profession shall be included on all health authority boards. As the noble Baroness has just told us, nurses provide over three-quarters of the actual contact with patients and are involved at virtually every level of treatment. However, a survey conducted at the beginning of the year showed that half of the boards currently do not have a member of the nursing profession in an executive position.
It just does not seem to make sense that there is no representative of the nursing profession, which has most of the direct contact with patients. I suggest that the Government should look again at this matter because it is not sufficient to say that they would expect there to be some form of representation for the profession which provides the majority of contact with patients.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on these Benches, we are pleased to support this amendment. In moving the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, set out the arguments extremely clearly. Perhaps I may repeat the crucial statistic which she mentioned. Nurses are the largest professional group in the health service, providing
1498
80 per cent. of direct patient care. The noble Baroness explained why the profession should be involved in the way which the amendment proposes.
Like the noble Baroness, I noticed the remark which the Minister made on Second Reading to the effect that she would be very surprised if the majority of health authorities did not appoint executive members with nursing experience. We need something rather stronger than ministerial surprise in this instance.
On a previous amendment I quoted from an excellent article in Health Director, which is produced by the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, by Mr. Ian Wylie who is head of communications at the King's Fund. He gives a very good summary of the operation of the health service. He says:
"The present operation of health services involves a constant and complex interaction of six elements: professionals. purchasers, providers, patients, public and politicians".
I notice that it is also rather alliterative. He goes on to say:
"Each of these six parts must work with and influence each of the others to reach a balance which is the best solution for healthcare. As health services cannot function without an effective interplay of the six partners so the communication processes for health services must also involve all partners".
It would seem to me that if it is to involve all those partners, the paragraph sums up the situation extremely well. If there is to be an effective interaction and interplay between all parties, there should be a means of ensuring that nurses are represented.
I do not believe that other professionals would be offended if the nurses were represented because of the very vital role which they play in terms of their skill and expertise and the sheer weight of their involvement—80 per cent. of direct patient care. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness for giving me notice of this amendment. I should like to take this opportunity to apologise to her for stating at an earlier stage in the passage of the Bill that she was a vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing. In fact, she is a fellow of the Royal College which, in my view, is a much more exalted position because it must be earned professionally.
Perhaps I may also thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for filling in for the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, at very short notice.
We have debated the question of nurse membership at each stage of the Bill's passage. I recognise that the continuing debate is not just special pleading for a particular group. It reflects the very real conviction that the involvement of nurses in purchasing will lead to better services for patients.
It is easy for me to talk about the essential contribution which nurses make to the work of health authorities—and I strongly believe that nurses have distinctive experience to bring to bear on purchasing. But words need to be backed up with actions. The Government have demonstrated in many material ways that they value nurses, and trust their professional skills; for example: our nurse prescribing initiative extends the role and influence of nurses. We believe it will be shown to bring genuine benefits both to patients and staff.

1499
Over £400 million has been made available to support the introduction of Project 2000, which is achieving higher standards of education and training for nurses. Project 2000 students are educated to become flexible, innovative and accountable practitioners in both hospital and community settings. Better trained nurses means better care for patients, and, as the Royal College of Nursing reminds us, as did the noble Baroness today, nurses have 80 per cent. of direct patient care. Practice nurse numbers have grown significantly over the past 12 years. They have significantly enhanced the skills of primary care teams.
The Changing Childbirth initiative is helping midwives to strengthen their position in the routine care of women during labour. The Government have provided significant funding for the initiative, including support for a full-time implementation team; for 14 development projects last year; and £1 million for further investment this year. NHS trusts have created new opportunities for nurse leaders with the establishment of executive director posts.
Those initiatives, more than anything I can say today, speak of our commitment to the nursing contribution. I believe that they should reassure nurses that we mean what we say in the draft guidelines on professional involvement which we issued earlier in the year. The guidelines call for nurses to be involved in planning and purchasing of health services, in clinical effectiveness strategies, in the inspection of nursing homes, child protection, midwifery supervision, Mental Health Act responsibilities and many other areas. They point out that nurses are playing a key role as health authority employees. The new statutory duty to involve professionals, introduced in another place, will enhance that role. Perhaps I may quote briefly from the draft guidelines:
"The skills and knowledge which nurses bring include an appreciation and clear understanding of health care drawn from practical experience across all clinical areas, an ability to challenge clininal practice and an understanding of … how staffing and skill mix can be fine-tuned to achieve optimum use of resources."
The guidelines make clear that the regional offices will he monitoring the arrangements made by health authorities to ensure that they command the confidence of the professions locally. If the new arrangements do not command the confidence of the nursing profession, I can assure your Lordships that the regional offices will take action.
The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, mentioned the IHSM survey. We are not complacent about the findings of that report, but I should like to point out that the figures are moving in the right direction. The 58 per cent. of purchasers with a nurse at director level compares with only 40 per cent. in the 1992 survey.
We recognise that the noble Baroness is proposing an amendment which she feels will guarantee a full nursing contribution to the work of the new health authorities. Although I fear that we shall not reach full agreement on this issue, I hope that I have been able to convince her that our disagreement is about the appropriate means, not about the desirable end. I have emphasised in previous debates that membership is not the only or, we believe, the most important way to achieve a nursing input. I have
1500
spoken before about the role of nurses as health authority employees, as expert advisers, as members of review teams, and so on.
We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that a broad and integrated involvement is what we will be looking for and we believe that it is more effective than relying on a single nurse member. Three of the five executive posts are already filled—by the chief executive, director of finance and director of public health. We believe that we must leave it to the judgment of the chairman and the non-executives to fill the remaining two executive posts with the officers whose skills best match local needs. I regret, therefore, that I cannot support the amendment.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her personal generosity and also for the many things which she has done personally for the profession and the contribution which she continues to make in that direction.
However, I do not believe that the catalogue of measures to which she has referred, such as Project 2000, dear as that is to my heart and, I know, to hers, really answers the question about having a nurse with expertise on every health authority. But I take the point that she has made and am reassured to a certain extent.
I shall watch developments with interest because, at present, I do not think that I can put a vote of confidence in the membership of the health authorities. But, at this stage of the proceedings, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 30, leave out line 13 and insert:
103.—(1) The Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 29").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. We discussed at Report stage the future arrangements for the contracts of registrars and senior registrars. As I explained then, the employment contracts of these staff are currently held by regional health authorities and need to be held elsewhere when RHAs are abolished.
There are in fact a number of staff whose contracts of employment are at present held by regional health authorities and who are undertaking rotational training programmes which require them to move regularly between different NHS employers. Clearly, when RHAs go, new arrangements need to be made for these staff.
Junior doctors and dentists in the registrar and senior registrar grades are the largest group affected. Others affected include clinical psychology trainees, finance and general management trainees and some pharmacy and scientist training grades.
While the contracts of these staff are held by regional health authorities, they can move between different NHS bodies as part of their training without losing the employment rights which depend upon serving a period of continuous employment. The most obvious place for contracts to be held in future is with the NHS trust or other NHS employer. The provisions in Schedule 2 to the Bill

1501
ensure that there is protection of continuity for staff who move from RHAs to other NHS bodies on 1st April 1996. However, without the amendment, the continuity of employment of those trainees would be broken on any subsequent moves between NHS employers.
It is an important matter. The Government recognise that the way the contracts are handled in future could affect those employment rights which depend upon serving a minimum period of continuous employment. For example, both protection against unfair dismissal and the right to return to work after maternity leave depend upon having served two years with one employer.
Staff in these training grades must move regularly between employers in order to gain a high standard of professional training. We need to ensure that there are no obstacles to discourage them from moving. That is what the government amendments are designed to achieve.
The Government have made clear that their preferred option for these staff is for their employment contracts to be held by their employer—usually an NHS trust. That is consistent with the treatment of other staff. It is consistent with the principle that personnel issues are generally best managed at local employer level; and with trust freedoms to determine the quantity and type of resources that they employ.
Devolving contracts to employers is still a matter for discussion with the various professional bodies representing such staff. I hope that the amendment will offer them a significant reassurance. It enables the Secretary of State, by order, to specify particular groups of staff undergoing professional training which involves moving between NHS employers. For these staff, employment with successive employers as part of their training programme will be treated as continuous employment for employment protection purposes. In other words, the employment rights of these staff will be exactly the same as if their contracts had continued to be held by the RHA.
I am aware that particular concern has been expressed that transferring junior doctors' contracts to NHS trusts might cause problems for maintaining the required level or standards of training. We have just completed consultation on a discussion document which sets out the various options and possibilities for the employment arrangements of junior doctors, including their contracts. That is set in the context of an overall strategy for the organisation and management of postgraduate medical education. The document was issued widely to representatives of the medical and dental professions, to the education bodies and to employers' representatives. We will take careful account of the comments received before final decisions are taken. The amendments do not in any way pre-empt that consultation, or the various discussions going on with professional bodies. They simply ensure that, where trainees are employed by more than one NHS body during their training, continuity of employment can be safeguarded.
Your Lordships may wish to know why we thought it appropriate to specify in subordinate legislation the categories of staff to whom the new paragraph is to apply. It is to enable us to ensure that the necessary protection is provided not only to the grades currently employed by RHAs but to any equivalent successor grades which may
1502
in future replace them. I should, however, make clear that the intention is not to extend further the employment rights of these staff but to preserve their existing rights. We have no plans to use the power to provide for categories of staff not currently employed by RHAs.
I will now turn to the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. That amendment seeks to provide for postgraduate deans to be health service employers for the purposes of the government amendments. I can assure your Lordships that NHS authorities listed as employers in the government amendment encompass the full range of potential employers for the staff concerned after 1st April 1996.
I would be entirely inappropriate for deans to be added to the list of employers. They are not health service bodies. No other individuals are statutorily designated as employers within the NHS; nor are any other NHS staff employed by individuals in the way that the amendment would suggest. The postgraduate deans will themselves be employees of one or more other bodies. Decisions are yet to be made about the various options in our discussion document, but there is even a possibility that the deans might in future be employed outside the NHS.
I hope that I have made clear that the amendment would not be workable and that, therefore, the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing it. I invite your Lordships to agree to the government amendments which, we believe, provide a helpful and necessary safeguard. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity to speak to Amendment No. 7 which is included in the current group of amendments. We tabled the amendment in order to allow us to continue the discussion on postgraduate and continuing medical education. In fact, at each stage of the Bill in this House the matter has been discussed. We need to continue to discuss the matter because, despite what the Minister said, we are still not quite certain about how the Government intend to safeguard the training component of the contracts of junior hospital doctors, notwithstanding the issue of a document during the Committee stage giving options for postgraduate, medical and dental education.
As the Minister said, even while the Bill has been going through the House, consultations and discussions are still taking place with universities, the British Medical Association, postgraduate deans and Royal Colleges. We do not yet know the Government's intentions. It would he useful to us if the Minister could, perhaps, expand a little on how far those deliberations have gone and tell us about the Government's current thinking on the matter.
To allow the contracts of junior hospital doctors in training posts—that is, registrars and senior registrars, as they will be in a unified grade in future—to be held by a regional "post-graduate Dean", as suggested in the amendment, would ensure that contracts were drawn up so as to allow adequate time and facilities for post-graduate studies to be made available, as is the case at present. I understand that it is the Government's intention that regional postgraduate deans will remain in post, possibly partly university funded and partly NHS

1503
funded, and that they will work in conjunction with the regional offices of the National Health Service Executive, which will be the successors to the regions.
I also understand that postgraduate deans will continue to have a supervisory role in the educational part of junior doctors' contracts. However, a drawback to that arrangement is that the postgraduate deans will, at least in part, become civil servants if they are employed through those offices and that they will, therefore, lose some of their independent status.
However, we feel that by relinquishing overall administration of the junior doctors' contracts to a trust—as the noble Baroness has said—or possibly a group of trusts, as the Government amendments would allow, the postgraduate deans will lose their bargaining power on behalf of junior doctors. For example, if a trust is hard pressed financially or it has an increased workload, it will be tempted to cut down on the time allowed for training activities and to increase pressure on junior doctors to carry out purely service activities. That is likely to occur partly because of the move—it was a welcome move—to reduce the hours of junior doctors, especially for house officer and senior house officer grade. This will increase the pressure on registrars to perform faster and to see more patients. That tendency is already occurring because of the increasing use of technology and more rapid turnover through hospitals.
There is a real need for a powerful independent voice from postgraduate deans to ensure that these pressures do not squeeze postgraduate medical education out of junior doctors' timetables. It would be some comfort if the noble Baroness could state that the contracts for junior doctors in training could be uniform nationally so that individual trusts could not modify them to suit their own needs, with adverse consequences for training. The British Medical Association is keen that contracts should be established on a national basis. It states:
"The reason that national terms and conditions of service for junior doctors was agreed at the time of the NHS and Community Care Act was because it was feared that juniors would be particularly vulnerable to exploitation by trusts. It is essential that all junior doctors continue to be employed on national pay and terms of service, and there must be no question of any local deviation".
That, unfortunately, would appear to be possible under the arrangements that are being developed. The amendment allows contracts to be held by a postgraduate dean. I agree with the criticism that the noble Baroness has put forward about employment by a single person. That was suggested simply in order to stimulate discussion at this stage of the Bill. But in order for that to function a supportive administrative apparatus would have to be in place. That should not be difficult because the structure is there in the regional health authority set-up. That structure could be transferred to a special health authority. In fact a special health authority is one of the bodies mentioned in the noble Baroness's amendments. That is the British Medical Association's preferred approach.
The BMA proposes,
"a special health authority arrangement for holding contracts of postgraduate deans which could assume responsibility for all doctors in training within the region. It would have the benefit of establishing
1504
a clearly identifiable purchaser of medical education and training within the existing NHS system of management, with clear lines of accountability".
This would preserve the strategic planning function of the present regional structure with regard to manpower planning and training needs for future numbers of consultants, as well as preserving the degree of independence for postgraduate deans which they need in order to protect the interests of junior hospital doctors.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I could reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that it really would not be proper for individual deans to be employers. Nor would it be appropriate for the contracts of junior doctors, or indeed other trainees, to be held in the same place as the deans' contracts. Deans may be employed in the regional offices as part of the Civil Service. It would not really make sense for the junior doctors, for whom the deans are responsible, also to be civil servants. Alternatively, the deans may be employed—as I have said already—outside the NHS. It would not be proper or sensible for staff providing essential NHS services to be employed outside the service.
I think the noble Lord also asked about safeguards for training. These will be achieved through educational contracts between the deans, trusts and junior doctors. The deans, of course, will also continue to fund 50 per cent. of the basic salary costs, as they do now. With regard to the consultation document, it was drawn up in close collaboration with the deans. We have had 100 responses to the document. We have not yet had a full opportunity to consider them all. I have listened carefully to the points made by the noble Lord, but of course those points do not affect the government amendments which are before your Lordships this afternoon.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 30, line 21, at end insert:
("(3) In Schedule 13 (computation of period of employment)—

(a) in paragraph 17(1) (provisions of Schedule to relate only to employment with the one employer unless any of paragraphs 17(2) to (5), 18 and 18A apply), for "and 18A" substitute "to 18B", and

(b) after paragraph 18A insert—

"18B.—(1) If a person employed in relevant employment by a health service employer is taken into relevant employment by another such employer, his period of employment at the time of the change of employer shall count as a period of employment with the second employer and the change shall not break the continuity of the period of employment.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) employment is relevant employment if it is employment of a description—

(a) in which persons are engaged while undergoing professional training which involves their being employed successively by a number of different health service employers, and

(b) which is specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.

(3) The following are health service employers for the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) Health Authorities established under section 8 of the National Health Service Act 1977,

(b) Special Health Authorities established under section 11 of that Act,

1505

(c) National Health Service trusts established under Part 1 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990,

(d) the Dental Practice Board, and

(e) the Public Health Laboratory Service Board."").

[Amendment No. 7, as an amendment to Amendment No. 6, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 6 agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I am glad to sum up at the end of your Lordships' consideration of this Bill. I will say just a few words, following the model of concise debate which has characterised the Bill's progress. Though concise, the debate has also been constructive and well-informed and we have benefited again from the great depth of experience and commitment to the NHS which exists in your Lordships' House.
This has also been, by and large, a most good-humoured debate. Perhaps that reflects the measure of agreement between us on one of the central measures, the replacement of district health authorities and family health services authorities by the new health authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson—who I am disappointed is not able to be here this afternoon for very good reasons—together with their teams have pressed the Government vigorously on many points of important detail. I am glad that they have, nevertheless, been able to welcome the new authorities, since they are also welcomed throughout the National Health Service. I should particularly mention the noble Lord, Lord Carter, whose detailed knowledge has been so necessary in showing us all how to move amendments, and whose inquiring mind was so impressive when we discussed the details of the Local Government Finance Act.
The new health authorities will have real influence and a vital role. They will be responsible for ensuring that the entire health needs of their population are met. For the first time, responsibility for primary and secondary care will be brought together within one authority—and planned together in a coherent and co-ordinated way. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, has been probing throughout on the subject of primary care and education. I have, I hope, been able to reassure him that health authorities will pay great attention to developing primary care teams in their areas and forging partnerships with professionals, including both fundholding and non-fundholding GPs. My noble friend Lady Gardner also made an important contribution on this subject, ensuring through her amendment that we remembered the importance of all the primary health care professions.
The abolition of RHAs has caused more debate in your Lordships' House. But the reasons for removing RHAs are clear and compelling. Such large, bureaucratic organisations are no longer needed at regional level. Many of their functions can now be transferred to the new health authorities, closer to patients. Their removal will streamline central management, reducing waste at the centre —and the NHS Executive regional offices will provide a strategic overview where that is still needed.
1506
This Bill will lead to substantial savings and there will be re-investment directly in patient care. There has, perhaps, been a certain amount of confusion about the amount of these savings, particularly during the debate in another place. So let me confirm the good news again: we estimate that savings of £150 million will be achieved every year once the Bill has been fully implemented in 1997–98. The majority of the savings—some £100 million per year—will come from RHA abolition.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, and my noble friend Lord Jenkin have ensured that we did not overlook the essential partnership between the universities and the NHS. The highest standards of education and research must be maintained and I am glad to have been able, today, to set out clearly our plans for junior doctors' contracts. As always the membership of the new health authorities has been a matter of particular concern. We have debated that issue again today. My noble friend Lady Cox and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, have, as ever, been powerful advocates for the nursing profession's contribution and we have noted with care the points they have made.
My noble friend Lord Elton broadened our debate by adding a second language during our discussions on membership when he reminded us that expressio unius, exclusio alterius—a point with which we agree.
We are committed to appointing the best people to serve on each health authority. The new appointments procedures introduced by the Government will help to ensure that. I should particularly like to put on record today my appreciation of all existing members of regional health authorities, DHAs and FHSAs who have served the NHS with such commitment and dedication. It is they who often have to take the most difficult decisions, and I am aware that they seldom receive sufficient recognition for all the work that they do.
Finally, I have stressed today and on several other occasions the need to ensure that the new authorities are open and accountable. I can assure your Lordships that the core values of openness, probity and accountability remain at the heart of the management and operation of the NHS. This Bill will move decisions closer than ever to patients, ensuring that as much of the work as possible takes place at local level, It will streamline central management so that as much money as possible is spent at local level on patient care. The NHS Executive, both centrally and in the regional offices, will oversee health authorities and provide leadership and a strategic overview to the whole NHS.
I should like to conclude by expressing my gratitude to all noble Lords who have taken part in our consideration of the Bill over the past few weeks. Your Lordships' scrutiny of the Bill has been genuine and courteous as well as thorough. I wish to thank especially my noble friend Lady Miller, who unfortunately is unable to be with us today due to a prior commitment, for easing my burden during the past few weeks. Her contributions have been many and valuable.
I have not been able to mention all noble Lords who have taken part in the debates on the Bill, but I would not wish to end without mentioning the contribution of

1507
my noble friend Lord Lyell, who ensured that even the finest details of the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act did not pass unscrutinised.
We have discussed the Bill thoroughly. It marks a logical and positive step for the NHS. I commend it to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
5 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, with the permission of the House, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question, about which I have given her notice, concerning the future of the research and development programmes that are at present managed by the regions under the regional directors of research and development. Those directorates have grown in importance since Professor Michael Peckham was appointed Director of Research and Development, largely as a result of your Lordships' Select Committee report.
When the regions are replaced by the regional offices of the National Health Service Executive, how will the regional directors of research and development be affected? If they are to be part of the regional offices they will technically become civil servants, as will the regional directors of public health. That will have the drawback that they could come under pressure only to commission or fund research which is acceptable to the government of the day. During the deliberations of the Select Committee the importance of independent, and sometimes uncomfortably targeted, research was made clear. Such research is often critical of certain established practices and therefore positively unpopular.
The Select Committee recommended that National Health Service research and development should be administered through a special health authority. That was not accepted and the directorate of research and development was created instead.
I should like to suggest that the idea of a special health authority should be re-examined. Such a body could act as the administrative base for all regional directors of research and development to allow them a degree of independence from the National Health Service Executive.
I do not expect the noble Baroness necessarily to agree with that suggestion, but I hope that what I have said will allow her to say what the Government's plans are for this important but so far little discussed activity of the regional health authorities which are to be abolished by this Bill.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am speaking to the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
When we discussed the Bill at Second Reading I suggested five basic tests for any change in the National Health Service: does it improve the effectiveness of the service? Does it improve efficiency? Will the change lead to greater equity? Will it lead to greater accountability? And will it improve the overall health of the nation's population?
1508
At Second Reading I argued that this Bill failed all those tests. Nothing which has happened in our subsequent debates on the detail of the legislation has changed my mind. Although the Government see this as a measure which is primarily designed to dismantle bureaucracy in the NHS, we on these Benches remain convinced that the Bill is a threat both to public accountability and to standards of excellence in the health service.
From these Benches we voiced particular concern about the abolition of the regional health authorities. The Government have insisted that that is simply the removal of an unnecessary tier of administration. However, as your Lordships know, the extraordinary growth in NHS management has not been at that level but further down the line in individual trusts and purchasing authorities. Staff numbers in the regions have actually gone down since the so-called reforms.
From these Benches we have moved amendments to try to protect the special strategic functions of the regional health authorities, particularly those of public health, and to maintain the links between the universities and the NHS. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, has been particularly concerned about the future connection between the university medical schools and the health service. But none of the amendments —neither those which the noble Lord proposed nor those that we proposed from these Benches—was accepted.
Equally unsuccessful were the attempts from all parts of the House to establish professional membership of the health authorities. At Committee stage the noble Baroness Lady Gardner of Parkes sought to include health professionals working in primary care. My noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde wished to include health visitors. The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, who rightly tried again this afternoon, moved amendments to include the invaluable contribution of nurses at board level in the new health authority.
From these Benches we have tried to improve the general openness and public accountability of the health authorities. We moved amendments to make selection procedures for members more rigorous and objective. Again, all were rejected, despite the fact that during the passage of the Bill the committee on standards in public life chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, has already been critical of the new arrangements proposed in February by the Secretary of State for Health.
I should like to thank my noble friends Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Prys-Davies for diligently keeping the red dragon flying and eloquently trying to pursue the special concerns of Wales, They, too, have been disappointed, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, who sought a strategic health authority for London to try to sort out the continuing agonising problems of health services in the capital.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, was very helpful in supporting many of the amendments from these Benches, despite her ill health during the proceedings of this Bill. I should like to thank her and her noble friends Lord Addington and Lord Tope for their contributions.
Above all, I must thank my noble friends Lord Rea and Lord Carter for everything they have done to advance our arguments so powerfully and, to my mind, so

1509
persuasively. My noble friend Lord Rea has brought all his practical experience of working in the NHS for many years to our debates. His particular knowledge of primary care and the issues which confront general practitioners working in the inner city has been vital.
My noble friend Lord Carter has been my essential coach on the Bench. His encyclopaedic understanding of the health service and of previous legislation, as well as of the procedures of your Lordships' House, has been invaluable. He has guided me patiently through the legislative jungle and saved me from many transgressions.
I should like to express the thanks of all of us to the Minister and her noble friend Lady Miller. They have been helpful and detailed in all their replies to our debates. The Minister has been particularly kind in writing fully to me and my noble friends about matters which could not immediately be resolved on the Floor of the House. We are very grateful to her.
In conclusion, I wish it were possible to send the Bill on its way with our best wishes. However, I am afraid that I still think this is a very political Bill, driven more by ideology about developing the health market than real concern about the state of our greatest public service.
As we are finishing our deliberations on a political day—I only assume that the absence of other noble Lords from the Chamber is because they are all actively involved in the local elections—I feel justified today in repeating the words of my right honourable friend the Leader of the Labour Party:
"We must wait for a general election to renationalise the National Health Service".
Lord Addington: My Lords, on the Motion that Bill do now pass, first I thank the Minister for her kind words about my noble friend Lady Robson, who is unable to be here. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for her kind comments about my noble friend and myself.
What we object to most about the Bill comes in its first line:
"An Act to abolish Regional Health Authorities".
We do not believe that they should go because we need co-ordination and planning for health authorities, as, indeed, for all other public services. On strategic planning, the planning authority for London should have been put into the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, mentioned, my noble friend Lady Robson tried to have it included. As it was not seen fit to do that, this must go down as an opportunity lost.
One final point should be raised. With this legislation, it has been suggested that community health councils should not be expanded to an unmanageable size. At Committee stage my noble friend Lady Robson made inquiries about the matter but the Minister said that she did not believe that that would happen. However, we have no guarantee that it will not.
Bearing those points in mind, I hope that the Bill is considerably more successful than I suspect it will be, taking into account the gaps and certainly the lack of an
1510
overview and strategic planning. I hope that those shortcomings will not severely damage the National Health Service.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may start by responding to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and his anxieties about the regional directors of research and development.
In the new system, the regional directors will be members of the top management team in the new smaller regional offices. That means that they will become civil servants, but it also means that their influence and their profile are likely to increase. The NHS research and development programme has formally committed itself to openness in its operation and the reporting of all its findings. That will remain the case. The content of the research carried out will, as now, be determined on the advice of the central research and development committee and the regional research and development committees. Bringing all of them together within the NHS executive will, we believe, improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the programme. The directors work as part of the national research and development strategy. We believe that this arrangement is a good one and, of course, it will continue. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has nothing to fear.
I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said about her template of five important key areas: effectiveness, efficiency, equity, accountability and the improvement of the health of the population. We believe that the Bill will go some way towards improving all those five counts, but, of course, only time will eventually tell.
As I understood it, the policy of the party opposite is that we should reduce bureaucracy. Indeed, there has been a suggestion that something like 800 administrators could go. I find it surprising that with that policy the same party should so champion the regional health authorities. I chaired a regional health authority and enjoyed doing so, but I recognised that the whole system had a stultifying effect on innovation, new ideas and imagination. It lengthened what could be quite quick decisions because of the red tape involved. The measures in the Bill before your Lordships will free up a great many people within the health service. I am convinced that it will result in a far better National Health Service for the people of this country.
I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill
5.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commonwealth Development Corporation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
5.16 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a short Bill, but is nonetheless extremely important to the work of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Its aim is simple and straightforward. It is to ensure that CDC continues in the ever-changing global economic environment to provide the most effective economic assistance and advice to developing countries. I shall say more about the specific provisions contained in the Bill in a moment, but first I want briefly to set out the reasons why I am bringing the Bill forward and why I very much hope that it will command the support of every noble Lord.
That there is overwhelming support for CDC among your Lordships is obvious. We have just seen the Government's own CDC Bill make swift progress through its Committee stage following a Second Reading debate back in March when CDC was praised by speakers from every corner of the House. We are all keen that CDC continues to promote development in countries around the globe. None of us wants it to be hampered in doing so by outdated legislation.
It may be that your Lordships would have expected the provisions I am bringing forward today to be incorporated in the Government's Bill. I would have been delighted if that had been possible. Unfortunately, as was foreseen during our Second Reading debate, the matter of extending and clarifying CDC's powers cannot be addressed in that Bill because of the narrowness of its scope. A change to its Long Title would have been necessary and I am well aware of your Lordships' reluctance to take such a step. That is why I now seek to address this important matter by means of a Private Member's Bill.
Recognition of the need for the legislation long pre-dates the passage of the Government's current Bill. The quinquennial review of CDC, conducted in 1993, identified a number of constraints which Section 2 of the 1978 Act placed upon the corporation's activities and recommended that legislation should be introduced to extend CDC's powers. The relevant provisions of Section 2 have been in substantially the same form for almost 40 years during which time concepts of what constitutes sound economic development have changed, as have the needs and nature of developing countries. My Bill seeks to update and clarify CDC's powers so as to reflect those changed circumstances.
I hope and believe that my Bill will have the general support of everyone in this House and that it can progress smoothly through its remaining stages and on to the other place. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Chalker for being here today to respond personally. I greatly look
1512
forward to what she has to say and hope and expect that she too will be able to give her support and encouragement.
Having said that, I have no doubt that there may be need for some amendments in order to make the Bill as effective and workable as possible. I should welcome the prospect of such amendments. I know that discussions have already taken place between my noble friend's officials and the CDC about various detailed elements in the Bill. I trust that those will continue in a constructive vein with the urgency that is necessary to allow the Bill to be considered in the other place before the Summer Recess.
Perhaps I may now turn to the specific provisions contained in the Bill. CDC normally conducts its business through incorporated joint venture companies to which it provides financial assistance by way of share and loan capital, thereby spreading risk with other investors and achieving more development than if CDC funded projects entirely on its own. I am advised that the wording of Section 2 of the 1978 Act envisages CDC's investment funds passing directly or indirectly to a project company for the promotion of new or the expansion of existing enterprises and that CDC's funds should be applied primarily to additional assets or capacity, and I emphasise the word "additional". These requirements inhibit CDC purchasing existing shares, securities or assets. This severely limits the role that the corporation can play where host governments are divesting themselves of enterprises or where a project involves buy-outs, buy-ins and rehabilitation.
Indeed, the transfer of ownership itself is sometimes the very step which releases energy for growth in enterprise and thus CDC needs the freedom to apply its funds to the purchase of existing shares, securities and assets, provided, of course, that the economic benefit test can be fulfilled. By adding the words,
"regeneration or reconstruction (including corporate and financial reconstruction)"
to subsections (2) (a) and (b) of Section 2 of the 1978 Act, I propose to cure this limitation. I am told that this new power will be particularly relevant in South Africa, and, as a matter of interest, is a power already enjoyed by most comparable development financial institutions—for example, the IFC.
Effective money and capital markets help to improve business access to finance, savers' access to savings opportunities and thereby the efficient allocation of scarce funds into productive investment. That coincides closely with the CDC's fundamental purpose of developing the economies of host countries, but it needs to be included as a specific power. The amendment proposed in Clause 1(4) (bb) will enable CDC, for example, to undertake the promotion of country or sector funds, investment in quoted or unquoted equities and the formation or encouragement of stock or securities exchanges or dealings mechanism. The subsection would also have the effect of allowing CDC to promote and manage such funds.
I am further advised that CDC currently may only undertake consultancy which is directly related or incidental to its projects or can be regarded as an activity incidental or conducive to the exercise of its powers.

1513
CDC's expertise, even without finance or management, can make a significant contribution to development in countries in which it operates, and Clause 1(4) (bbb) is designed to correct that omission. Clause 1(5) contains formal consequential provisions with which I shall not detain your Lordships.
I hope that I have been able to explain the straightforward nature of this small but important Bill. I hope that the need for it is clear to every noble Lord. I hope, too, that it will attract widespread support. Without it, there is a real risk that the CDC will be increasingly constrained in its efforts to achieve its economic development objectives. That is something I am sure none of us wants to see. I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
5.23 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support the Bill. The additional powers that the CDC will gain under this brief Private Member's Bill will be useful. The Bill allows the CDC to invest in funds and to buy shares in companies, as the noble Lord pointed out. That is particularly important as the past five years have shown a massive increase in the amount of private investment in companies in developing countries. Indeed, on a global scale, the private capital which is being pumped into those companies far outstrips, and is far more important than, any aid that one country can give to another.
The importance of the Bill is that the CDC will be able to invest in a company, and the money that it invests will attract others to invest in the same company. Therefore money supplied by the CDC will draw in a large amount of investment. Obviously investing in developing countries is a risk business. But CDC involvement in the companies, and with the CDC having some control over the way in which those companies' money is being managed, would give great confidence to people to invest.
The noble Lord also mentioned that the Bill would be helpful in South Africa. Regarding transfer of ownership—I refer to management buy-outs—the Bill gives black businessmen and entrepreneurs an ability to buy into companies for which they now work which they have not had previously. I hope that the Government will give the Bill a fair wind. I hope, too, that the Bill has the desired effect.
5.25 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I, too, support this Private Member's Bill for reasons that I shall outline. Ultimate success will depend on Opposition support, as opposing the Bill at this stage would destroy effectively the chances of its passing through its stages in another place.
I spoke at some length at Second Reading of the Government's Bill and see no benefit in re-emphasising examples of the corporation's excellent work. I shall, therefore, confine my remarks to illustrate why the Bill has merit. Importantly, it adopts recommendations contained in the quinquennial review which were not included in the Government's CDC Bill. Secondly, while
1514
CDC's function is economic development, it is operating in the private sector and therefore needs to have similar tools to other private sector investors.
The corporation has hitherto concentrated on businesses involved in primary agricultural production. That sector is not the most profitable and carries high risk. CDC's current strategy is to improve the profitability on its agri-businesses by investing more in downstream processing and marketing. That can often be done most effectively by participating in existing businesses. And that is where the difficulty lies.
At present, there are statutory constraints limiting CDC's freedom of action. Indeed CDC's policies in South Africa are concentrating on assisting disadvantaged black entrepreneurs in dismantling large corporations seeking to divest their non-core operations. CDC is investing in a fund to meet this objective, which is to be encouraged. But operations will be constrained without the legislation proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, which clarifies CDC's powers.
It is now recognised that financing economies through the development of local capital markets provides for a more stable and cheaper source of finance than reliance on bank finance or foreign investors. Recent events in Mexico illustrate that.
This legislation will allow CDC's newly-formed financial markets department to expand its role to include stimulation and effective development of local financial markets. Those three issues illustrate the necessity, in my view, for this Bill to be enacted.
I should be pleased to hear of unequivocal support from the Government, and recognition from the main Opposition party that the Bill is necessary for CDC's future activities.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in bringing forward this valuable—nay, essential—Bill, which, I understand, together with the main Bill, substantially adds to and rounds off meeting the aspirations of the CDC. Last August, as a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation to Zambia, I was able to see the CDC at work on the ground, as it were. Indeed, I had a most comprehensive and useful briefing from the CDC before leaving England. I have also lived and worked in Nigeria for a period and that is another country in which the CDC is working.
In general, but in particular as a result of my visit to Zambia, I believe that the CDC's range of powers needs to be further clarified and, in particular, extended to enable it fully to follow through its strategies, which are, of course, developed in discussion with the ODA and the Treasury. The pace and nature of the economic environment across the world has radically changed since the CDC Act of 1956, some 40 years ago, which was, after all, set only 10 years after the end of the Second World War and in the midst of independence movements among the countries of our former empire, in many of which the CDC now operates.

1515
The economies of the developing countries are becoming more and more dependent upon the inflow of private capital. In the case of Zambia, historically the country has been saved from bankruptcy by the support of the World Bank, IMF, ODA and CDC. The average GDP last year was 40 American cents per person per year. The principal economic activity is the mining and downstream production of copper, cobalt and their derivatives by the state mining corporation. It is now intended to privatise that activity, firstly to enable its expansion and secondly to give an injection of adrenalin to management and staff.
CDC clearly has a major role to play in facilitating such processes and to do so it needs to be able to operate freely in financial markets. The transfer of ownership itself, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, is frequently a step which releases energy for growth in an enterprise. CDC therefore needs the freedom to apply its funds to the purchase of existing shares, securities and assets. That is an objective of the Bill.
The CDC has been consistently advised that the present Act envisages CDC's invested funds passing directly or indirectly and only to project companies for the promotion of new enterprises or the expansion of existing ones. CDC's funds have to be applied primarily to additional assets or capacity. That requirement for additionally generally precludes CDC's purchasing existing shares, securities or assets and therefore severely limits its role in privatisations, management buy-ins and rehabilitation projects, which are a particular feature of CDC's intended activities in Africa. The Bill will liberate that situation.
It is now widely accepted that the development of money and capital markets is a key component of the successful development of a country's economy. CDC's fundamental purpose is the development of the economies of host countries. It follows that the promotion of money and capital markets by CDC in host countries is consistent with CDC's fundamental aim. CDC lacks a power to do so. But this Bill would bring CDC's powers in that aspect of the financial sector into line with the activities that the International Finance Corporation and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Settlement are permitted to undertake.
Finally, as has already been mentioned, there is the subject of consultancy. CDC currently undertakes consultancy provided only that it is related directly or indirectly to CDC projects. The staff of CDC have a vast store of diverse experience and expertise. That expertise, if used in additional situations where CDC finance and management are not playing a part, could make a huge contribution to development in countries in which CDC operates. It would be so-called "dry" consultancy and would be made available on a fee charging basis with full cost recovery, so that it would not be subsidised by CDC's other operations. As a former marketing and financial consultant with Peat, Marwick, Mitchell, who has lived and worked on assignments in countries such as Egypt, the Lebanon and Nigeria, how could I disagree? The Bill will make such work possible.
In conclusion, I wish the main Bill well but feel that it is only one half of the corporate walnut. In order that the tree may grow big and strong, any tree man will tell you
1516
that you need both halves of the walnut. I firmly believe that this Bill is the other half. Let us therefore put them together. I support the Bill.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on having raised what is clearly an important issue. He was right to emphasise the goodwill that exists in all parts of the House towards the CDC. It has a fine record in the third world, and one in which we all take pride. I assure the noble Lord that, in considering the Bill, should we decide—we have not as yet made any such decision—on reflection that some amendments might be appropriate to strengthen it, they will be brought forward in the spirit of constructive contribution to the concerns that he expressed.
When a Bill is put forward, it is important to probe the rationale behind it and the implications which may be within it. First, I am not quite clear why there is such urgency; nor am I altogether clear why the Government are so fullheartedly in support of it, thereby implicitly also in support of the urgency, if they themselves did not see fit in such an important matter to cover this ground in the Bill that they were drafting. This is a constructive occasion and I do not want to be mischievous; but I find myself a little confused by government policy towards the agencies for which it is responsible at the moment. I find it interesting, to say the least, that we have the Crown Agents being put into a privatised form and that in their privatised form they are to be responsible for services largely to the public sector in the third world. We are told that the CDC is to remain in the public sector and is increasingly to be responsible for servicing private developments in the third world. At first sight, that is not altogether logical. Perhaps the Minister will be able to put us straight later. To find the Government so readily endorsing a new Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, when presumably they had been putting a lot of thought into what they wanted in their own Bill, does not altogether engender confidence about the firmness of hand in this particular area.
Let me make it quite clear that we all accept that the private sector has a vital part to play in development. We all want to see that private sector in the third world being a genuinely indigenous private sector and not a dependent private sector; hence the need to ensure the accumulation of capital within the developing countries themselves and to avoid a situation in which they are utterly dependent on foreign investment controlled from outside. But in doing that, and if the CDC is to play a fuller part in doing that, we have to examine the changes in emphasis which will come about—it is a change of emphasis—in the contribution being made by CDC to the whole process of development.
I want to put on record how much I appreciate the very helpful and full way in which the CDC has gone out of its way to brief me and my colleagues and make itself available, which is commendable. In writing to me the CDC referred to the need, which was emphasised by the noble Lord, to get away from the development concepts of the 1950s. It also referred to the changing environment in which the CDC operates. For those of us who spent much of our lives working in development on third world

1517
issues, those statements are incredibly generalised. What characterises most developing countries are the differences between them and the circumstances which are special to each of them. Therefore, if we are to establish a case for that change of emphasis, it would be very useful to hear a somewhat more detailed analysis of precisely what those general observations mean and how the change will be applied in specific circumstances.
What has always impressed me most in the record of the CDC is that its preoccupation has been to get close alongside professional management in terms of management expertise—hands-on management expertise—in building the real economy, in widening the base of self-supporting producers in any particular developing country and in extending the range of people able to participate in the real economy.
As the Bill goes forward we shall look to be reassured as to how we shall avoid the tendency, with the new potential being opened up by the Bill, for the CDC to become increasingly preoccupied with the financial side of management as distinct from its "hands-on" approach to management, to which it has made an outstanding contribution. It would be sad if, by taking on what is arguably an important task, something on which its record is proven were allowed to wither. We shall want to hear more about the balance and about how the finest proven record can be maintained.
In saying that, I should like to emphasise that we are not suggesting that it is not important for the economies of third world countries to take off; of course that is crucially important. We are asking how far that take-off and the role of the financial markets in promoting it are the responsibility primarily of the CDC, and why the CDC needs to take on more responsibilities in that area when the IFC, the EBRD, and others with that specialist experience are available. We seek more information on the rationale and analysis behind the Bill and more detail about how it will be applied.
In that context it may be possible for the Minister to give us a categorical assurance this evening that some way will be devised which ensures that the priority for investment will continue to be the existing recipient countries and that we will not find ourselves careering off to eastern Europe or something of that kind. Anything that the Minister can say in that regard will be helpful. We must remember that the resources available for new investment have been generated from the existing countries in which the CDC is operating.
I spoke of change of emphasis and perhaps I can say a brief word in relation to the change of expertise. I emphasised that the tradition of the CDC has been particularly in relation to "hands-on" management. How will the necessary financial skills be developed to extend its responsibilities into the new roles? All of us—I am not trying to make points; I am trying to look at the situation objectively—will recognise that in recent months it has been dramatically brought home that there are great hazards in the world of international finance, even in the world of well-established merchant banking. We shall need to know a great deal more about how the composition of the board will change to incorporate the kind of experience and disciplines that are essential.
1518
We congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on bringing forward the Bill. It raises important points for examination. We shall look at them constructively during the course of our deliberations. We shall only introduce amendments if we really feel that they will help. Above all, we shall look at the Bill as we do anything else brought forward in the context of aid and development; that is, in the context of the Minister's declared commitment to the priorities she herself stressed in development policies. Those include the needs of the poorest, which is what our aid programme is all about. In other settings the noble Baroness emphasised the importance of development programmes which insist on international management of the environment; on occasions she emphasised the importance of human rights and democracy in development policies.
We are all agreed that the CDC is a powerful instrument. How will this Bill strengthen and assist the Minister in fulfilling her objectives, which we applaud, in those three contexts? It is exciting to hear that the Bill will help in South Africa. But will it help the poorest? Will it extend the number of people participating in the real economy? If so, how? What about Gaza and the West Bank? Those areas were discussed when the last CDC Bill was being debated in this Chamber. The guidelines and schedules which the Minister may want to introduce will be most important.
Finally, lest there be any misunderstanding—I would hate that—on this side of the House we have terrific respect for the record of leadership and integrity of the CDC to date. But when considering legislation of this kind it is important to bear in mind not only what is possible in the present situation with the present human chemistry; not only what is unthinkable in the present situation with the present human chemistry; but also what may be opened up to a completely different set of players—cowboys or whatever—were they to arrive on the scene. It is the duty of the House to be deeply and convincingly reassured on issues of that kind.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I now contribute a few words about the Government's attitude to this Commonwealth Development Corporation (No. 2) Bill. I must say straightaway that I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for his explanation of the Bill; it was very clear. And let me say, so that it is beyond doubt, that we welcome the Bill very much indeed. The House has just discharged the Committee stage of the Government's CDC Bill. I hope that it will not take long before that Bill completes its remaining stages. It contains important provisions on increasing the CDC's borrowing limits and we want those to come into effect as soon as possible.
During the debates on both Bills, we have heard sound support for the CDC in all parts of your Lordships' House as well as in the other place. That confirms the high and well-deserved reputation to which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred. It also confirms the desire on all sides for the CDC to continue to perform its extremely valuable work in promoting development. Indeed, the combination of the two Bills will help unshackle where shackles exist,

1519
the ability of the CDC to contribute still further. That was the very point made by the noble lord, Lord Redesdale, in welcoming the Bill.
As my noble friend Lord Inglewood said during the Second Reading of the Government's Bill, it is important to give the CDC an answer to its needs as swiftly as possible. The Government's Bill deals with CDC borrowing limits. At the time that that Bill was drafted it was not possible for it to deal with the issues which are now the subject of the No. 2 Bill. Some specific points in relation to legal powers were still under consideration when the Government's Bill was introduced. That is why I can wholeheartedly welcome my noble friend's Bill.
In the No. 2 Bill my noble friend has put forward the measures that the CDC needs to carry out the policy objectives contained in the quinquennial review and which the Government have set it. There is no doubt that my noble friend's Bill updates and improves the whole way in which the CDC can operate.
A number of questions were asked in relation to the CDC and the Bill. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne explained that after the Government's CDC Bill had been introduced we concluded that it was not possible to add additional measures to it within the Long Title of the Bill. In coming to that decision I had in mind the feelings which have often been expressed in your Lordships' House; that is, that your Lordships' House is reluctant to extend the scope of Bills. That is why a Private Member's Bill provides a good opportunity to bring forward those additional measures which the CDC will find so useful. I very much welcome the interest that is being taken beyond government circles in the future of the CDC. That is entirely healthy. It is very good that these issues are now included in the Bill before the House.
As my noble friend said, it is important that the Bill should leave the House in a shape which enables it to be dealt with speedily so that the CDC may have the increased adaptability to deal with very new situations. I am happy to ensure, as far as I am able, that that is achieved. My noble friend spoke about the control of powers in his Bill. There is a well established system by which the Government and CDC discuss and agree the way in which the CDC's statutory powers will be exercised. For example, I have set a strategic target for the proportion of new lending in poor countries. We shall look with CDC at how the powers in the Bill may affect targets and the setting of appropriate limits and guidelines. As an example, we would expect the CDC not to use powers to provide consultancy services to set up a major consultancy business in competition with existing firms. It has better things to do with its money. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that the government guidelines for CDC I announced last year—that at least 70 per cent, of new investment should be in poorer countries—will continue. There should be no diversion of activity to middle income countries. We shall watch that most carefully. Nor is there any change in the objectives for the CDC. What we are after, and what my noble friend's Bill does, is to give us a better way to fulfil the existing targets and to give CDC a greater degree of flexibility, which it needs.
1520
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, took some pleasure in teasing me a little, as I knew he would, as to why CDC is being retained in the public sector when the Crown Agents are being transferred to the private sector. The real reason behind that is a practical one. The Crown Agents and CDC have very different histories. Their roles are different. The legislative proposals we have brought forward recognise the distinctive identity and purpose of each organisation and they provide for continued growth into the future both for CDC and Crown Agents. I have explained in our debates—and may have to do so again later tonight—that the Crown Agents have spent a relatively brief period as a public corporation. They are a trading body, albeit with a distinctive and important ethos. It is that very ethos we are seeking to preserve through our proposals for transfer to a foundation in the private sector. There are good reasons why the Crown Agents should no longer continue to be owned by government. We have rehearsed those reasons on previous occasions in debating the Crown Agents Bill.
On the other hand, the CDC has a distinctive role as part of the British aid programme. CDC acts as a catalyst for private sector investment in developing countries because it shows the way in which others can invest profitably in poor countries. In Paris only yesterday we were debating among the 24 OECD countries the risks involved in development. Development is of itself a risk business. A private sector CDC might take a very different attitude to profit and risk from one that is in the public sector. That attitude might be incompatible with the developmental objectives set for it by government. That is why we have judged that continuing public sector status is the right answer for CDC.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked how CDC will cope with its new risks. That is very much a matter for the board of CDC. I do not try to second guess the board. There are not likely to be precise board changes that will in any way affect this. The CDC has the professionals. We seek to work with them and to help them where they need assistance, which is not very often, into new areas of operation. But we shall be looking not only at where they operate but how they operate. We will trust their commercial judgment unless there is very good reason to discuss something to the contrary with them.
I very much welcome my noble friend's willingness to consider the possibility of amendments at a later stage. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will find some ingenious amendments to put down to the Bill. I think my noble friend understands that there are some points of drafting and construction which I would like to have looked at by the experts. These are very technical issues. I want to get the legislation right, as I know my noble friend does, and I want to do that while we have the chance to do so. We shall be very happy to work with my noble friend on these issues as speedily and as co-operatively as possible.
The CDC operates within a planning framework for its activities agreed with government. That is exactly what we revised last year following the quinquennial review. The new powers proposed in the Bill will be exercised within that framework. It will be adapted to take account of the scope offered to CDC to extend its activities in particular ways. Subject to those points, I am happy to

1521
confirm that the Government accept this measure in principle. I encourage your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to my noble friend Lady Chalker for her encouragement for the measure. Indeed, I am grateful to every noble Lord who spoke during the course of our short debate. They were, broadly speaking, in support of the measure. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was not able to give quite such unequivocal support as emanated from other noble Lords, but the noble Lord speaks from a wealth of experience and knowledge in these matters and I look forward to having his constructive contribution when we reach the next stage. I shall certainly be very happy to deal with some of the specific points he raised. That is the right word, is it not? The noble Lord was looking for specific examples of where the corporation might improve its mode of operation and its area of activity.
That said, I again thank your Lordships. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Crown Agents Bill [H.L.]
5.58 p.m.
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. During the earlier stages of the Crown Agents Bill we had a very thorough debate on a number of key issues. Those included the corporate structure of the proposed foundation and operating company, aspects of the financial arrangements for the new business, the use of the Crown Agents' name and the legitimate interests of Crown Agents' staff and pensioners.
In discussing these matters I have been struck by the high degree of good will and support for the Crown Agents evinced by all sides of the House. I speak for all of us in your Lordships' House in commending the Crown Agents on the quality and relevance of their services to development and the transparently honest and impartial way in which they conduct their business. It is those qualities which the Government wish to preserve. I was gratified two days ago to hear from clients of the Crown Agents their conclusion that this was a very good organisation. They said how much they welcomed the foundation which Crown Agents will become. So with that knowledge and with the debates which we have had, I believe it is clear to your Lordships why the Government have - proposed this transfer to a newly created independent foundation tailor-made for Crown Agents.
I recognise that it is the desire to be sure that the best possible arrangements will be put in place for Crown Agents that has prompted some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to press for greater detail of the Government's plans to be included on the face of the Bill. My noble friends Lady Elles and Lord Oxfuird have also pressed me for assurances both in the Chamber and
1522
outside. Others have been moved by recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee to propose that, before the transfer to the foundation takes place, Parliament might have the opportunity to debate the detailed arrangements.
I can assure the House that I have listened with the greatest care to these arguments. I sought to explain why we do not feel able to accept them. However, your Lordships will know that I am determined that the Government will do their very best for the Crown Agents. I have not sought to give your Lordships easy answers, but I readily acknowledge the complexity and the importance of the legal and financial issues which we are discussing with our professional advisers and the Crown Agents themselves.
In the course of our debates I have given the House repeated assurances about the Government's plans. We have undertaken to keep Members of this House and of another place fully informed of the details of the transfer agreed. That will include making available copies of the memorandum and articles of association of the foundation and the information memorandum for prospective foundation members. I am confident that by these means we can provide your Lordships with a clear picture of the Government's proposals before the transfer takes place.
Perhaps I may say how grateful I am to all noble Lords who have spoken on this Bill, but particularly to the noble Lords, Lord Judd, Lord Rea and Lord Redesdale, and also to my noble and loyal friends Lady Elles and Lord Oxfuird, who have taken the keenest interest in the provisions. AH have really sought to improve the Bill by means of probing amendments.
My colleagues and I will indeed bear their concerns very much in mind when deciding on the arrangements which will shape the future of the Crown Agents for many years to come. I am confident that the Crown Agents will have continuing success, which will be all the stronger for the interest and commitment which your Lordships have shown in the Crown Agents, not only during the passage of this Bill, but which they have demonstrated in debate after debate.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
Lord Judd: My Lords, perhaps I may start by making a small procedural observation. As I understand it, the theory is that Bills introduced first into this House are normally the less controversial ones. That must involve a certain amount of subjectivity of judgment. I am not altogether convinced as to how uncontroversial this Bill really was. I am also intrigued to know how that will be seen in history and in the light of experience.
The second point I must make is my appreciation of all those who have helped. I do not believe that they always get the public acknowledgment that they deserve. I put on record my appreciation to our own researchers in the opposition who, with incredibly limited resources, do such an extended and extraordinary job. On this particular occasion they have been valiantly and extensively assisted by Lewis Macdonald.
Perhaps I may also put on record my real appreciation to my noble friend Lord Rea who has brought not only his considerable experience to bear, but who has also brought

1523
a lightness of touch and a sense of humour which we should hear more of in our deliberations in this place. Perhaps I may also say how much I have enjoyed working with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I do not know what wider lessons are to be drawn from that, but on occasions it would not have been possible to get a thin sheet of paper between us in our concerns and outlook towards what was at stake in the Bill. That has been a good experience and I say thank you for that.
Of course, our thanks are also due to the Minister. She has been her usual friendly, disarming and courteous self. She has done her best to suggest that she actually believed in this Bill. I do not think that she convinced anybody on this side of the House that that was the case. It would have been an absolute denial of her common sense and pragmatism, but she loyally got on with the job in making the best of a difficult brief.
I suspect that the Minister agrees with us that it is an unnecessary Bill. She has referred to how overjoyed she was recently to talk to clients who were so well satisfied with the outstanding services which the Crown Agents had provided and how pleased they were. I noticed the emphasis she put on the word "foundation" which will be handling affairs in future. I congratulate the Minister on that. It is a rescue operation in which she seems to be very successfully engaged.
We still have not seen the memorandum setting out how the foundation will operate, so to that extent we are still being asked to buy a pig in a poke. There are comparisons with what was preoccupying the House yesterday in the Jobseekers Bill. What is really very worrying in this Bill, as in the Jobseekers Bill, is the whole range of issues on which the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has concentrated. This Bill says absolutely nothing in its text about how it will implement the intentions which the Minister has repeatedly put before the House. All that is left to delegated legislation, subject to the negative procedure. As was brought out in relation to the Jobseekers Bill yesterday, that disenfranchises this House because of the convention that, by the negative procedure, we cannot make a stand against the introduction of orders. I suggest that it is highly dubious in terms of the other place, because there all records show that it is virtually impossible to get a serious debate by that procedure.
This has been a skeleton Bill and we have been put in the position of being dependent on the Minister to provide what she says she is intent on delivering. In saying that, we recognise the tensions which must exist in the real world. In the past year or so we have seen the tensions between trade and development interests. It is possible for them powerfully to coincide, but it does not always happen. Like the Bill we were considering a moment ago, in this Bill we need reassurances that the Crown Agents will be able to deliver in terms of their primary objective of working within a framework of commitment to development.
I conclude on this note. I would be happier if, even at this eleventh hour, the Minister could give us an unqualified assurance—not just express an intention—that it is the Government's determination that the Crown Agents will, in perpetuity, remain subject to a non-profit-making
1524
foundation; that they will be dedicated to developing humanitarian priorities; that the title and all that is inherent in it will be protected; that they will have adequate financial resources for the task; and that the role of the staff and the excellent record of staff relations will be maintained. Such solemn undertakings from the Minister will do a great deal, I believe, to facilitate deliberations in the other place but, of course, it is essential that the memorandum should be available without delay so that we can know what it is that we are facilitating.
As I said on the earlier Bill, we are not considering watertight issues. We are considering issues that are part of the Government's overall strategy towards aid and development. This side of the House is faced with an extraordinary paradox. We respect the Minister and we believe in the Minister's commitment, but we see an aid budget which is falling as a percentage of GNP; we see an aid programme diverted increasingly to eastern Europe at the expense of the developing countries; and we see an aid programme which is subject to unwholesome pressures from those primarily concerned with trade at any price, irrespective of its implications for development.
In that context, I am sure that the Minister will understand why we want to see watertight reassurances that the intentions are not simply good intentions on her part, but something that can be guaranteed whoever may fill her post in the future. However, I thank the Minister for the way in which she has approached our deliberations. I personally always enjoy debating with her in your Lordships' Chamber.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, like all noble Lords, I thoroughly support the work of the Crown Agents. However, perhaps the best way that I can describe the Bill is to say that it is a bit like the spectral figure of the headless horseman which haunts the moors above Elsdon in Northumberland. Many people who have seen the spectral figure have been able to describe the horse. They have even been able to describe the body that is on the horse, but they have not been able to describe its head. We are left feeling slightly uneasy about the Bill because certain issues that need to be considered have not been covered.
The Minister has given us as much information as she can, but she has left out such issues as the corporate structure and the question of debt or equity. She has been unable to put flesh and blood into the Bill by putting the word "foundation" on the face of the Bill. Noble Lords on this side of the House believe that the Minister will achieve what she has set out to achieve in the Bill. If things happen in the way in which the Minister has suggested, I believe that we shall have a very valuable institution. However, I hope that some of the issues can be discussed further in another place.
6.15 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I have nothing but praise for my noble friend the Minister and I am amazed at how accessible she is. It does not matter where she is—Paris, Downing Street, or in her car—she always manages to keep in touch. We are exceedingly lucky.

1525
I have had some thoughts on the Bill and wonder whether we have asked ourselves the following questions, which I should like to put to the Minister: do members of the Treasury travel with my noble friend on some of the terrifying journeys that she undertakes? Do they share the dangers and the uncivilised circumstances that my noble friend has to put up with in her job? Have members of the Treasury ever been seconded to the Crown Agents to see how they work? When they have done all that, perhaps they might understand some of the important observations that have been made in your Lordships' House.
It is only by understanding to the fullest extent the problems of others that it is then possible to instigate the principles of total quality management. Surely the Bill has the objective of prevention, not detection. Until it is viewed in that light, the survival of the new Crown Agents must cause some concern to us all, particularly as regards their constitutional and financial position.
We must again consider the question of charitable status. I am concerned that all the potential good that is determined by the Bill's structure could be of no avail if charitable status were imposed on the Crown Agents. It must not be imposed. The lawyers are divided and the Charity Commissioners are against it. Charitable status must not be imposed.
We must now rely on another place to take up the battle. We must keep on keeping on to ensure that the Crown Agents are not left in a limbo of indecision. As so many have said, the Bill as it stands does not achieve its intentions for the Crown Agents. Indeed, it does not achieve the intentions of my noble friend as it stands at the moment; and it definitely does not appear to achieve the intentions of the majority of your Lordships.
We have but one opportunity left to us and I hope that when the Bill comes back we shall see some changes which I know that everybody will welcome. In the meantime, we can do nothing but wish the Crown Agents, who have become friends over these weeks, God speed.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend the Minister on having carried the Bill this far without altering a comma or full-stop. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, had a rather romantic vision of the Bill. I am afraid that I have a more housewifely image: it is like gruyere cheese, totally wholesome but full of holes. I believe that that description fits the Bill.
I should like to comment on two major points that have been made throughout the passage of the Bill and on which we might be able to conclude with some kind of agreement. I turn first to the foundation. My noble friend has given us considerable information about the foundation and we on this side of the House have no doubt whatsoever that her word will be kept and that what she has said will be implemented. Although to me it is perfectly anomalous that we should have spent so much time discussing the foundation without defining it in statute, I have no doubt that the foundation will be set up exactly as my noble friend told the House.
1526
We have been told that the setting up of the foundation is unique, so I wonder how we can sometimes be told that nobody will want to create a precedent. There is no precedent because, as we have been given to understand, the foundation is a unique creation.
I must say from this side of the House how much we all welcomed the idea of open government. Regrettably, I do not think that this is a good example of open government—after all, a foundation is being created, but we are not allowed to see that stated on the face of the Bill.
With regard to charitable status, I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will have received much legal advice on this point. I am sure that she will have wished for that famous one-armed barrister who cannot say, "On the one hand, it is this but, on the other hand, it is that". I am sure that my noble friend will wish that she had been given a satisfactory conclusion. As a modest barrister myself, I understand that there is absolutely no objection to whether the foundation is or is not granted charitable status. It is entirely a political decision. Presumably, the Treasury will decide whether the foundation is to be given charitable status. In my view, how that decision should be taken is not a legal matter.
The Government are seeking to retain some measure of control over the Crown Agents, presumably carrying on a "nanny" policy of passing it to the Charity Commissioners. That is surprising considering that the numerous privatisation measures which the Government have so far undertaken have proved to be a great success.
I should like to draw attention to the words of my noble friend the Minister when she said:
"Certainly the Government would intend to be a member of the foundation with power, for a limited time, to ensure that no substantial changes could be made in the objectives of the foundation without prior government agreement".—[Official Report. 28/2/95; col. 1442.]
The only purpose of granting the Crown Agents charitable status would be to protect the objectives, but that point is already covered for at least the next five years without the necessity of such status.
With the successful record of privatisation over the years I am surprised that the Government have not been able to see that the Crown Agents, who have performed magnificently over the past few years and about whose efficiency and effectiveness no one in the House has any doubt, should not have that measure of control held over their heads when they launch forth as a highly successful commercial and trading operation. I can only say in conclusion that I wish my noble friend well and thank her for her great contribution to the way the Bill has been handled in this House and hope that, when it is dealt with in another place, the comments made during the Bill's passage will be taken on board.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the general welcome they have given the Bill. I do not believe that it is as controversial as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, sought to make out. While I understand that he must oppose, it has been an interesting example of how the Liberal/Labour friendship pact is building up yet again.

1527
Many noble Lords who spoke in today's debate have made kind comments to me. It was not a case of making the best of a difficult brief. I can genuinely tell the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that. This is a good organisation which needs to be freed up, but freed up in such a way that it fulfils the important social and developmental objectives we all share. I must have given assurances about the Government's intentions so many times that the Hansard writers will be looking to see whether a comma or a dot in my assurances has been altered.
Unqualified assurances are never given by any government, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, knows well. I have thought back to some of the things he said many years ago, and I do not remember him ever giving an unqualified assurance. He will understand that I will not guarantee that, in a fast-changing world, the Crown Agents, or any other body, can be left unchanged in perpetuity. That is not the world in which the Crown Agents live, and it is certainly not the world in which people in developing countries live. Everyone has to earn their way. The Crown Agents must do so too. They must trade fairly and profitably. They will be controlled by members of the foundation.
The memorandum and articles of association will be produced as quickly as possible and without delay—whatever that means in the noble Lord's view. I do not intend to hang about with the matter, because this particular horseman is not headless. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, was looking for a head, but if the horse is the foundation, I am happy because that horse will have a head and a tail and all that is necessary that goes between the two.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, mentioned some of the debates we had previously. I do not want to repeat myself endlessly. Suffice to say that I should put on record that one of the reasons why the aid budget as a percentage of GNP is not increasing is that the GNP itself is going up, even though at the same time the volume of aid is gradually increasing. It may not be by as much as he and I would like, but that is happening.
I turn now to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, my noble friend Lady Elles, and other noble Lords, about the foundation being on the face of the Bill. Anyone who has followed our proceedings knows that we intend the eventual owner of the Crown Agents in the private sector to be an independent foundation. There is no doubt about it. It is unnecessary for the foundation to be on the face of the Bill, as I have said so many times.
Lord Judd: My Lords—
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is only going to ask me a question that he has already asked five times at each stage of the Bill. It would be unprecedented to put the foundation on the face of the Bill, and that is why I have not been seduced into agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. She suggests that I was being unreasonable in the number of assurances I sought and for seeking to discover length of operation covered by
1528
those assurances. For the sake of the record, will she please repeat that she is giving us an assurance that it will be a foundation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, yet again, I give an assurance that this foundation will be a company limited by guarantee whose social and developmental objectives will be defined clearly in the memorandum and articles of association which I shall forward to the noble Lord as soon as they are finished. It will not distribute dividends to its members; it will be the sole owner of the operating company whose profits it will use in pursuit of its developmental objectives. I do not believe that I can be clearer than that.
I can understand why my noble friend Lady Elles described the Bill as a Gruyère cheese, but, of course, it is a very special cheese—for a very special organisation and a unique foundation. I hope that in its future life the Crown Agents will be an example to other bodies of how such an organisation can operate with those social and developmental objectives about which we have all talked.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, tried to draw me down the path of a debate which was held in your Lordships' House yesterday. That is another issue upon which we have debated, and I explained, I think in Committee, why the affirmative resolution procedure would be inappropriate. I shall not go through all those debates again.
There are other concerns which my noble friends Lord Oxfuird and Lady Elles expressed again tonight. They relate to charitable status. While charitable status remains an option for a structure which will enable the foundation to fulfil its social and developmental objectives, the Crown Agents must be enabled to operate and trade commercially through the operating company.
I know that for some, charitable status has attractions, including oversight of the trustees by the Charity Commissioners, but I noted that my noble friend Lord Oxfuird said that the Charity Commissioners would be against it. There is, as my noble friend Lady Elles said, a divergence of views among lawyers. She went on to say that this was not a lawyer's but a political decision, and she is right.
There is another aspect though that I would ask my noble friend to consider. It is that prospective members of the foundation will have their own views, and those views should also be taken into account before a final decision on charitable status is made.
We have had good debates about an important organisation which is respected by all and which has gone from strength to strength over recent years. It is important that it is enabled to have the right structure for the years ahead so that it may be further strengthened to help all those aspects of development which are so dear to your Lordships' House. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Hallmarking
6.30 p.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Slynn of Hadley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the Second Report of the European Communities Committee on the Hallmarking of Precious Metals (HL Paper 7), recent negotiations on the directive in the Council suggest that sufficient consideration has been paid to the consumer interest.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in this country, at any rate since the reign of Edward I, the importance of protecting purchasers of gold and silver products has been recognised.
"All that glisters is not gold,
"Often have you heard that told",
may only have been written some 300 years later, but it explains why the Goldsmiths Company at its hall, and subsequently for six centuries in total, other assay offices throughout the country have been astute to verify that gold and silver objects were up to the standards required.
The presence of the hallmark has been an assurance of that standard. Since 1973 the Hallmarking Act, which gives effect to the 1972 Vienna Convention on the control and marking of articles of precious metal, has laid down rules requiring the presence of certain marks on gold and silver objects. Your Lordships are very familiar with those marks and therefore I do not need to identify them.
Other member states of the European Union have different rules. Largely they are strict rules which seek to provide adequate protection for customers. But they vary in their certification procedure, in their standards of fineness and in their inspection procedures. It is with the certification procedure that my Question is firstly concerned.
Some states have, as we and France have, a system of compulsory marking by a third party. Others such as Belgium provide that there is an option to have gold and silver products marked by an independent party. Yet others permit marking by the manufacturers, as does Germany.
It is generally accepted that in an internal market these different practices and procedures are capable of providing a barrier to the free movement of goods. They are barriers to the traders and to the would-be purchasers of the goods. There is widespread, if not universal, support for the view that the harmonisation of these procedures in the member states would help to remove those difficulties and barriers and that a directive is the best way to achieve that.
The question, however, is: what is the best method to adopt and how much discretion should be given to manufacturers, to sponsors, in the various member states which is consistent with—that is the important point—adequate protection of the customer? The Commission produced a draft directive initially putting forward three options for manufacturers and importers to adopt. I mention that because it is necessary to understand why the matter has become of importance. The first is that manufacturers should set up a quality inspection system which would have to be approved by a certification body.
Their systems would be subject to regular inspection by the certification body and they would put their mark and the fineness mark on their products.
The second proposed method is that the manufacturer should strike the mark on the gold and silver objects once his protection methods have been accepted as achieving the requirements of the directive. He would not have to allow regular inspections. There would be only random inspections by a certification body and he would only have to produce records to show that his methods complied with the directive.
The third proposed method is that the manufacturer should be able to submit to an independent body every one of his products for testing, or he might supply a percentage of those products on a statistical basis. He would put on his manufacturer's, or his sponsor's, mark. The body carrying out the checks would put on the fineness mark. Your Lordships will readily recognise that the third option comes closest to the assay system which we have known for so long in this country.
The Select Committee, which looked at the directive, reminded itself that under the Treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty, measures of approximation of national legislation must contribute to:
"the attainment of a high level of consumer protection".
The Commission appears to be proceeding on the basis that the three options give the same degree of protection. The Select Committee reached the opposite view; it does not consider that the three methods give the same degree of protection. It is satisfied that the verification by an independent body—by an assay office or a similar body— gives a higher degree of protection.
It is important that any directive which is adopted by the Community should not require the abandonment by any member state of its existing high standards of consumer protection. Secondly, it should require throughout the Community a sufficiently high degree of protection to the purchasers and dealers in gold and silver products and, of course, products in other precious metals.
The second proposal that I have described, which is known as Annex IV, plainly is not the equivalent of the hallmarking system or of a system of independent checks. Like the European Parliament Committee on Consumer Protection, the Select Committee recommended that that should be deleted from the directive as an option.
The first proposal chronologically, Annex III, gives more protection in that the quality control system envisaged requires prior approval and is subject to regular inspection. However, the Select Committee believes that it is essential that there should be added protection if the mark of the notified body, the supervising body, were also struck by the manufacturer. That is objected to on the basis that it would reveal the national origin of the goods. We consider that when dealing with articles of precious metal that is wholly justified.
Furthermore, we believe that it is essential that the supervisory body, called the notified body, should be subject to approval or accreditation and that that should be provided for in the directive. It is possible that a system of mutual recognition can be set up as an alternative. However, the Select Committee believes—and it is

1531
almost incontrovertible—that if that were done a plethora of questions would be raised as to the marks and the fineness standards.
Negotiations have been proceeding since the directive was first published. Members of the Select Committee and I are extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his replies to our report and our recommendations and for the way in which he has kept us informed. The matter is of great concern to manufacturers and traders in gold and silver products as well as to those who purchase them. The need for their protection is paramount and I have tabled this Question this evening in order that the House may be informed of the developments in relation to those negotiations and as to the success of attempts to ensure adequate customer protection.
6.40 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, for initiating this important debate. I would also like to congratulate Sub-committee E of the European Communities Select Committee, which he chairs, for producing such an excellent report on the hallmarking of precious metals, which has helped to cast light onto some extremely complex and seemingly controversial issues.
Before I start my remarks I should declare an interest in that I hosted last year a reception for the British jewellery industry to mark the centenary of the National Association of Goldsmiths. I do not, however, hold any brief for the jewellery industry nor do I receive any remuneration from it. This happens to be a trade and industry subject in which I have an interest.
Noble Lords who have read the evidence submitted to the sub-committee will have noted a divergence in the views of the assay offices and the jewellery industry representatives. It is in support of the viewpoint of the industry that I should like to speak tonight, though I shall confine my remarks primarily to the issue of consumer protection, which is the subject of the noble and learned Lord's Question.
The whole matter of hallmarking was considered in great detail in the Stone Report that was published in 1959 at a time when serious consideration was given to abolition of statutory hallmarking, leaving the consumer to rely, as is normal for most consumer products, on existing trade descriptions legislation. At that time the jewellery industry in the United Kingdom strongly supported the assay offices in their fight for the retention of statutory hallmarking, which led to the Hallmarking Act 1973 and the establishment in 1974 of the British Hallmarking Council.
So what has happened to cause the industry to change its position? There are three main reasons. The first is the creation since then of our single European market and the need arising from that to harmonise all such legislation on a European-wide basis.
The second is a realisation that came about during the Thatcher years that it is wrong to protect manufacturing industry in the UK behind artificial trade barriers and it
1532
must be recognised that the British compulsory hallmarking system does impose a very real barrier to trade. It is greatly to the credit of the jewellery manufacturers in this country that they reject such featherbedding.
The final reason is a series of European Court of Justice judgments, most recently the Houtwipper judgment of 15th September 1994, which have put United Kingdom legislation out of line with European legislation. That has led to great confusion for jewellery retailers and consumers since the law is no longer clear. It has also placed the regulatory authorities in an almost impossible position.
I should like to quote from two paragraphs of advice given by the trading standards body, LACOTS, on 20th October 1994:
"Authorities will therefore need to have mind to the decision in Houtwipper when exercising their enforcement responsibilities under the 1973 Act. In particular, authorities will need to be aware that articles imported from other member states may be put straight onto the market without re-marking if they have been equivalently marked by an independent body in the originating member state. Obviously it will be for the courts to decide what constitutes an equivalent mark.
LACOTS believes that the current absence of any definition as to the equivalence of different marking arrangements is likely to complicate the enforcement task."
When the law is unclear, and the enforcement task is therefore difficult, the consumer is at risk. The Houtwipper judgment probably means, subject to a ruling from our courts, that goods marked in EU states with an established statutory hallmarking system—that is, France, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Austria and Finland—or that have been marked by a third party in states with a voluntary hallmarking system—that is, Sweden, Belgium and Denmark—can now be sold legally in the UK.
For the consumer that presents great difficulty. Pre-Houtwipper it was possible to explain our hallmarking regime as defined by the 1973 Act on a single A4-sized notice that is displayed by law in every retail outlet. Now the consumer is potentially faced with literally hundreds of different marks—all of them apparently legal—for which there is no single reference work. Indeed, one needs a small library of reference works, many of them very difficult to obtain, to begin to get a clear picture.
Under those circumstances the possibility of fraud is very greatly increased and that concerns established jewellery retailers very much because it might bring their whole trade into disrepute.
Those who argue for the retention of compulsory hallmarking only, as some noble Lords may do this evening, claim that they do so to protect the consumer but, as I hope I have demonstrated already, our law has now become so confused that just preserving the status quo actually leaves the consumer at risk.
The United Kingdom jewellery industry has come to the view that the only way forward is to seek a European directive on precious metal marking as quickly as possible and its case was argued very strongly in a letter from the chief executives of the British Jewellers' Association and the National Association of Goldsmiths that was published in The Times on 30th March.

1533
Work has been proceeding in Brussels and in the European Parliament for three or four years now to find a directive acceptable to all EU member states. Much of that work was considered at a key meeting of the Council of Consumer Affairs Ministers on 30th March where the United Kingdom was represented by my noble friend the Minister. At that meeting a text was considered which represented a great deal of work that had been undertaken by the current French EU Presidency, the Commission and others.
One of the main areas within the proposed directive which is proving difficult is the question of manufacturers' marking. That is the system employed in the home markets of Europe's two largest jewellery manufacturers—Italy and Germany. Already the Germans and Italians have conceded that manufacturers' marking with no intervention by a third party—the system which they currently utilise in their home markets—will be outlawed under the directive since manufacturers' marking would be regulated by notified bodies appointed by the EU governments. The debate is now centred around the wording of the directive annex that defines the degree of notified body regulation. Of course, the text that was considered on 30th March was a compromise text which gave nobody everything that they wanted.
I believe, however, that the text that was put forward was probably more favourable to the United Kingdom than to any other member state of the Union because it allowed us to retain our traditional hallmarks under a voluntary rather than a compulsory regime so the traditional marks that we have grown to know and love for upwards of 700 years would not disappear; it allowed us to retain all of our traditional finenesses with the exception of Britannia silver, which is hardly used today; and it proposed a regime of notified body regulation so that unrestricted manufacturers' marking would not have been possible.
I realise that my noble friend the Minister is in the middle of a series of extremely difficult and complex negotiations with our European partners and I do not wish to say anything this evening that will make his task more difficult. Indeed, I should like to congratulate him on the progress that he and his predecessors have already made in negotiating a draft that takes into account many of the issues that troubled us in the United Kingdom when the first Commission draft was published in 1993.
In conclusion, however, I urge the Minister not to hold out for too long and to suggest to him that, by accepting a form of wording for the directive broadly similar to that which was tabled on 30th March, he will have done consumers in this country a great service since he will have removed a major area of confusion which at this very moment is putting their interests at risk.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Broadbridge: My Lords, tonight's debate is very timely coming so soon after the visit of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to Europe on 30th March. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, for introducing the debate. I also congratulate him as chairman, together with his colleagues, on an excellent and explanatory Select Committee report on hallmarking published last January.
1534
I declare an interest in that I am an amateur silversmith and have had a hallmark registered at the London Assay Office for some 20 years. I am a Liveryman of the Goldsmiths Company (whose Clerk tells me that he is gratified by the firm line taken in Europe by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, after our visit to him at the DTI), and I collect early English spoons on a modest budget.
Hallmarking has been with us in this country since, as we have heard, 1300 when a statute passed by Edward I required that all silver articles were to be of the sterling standard, the same as the coinage, but also that they were to be assayed or tested by the wardens of the Goldsmiths Guild, as it then was, and marked with a leopard's head before they left the hands of the workers. Further, gold articles were to be 19 and one-fifth carats. That was 695 years ago, and assaying and hallmarking have continued here ever since.
As a general principle, it is surely with some trepidation that hallowed practices should be abandoned and then only if they do not meet present requirements. Hallmarking's primary purpose, as we have heard, is to protect the consumer interest, and surely the present is the very age of consumer protection—a time when every-day labelling is becoming more informative. Indeed, in the retail grocery market, manufacturers and own labels are falling over each other to try to give the most information. Last month the Co-operative Society announced a radical advance with an intention to give environment information too. How perverse it would be, therefore, to abandon a 695 year-old hallmarking system which does just that. Not only does it protect the consumer interest, but it serves the interest of the trade itself as it creates a favourable image and shields the honest manufacturer from unfair practice by less scrupulous competitors, both at home and from overseas imports.
A hallmark is a complete fingerprint. In 1300 the place of assay mark was first made with the leopard's head. In 1363, distinctive and registered makers' marks were added. In 1478 a date letter, changed annually, was added. Finally, in 1544, a sterling mark of quality was added: a lion passant, but rampant for the Edinburgh Assay Office. Thus in that year of 1544, 451 years ago, the four distinctive marks of the fingerprint were in place—town, maker, standard of metal and date.
In general terms there are, as we know, three possible options as a starting point for a draft EC directive, although things have changed a little, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, said. First, the marking of articles by the manufacturer; secondly, testing and marking by an independent laboratory—the equivalent of a state assay office; and, thirdly, marking by the manufacturer following testing or quality control surveillance by an independent laboratory. Of these, only the second option fully accords with the UK criteria for hallmarking; that is, compulsory independent testing and marking.
I believe that in general there are two principal criteria for consumer protection: a statement of what the article consists of and a statement of who made it. Applied to precious metals—that is, gold, silver and platinum—and the consumer interest, I believe that there are two essential aspects to the marking of those metals; first, what the marks are and, secondly, who puts them on and under

1535
what conditions. I start first with what the marks are. To my mind, our present system in this country is ideal. It lacks nothing and nothing could reasonably be added that would be beneficial. But a number of EC countries do not mark precious metals nearly so informatively. I would argue to the Government, who seem to be sympathetic, that anything less than our full set of four marks would be to the detriment of the protection of the public and the trade.
It is one of those curious accidents of fate that a system started as long ago as post-medieval times is nonetheless ideally suited to modern times and the requirements that a manufactured article should clearly state what it is made of, who made it, and where and when. Anything less is partial and, for all practical purposes, ranges between the flawed and the totally inadequate. I urge Her Majesty's Government to strive to continue the complete fingerprint which historically has been, and continues to be, the glory of English silver and gold and, more recently, of platinum.
My other concern is who does the marking. The alternatives are an independent authority as in this country, at present in London, Birmingham, Sheffield and Edinburgh, or by the manufacturer. It is to me regrettable that in a number of EC countries, such as Italy and Germany, the maker also does the marking. Human nature does not change, and very large sums of money are involved. I take just one element of the total market to illustrate the point. If the, say, 30 million adults in this country buy the customary gold ring for the man and an engagement and wedding ring for the lady, spending, say, £300 between them, that represents £9 billion over about 50 years, or £180 million a year.
To put that into context, I wish to speak of baked beans. At my local supermarket, the current price of a standard-sized tin of baked beans is 24 pence. So that expenditure is equivalent to 750 million tins. If just 1 per cent. of those were substandard—an approximation to the Assay Office experience, coming mainly from imported goods—that would amount to 7,500,000 tins and give rise to a very great commotion, or what the French in an admirable word call "brouhaha".
As I was saying, with the marking of precious metals very large sums of money are involved. That is endorsed by the fact that, today, counterfeiting or transposing a hallmark carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. The penalty for infringement of the laws of hallmarking has always been severe. At one period in the 18th century, the death penalty could be invoked for forgery, although the pillory combined with the severing of ears was more common. My point is that if makers have been prepared to take great risks in the past, surely in an unregulated market they will do so now in view of the sums of money involved.
Moreover, marking one's own production is to me an unregulated market. For example, if one of your Lordships buys a fairly heavy signet ring for £200 in the belief that it is 18-carat gold and it is in fact only 9 carat, then he has only half the gold that he expected. He has been swindled out of approximately £100 and an unscrupulous maker has pocketed it. But how many of us by simple inspection could tell 18 carat from 9 carat? Ah, but there are watchdogs, some of us may feel. Yes,
1536
indeed; but, first, the London Assay Office alone has handled around 50,000 items a day. Secondly, such consumer watchdogs are hardly geared to the examination of precious metals, an extremely exacting art developed over centuries. For example, the Consumers' Association laboratories may be well equipped to examine a tin of a baked beans or the fireproofness of a sofa. But are they really likely to be prepared to equip themselves with furnaces and crucibles and, more important, the skills to use them correctly? I am sure that they are not.
I deprecate maker marking even with independent quality control surveillance because I believe that, in the real world, some people are always prepared to take risks to make money at the expense of the public where large sums are involved and the public are unable to judge the quality of what they are being offered. That is the observed position throughout history and, surely, the present-day City financial pages, and others, almost daily attest to the fact that human weakness continues.
In conclusion, therefore, I once again urge Her Majesty's Government to maintain our present practice of independent Assay Office testing and marking the quality of precious metals offered for sale rather than the various alternatives. The latter is to offer temptation to the unscrupulous, and offering temptation is bad law.
7 p.m.
Lord Lawrence: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, for asking this Question, and for producing this report with his committee as it enables me to sing the praises of the Assay Office. I have a slight interest to declare because I particularly like early metal and also antique base metal. I possess a passing interest in hallmarks. It is always fascinating to look at a hallmark and to discern the year an article was made, its town of origin and possibly its maker.
However, the most important mark on the hallmark is the standard. Britain has produced a long tradition of absolutely marvellous quality control with silver, gold and precious metals. In Europe other countries with a high standard are Ireland, Holland and France. France has a hallmarking system that has been going even longer than the British one. Although the French have impossible hallmarks, they have a system of producing fine metal. Portugal, Spain, Italy and Germany are traditionally much less careful with their metal control. They have a city state tradition and guilds which were started comparatively early on but which have not been running for a continuous period of time. Augsburg is a good example in Germany where the craftsmen displayed craftsmanship of superior quality. The masterpieces which they presented to the guild to become a master were absolutely terrific but their quality control in the metals was doubtful. There has been a long tradition in this area of wonderful craftsmanship but not terribly good quality control of the metals used. Perhaps that has something to do with the attitude of Germany today as regards wanting to produce peculiar metal standards but marvellous workmanship.
The English guilds have, on the other hand, had a tradition whereby the master works presented to become a guild member were not necessarily as beautiful and wonderful as those produced in Augsburg, but they were

1537
always of the highest possible standard. I hope that the ability to take articles to an independent body to be marked and assessed will continue. There seems to be a fraught effort to try to organise inspection of factories and places of manufacture. That process seems to be incapable of monitoring factory outputs at all times.
I am afraid that previous speakers have already said most of the comments that I wish to make. However, after 700 years of a guild that became the Assay Office and which has produced a high standard of work in this country, I hope very much that that will be allowed to continue for many years to come.
7.3 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I wish to congratulate the noble and learned Lord on his clear introduction to his Question and indeed on the quality of the report of his committee. I cannot claim to match the expertise that has already been shown in this debate. This is rather a sensitive issue for me in that I have had two burglaries and have lost almost all of the little that remained of my family's silver, some of which went back a considerable time. I was, however, left, to my relief, with four rather attractive wall sconces of the 18th century.
It was rather a case of shutting the door after the horse had bolted but I went to have them valued for insurance purposes. To my surprise they were valued rather low. The jeweller who did the valuation told me that they should not be offered for sale because they had not been assayed. What had apparently happened was that silver plates in the family had been given to a local jeweller who had made them into attractive wall sconces. Without the assay mark it is illegal to offer those pieces for sale. The jeweller told me that if I wished to sell them I would, of course, have to submit them to the Assay Office and that would be a long, involved and perhaps costly business. I had no intention of selling them so I returned them to where they now hang on the wall. I hope that the next burglars who come to my home do not take them. Whether the previous burglars left them because they were so expert that they knew they could not sell them, or whether they were just hung rather high on the wall, I do not know. But let us hope the burglars do not read Hansard.
I have some familiarity with the markings on precious metals. As a young man I was able to supplement a meagre income working in a publisher's office. Someone who was an old soldier in the field of heraldry told me that there was a good way of finding out how pieces of silver had originated, whether they had been given as wedding presents and at what time. I learnt how to use the books on heraldry in the British Museum library. That, together with a basic knowledge of hallmarking, enabled me to offer a service to jewellers. I offered a service for £20 a time and that covered one page of information in small print. Provided there was some crest or armorial bearings on the piece of silver and a hallmark that I could read, I was able to tell a jeweller pretty accurately the occasion on which that piece of silver had been given, whether it was given as a wedding present, a christening present or
1538
whatever. The fact that I was given £20 in the late 1950s for such work suggests to me that the information I provided added significantly to the value of the items.
But, to return to the subject that we are discussing this evening, the draft directive is, quite understandably, an attempt to harmonise trade in this area and to reduce the barriers to trade in precious metals. The European Commission has produced three options which were so well described by the noble and learned Lord, but none of them is satisfactory. I think that noble Lords have been very kind in their remarks. None of the options suggested reaches, in any measure, the high level of protection for consumers that we already have. Perhaps the European Commission considers that that protection is too high. The noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, highlighted the fact that no protection is too high in the area of precious metals, and I agree with that. There is too much opportunity for dishonesty and fraud. As the noble Lord so rightly pointed out, we have developed over 700 years a system which is demonstrably the best in protecting consumers against receiving short measure in this area of trade.
I am sure that the noble Earl will be able to reply to this Question to our satisfaction. I know that he has put a lot of work into it. Perhaps he will be able to reassure us as regards the future of the attractive lion passant which appears on sterling silver. I understand that that is under some threat if the European Commission's intentions are taken to the extremes that we fear. The marks which appear on antique silver particularly and antique gold items are not merely fingerprints—as I believe other noble Lords have said—but are extremely attractive. They have heritage value. I say that as heritage spokesman on these Benches. They add interest and value to these items.
The Vienna Convention of 1975, which has been signed by about 10 countries, has worked satisfactorily with agreement on equivalent standards. However, the European Commission has not recognised that fact.
This has been a most informative and expert debate. The report itself will become a classic of its kind. I have not read all of it in detail, but I was greatly impressed by those parts that I have read. I expect that it will become standard reading for students of antique silver, gold and other metals.
I look forward to the noble Earl's reply. Speaking personally, even if I do not speak entirely for colleagues on these Benches, I hope that we shall be able to retain our distinctive, valued and attractive hallmarking system, at least for the foreseeable future and perhaps for much longer than that.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, for asking this Unstarred Question. I join with other noble Lords in congratulating him on the excellent report of his committee.

1539
My interest in this subject is not of long standing. It started with a Question which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, asked on 3rd March 1994. She asked what was happening. To quote my own words—if that is in order —I said then:
"I am stupefied by the suggestion of a desire for some form of harmonisation. Does the Minister not recognise that we have an extremely satisfactory system of hallmarking in this country which protects the consumer?"—[Official Report, 3/3/94; col. 1127.]
I understood from the Minister's reply that that was also his view. If I read paragraph 23 of the Select Committee's report correctly, that is also the DTI's view. This is a rare occasion on which I wish strongly to support the view of the Minister's department. As I understand it, the department is not convinced of the need for a directive. That is still my view. As noble Lords know, I speak as a very ardent pro-European.
I do not accept—and I was surprised that the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, accepted—that our high standards of hallmarking are a barrier to trade. I have spent most of my academic life studying the economics of free trade and sometimes the flaws associated with it. However, the notion that a country setting a high standard of consumer protection is acting in restraint of trade is simply ridiculous. It is wrong. I normally agree with most of what the noble Viscount says on most subjects, but I was surprised that he said that our system led to featherbedding. I do not accept that for one moment. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, was right when he said that it led to high standards and consumer protection. Indeed, the noble Viscount himself made the valid argument, which I believe to be overwhelmingly correct, that if we go down the path the Community wants, that will lead to a state of affairs which is so complex that the consumer will cease to be protected.
If it were up to me, I would maintain the status quo. I would do so on the grounds of good free trade and good consumer protection. However, if I read the Select Committee's report correctly, we shall not be allowed to keep the status quo. The Select Committee recommends:
"continued efforts to negotiate an acceptable Directive with a really effective method of control so as to protect the consumer".
I accept that, and I would welcome it if I thought it were possible. However, I do not believe that it is possible. Therefore, although I do not want anything that I say to be interpreted as remotely undermining the very hard task facing the Minister, I believe that it is all a waste of time. If I had my way we would simply retain the present system, which is of long standing and offers protection to consumers in our country.
I pay tribute to the work of the local authority trading standard officers who enforce the hallmarking legislation. Their work is supported by the technical and analytical expertise of the assay offices. That is allied to point-of-sale information available to the consumer. In other words, in terms of consumer protection, what we have is what we want and what we need.
The problem for the Minister—and this is why I look forward to his reply—is whether, in negotiating with his colleagues, he can find an approach which does not water
1540
down the system we have and which does not lead to an outcome which is so complicated that the consumer ends up with a worse state of affairs than we started with.
As I understand it, there is still everything to play for. I ask the Minister whether I am right that there is everything to play for and that we have so far made no concessions. If that is true, I urge him, first, not to make any concessions; and, secondly, to prolong the process as long as he possibly can. Prolonging the process indefinitely would be the best way of approaching the matter.
Harmonisation is desirable in many areas. However, a form of madness is overwhelming the Community so that harmonisation has to be achieved in everything. Free trade is prayed in aid, as if it were the same as harmonisation. As an academic economist, I can assure your Lordships that it is not.
We should not be bewitched by the desire for harmonisation. For once, we ought to argue strongly that consumer protection in this area is paramount. Protection against fraud is of the greatest importance. The British system is precisely the one which achieves those desirable ends.
7.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, for asking this Question this evening. I know how much our hallmarking regime is valued by people in this country. I share that respect for the system.
The House will also be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having chaired, with his legendary clarity and competence, the Select Committee which considered the handling of precious metals and which produced such a valuable report. As the noble Viscount said, it will-be a classic. He is right.
The noble and learned Lord explained the position concerning hallmarking admirably. An interesting aspect of your Lordships' House is that there is always someone who is an expert. We have heard from several experts this evening. I knew that it was not unknown for some Members of your Lordships' House to own a bit of gold or a bit of silver. I knew that it was not unknown for some of your Lordships to know a bit about gold or silver. However, until the noble Lord, Lord Broadbridge, spoke, I did not know that we had a practising silversmith in your Lordships' House. That is an added advantage. The noble Lord is lucky to be a member of such a distinguished livery company as the Goldsmiths Company. I was fascinated that in his advocacy of the hallmarking of gold and silver he should enter into the realm of baked beans. It was rather difficult to understand the analogy, although I realise that it was an imaginative way of making a point.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, in his usual succinct way, said that the whole thing was a waste of time. I thought that that was a little—not facile—perhaps simple. I do not mean that the noble Lord is simple, merely that his argument was simple. He asked whether there was everything to play for. The answer is that there is. He asked whether any concessions were made. The answer is no. The position is that the directive has been taken away and is being considered by the Commission, as a result of

1541
the discussion which was held in March. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, in his curiously avant-garde way, "Let's take it away for ever and not see it again". Life is not as simple as that, as I hope to show him.
The marking of articles which are made from precious metals, in order to indicate their precious metal content and who made them, is one of the oldest forms of consumer protection we have. A number of noble Lords said that the tradition had been practised in the United Kingdom for 700 years, going back to the reign of Edward I. Your Lordships' Select Committee put it succinctly, stating that the purpose was,
"in order to discourage goldsmiths from deceiving the public".
So they did pretty funny things in those days too.
A number of other European member states also enjoy a long-established tradition of independent hallmarking. Other member states have equally long traditions but ones which are totally different from ours where the manufacturer marks his own products. The two traditions are in fact diametrically opposed. One is hallmarking carried out independently of the manufacturer and the other is marking by the manufacturer himself. The proposed directive seeks to find a way of accommodating those extremes. Even if it did not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Peston, it would satisfy the jewellery industry about which my noble friend Lord Oxfuird was concerned and to which he rightly drew your Lordships' attention. Trying to accommodate those extremes is not easy. We can accept and, indeed, prefer independent hallmarking. We can accept manufacturers' marking provided that the process used has been assessed and has been approved by an independent body and provided that the process is subject to regular inspections. What we cannot accept is marking by the manufacturer without any prior approval by an independent third party of the methods which he uses and where the process is subject only to random inspection.
The difficulty arises in Europe because those countries which have traditionally had a manufacturers' system of marking with which they are content view the imposition of the approval of their methods by an outside certifying body as an appalling and additional bureaucratic burden. They will have to create, in their view, a new tier in their states.
We are always saying that we want less bureaucracy in Europe. Oddly enough, they say exactly the same. But we are the ones who, in their eyes, are pushing for more bureaucracy in their states. That is the difficulty. United Kingdom marks are known the world over and they are universally regarded as marks of excellence. Assay Office marks—the leopard's head for London, the anchor for Birmingham, the rose for Sheffield and the castle for Edinburgh—are held in considerable affection and esteem. They impart their own cachet to a particular article which has been made from a precious metal.
I believe that I can satisfy the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that the lion passant would be allowed to continue as the directive allows for traditional marks as long as they do not confuse. United Kingdom hallmarking requirements are governed by the provisions of the Hallmarking Act 1973. Under that Act no article may be offered for sale in the United Kingdom which is described as gold, silver or platinum unless it bears an approved
1542
hallmark. That means a mark which is struck by one of the four United Kingdom assay offices; a mark which was struck in Dublin before 1st April, 1923; or a mark which is struck in accordance with the provisions of the International Hallmarking Convention. That convention provides a mutual recognition of marks which is based on rigorous criteria, such as methods of marking and assaying. But not all European Union member states are party to the International Hallmarking Convention.
There are three approved hallmarks. They are the Assay Office mark; the standard of fineness mark; and a date letter. There are four recognised standards for gold, two for silver and one for platinum. In addition, all articles must bear a sponsor's mark. This will indicate who is the manufacturer or the sponsor—for example, the importer. The sponsor's mark may be struck either by the sponsor or by the Assay Office. The sponsor's mark must in any event be registered with the Assay Office.
The draft European Union directive seeks to harmonise the arrangements in the various member states for marking precious metal articles. It is an Article 100a directive, which is about the free movement of goods between member states. It does not invoke Article 129a of the Treaty of Rome, which is all about consumer protection. That is important and it is the reason we think that the directive is fundamentally flawed.
My noble friend Lord Oxfuird said that hallmarking was a barrier to trade. That is a perfectly tenable argument, but the European Court has recognised that barriers to trade can be justified in the interests of consumer protection. Recently, there was a celebrated case to which my noble friend referred—the Houtwipper case—which involved a Dutch trader who attempted to sell unmarked silver articles which had been imported from another member state in contravention of Dutch hallmarking law. In its judgment, the European Court of Justice said that the marking or re-marking of such articles by the importing member state was not contrary to Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome. It also said that member states which themselves practised independent marking were obliged to accept, without marking or re-marking, articles which had been marked on a similar basis in another member state. That was an important judgment.
The proposed draft directive is what is called a "new approach" directive. This form of directive has been applied to products such as toys and weighing machinery. We do not think that the new approach directive is suitable in the case of precious metal articles. We are not concerned here with whether an article meets established standards such as standards of safety with a notified body which acts as the supervisory authority. What matters in the hallmarking issue is, first, that the article should be of the quality which is ascribed to it; and, secondly, that the consumer receives a watertight guarantee of that quality.
The Government cannot accept that self-certification by manufacturers would offer United Kingdom consumers an adequate level of guarantee. It would lack the imprimatur of an independent body behind it. It would be seen by United Kingdom consumers as a backward step and a marked lowering of standards and of consumer protection. It is for those reasons that the Government rejected the current draft of the directive at the Consumer Council on 30th March. Subsequent correspondence

1543
which has, curiously enough, found its way into my office has confirmed that the public on the whole believe that it was the right thing to do.
The noble and learned Lord's committee has produced a thorough scrutiny of the European Commission's proposal. I wish to offer the Government's thanks to the noble and learned Lord and his committee for having done that in a remarkable way. It was a most welcome contribution to the debate on an important subject. It was particularly helpful that it provided valuable support for the Government's negotiating position. I have already made a response to the noble and learned Lord's report, but there are just two points which I wish to highlight. First, there is the need for a directive which provides "a really effective system of consumer protection". The Government are determined to argue vigorously for that and we will not approve measures which compromise the high standards which are present in the United Kingdom.
The second point is related to that and concerns the question of the alternative manufacturer marking system—the system which is approved by and regularly inspected by an outside body. That system is incorporated in the directive and is based on product quality assurance. That is a matter which we would be prepared to consider further, especially if it were to include the stamping of the mark of the notified body on the metal and if there were to be established criteria for the assessment of notified bodies.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, that a mark by a notified body would add to transparency and would make it easier to trace articles. Unfortunately—it is a regrettable factor—this option does not seem to command much support among those member states which already practise manufacturers' marking.
1544
The Government's position on the directive is not totally negative. For example, there are advantages in harmonising the standards of fineness used throughout Europe. That was one of the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord's committee.
I was glad, if I may say so, that my noble friend Lord Oxfuird put the position of the jewellery industry so clearly. We understand the desire of the British jewellery industry to enjoy the clarity which harmonisation would bring whereby jewellery imported from another member state does not have to be subject to a further test. Without harmonisation—it is a point the noble Lord, Lord Peston, may like to consider—there is always the danger, as my noble friend said, of confusion as to what does and does not need to be hallmarked as well as to what different hallmarks mean. There is advantage for harmonisation provided that the harmonisation does not lower the quality of the consumer protection.
At present, under United Kingdom law, unless jewellery which is imported from member states carries the mark of the International Hallmarking Convention, it has to be subjected to further certification before it can be sold in United Kingdom shops. The judgment of the European Court in the Houtwipper case will mean that jewellery imported from member states which have an independent hallmarking system can now be sold without additional certification. Jewellery which is imported from other member states must continue to be subject to further certification by a United Kingdom assay office. That is obviously untidy; some might think it wrong. The difficulty arises in trying to find a fair and equitable solution. In the Government's view the protection of the consumer must remain the prime concern. We do not believe that the directive, as currently drafted, addresses that concern adequately. We will not agree to any directive which falls short of that important principle.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eight o'clock.

  "Remedying Environmental Damage": Government Response
  "Remedying Environmental Damage": Government Response
  Court Users: Survey Report
  Court Users: Survey Report
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Fetus: Sensory Development
  Fetus: Sensory Development
  Manufacturing Industries: Employees
  Manufacturing Industries: Employees
  Travel and Tourism: Employees
  Travel and Tourism: Employees
  Civil Service and Armed Forces: Relaxation of Entry Requirements
  Civil Service and Armed Forces: Relaxation of Entry Requirements
  Organophosphate Sheep Dips: Health Effects
  Organophosphate Sheep Dips: Health Effects
  European Union: UK Membership
  European Union: UK Membership
  European Court of Justice: Judgments
  European Court of Justice: Judgments
  Kibeho: UNAMIR
  Kibeho: UNAMIR
  Kibeho: Humanitarian Assistance
  Kibeho: Humanitarian Assistance
  European Convention on Human Rights: Articles 9 and 10
  European Convention on Human Rights: Articles 9 and 10
  EC Legislation: Repeals Procedure
  EC Legislation: Repeals Procedure
  UN Register of Conventional Arms
  UN Register of Conventional Arms
  Statutory Instruments: Statistics
  Statutory Instruments: Statistics
  Public Revenues: Statistics
  Public Revenues: Statistics