Sitting of 9 May 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
MADAM SPEAKER'S STATEMENT
Madam Speaker: I have to report that the House attended Her Majesty on Friday last in Westminster Hall with an Address, in reply to which Her Majesty was pleased to make a most Gracious Speech. I would cause my words in presenting the Address and Her Majesty's reply to be entered upon the Journals of this House.

ROYAL ASSENT
Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EMPLOYMENT

    Labour Statistics, Warwickshire
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are now employed in Warwickshire, or the appropriate travel-to-work areas, excluding Coventry; and how many were self-employed in the same area in 1990–91. [21616]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Paice): The labour force survey estimates there were 239,000 people in employment in the county of Warwickshire in autumn 1994, and 228,000 in spring 1992. I am afraid that the comparable information for 1990–91 is not available.
    Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend's reply shows that the number of jobs in Warwickshire has grown by about 700 in each of the past 18 months. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a clear sign that the recovery is on track? Does he further agree that any plans to introduce a national minimum wage, as proposed by Opposition Members and the trade unions, would cost us jobs?
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is entirely right about the recovery, and we are entering another year of sustained growth. He is also right about the minimum wage. Every time the Opposition equivocate on the question of what level the wage should be, every time they evade the issue of differentials and every time they publish another consultation document, they demonstrate that they know
    546
    the truth, as we do—minimum wages destroy jobs. When will they have the courage either to answer the questions or to admit that they were wrong?
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Is the Minister aware that unemployment in Warwickshire has risen from 7,300 in 1979 to 12,130 this month? Does that not show that what destroys jobs in Warwickshire is not a minimum wage, but the Tory Government?
    Mr. Paice: Unemployment rose under the previous Labour Government, and no Labour Government have left office with unemployment lower than it was when they came into office. Unemployment has risen throughout most of the industrialised world during that period, in which we have been through two serious recessions. We are recovering, and we are leading the world in that recovery.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: I welcome the encouraging news which my hon. Friend the Minister has been able to report to the House on employment in Warwickshire. If, however, the Government will not allow adequate investment in education in Warwickshire, we must expect that there will be 172 fewer people employed as teachers in the county during the current year. Given the importance of education to the employment prospects of our young people, we must then expect that fewer Warwickshire children will get jobs—whether self-employed or any other kind—in the future. Will my hon. Friend use his powers of persuasion with those in the Treasury to encourage them to look beyond the ends of their noses?
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend knows that expenditure on education is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. We must study how well money is used. There will always be more claims on the money than can be met by the available money. The job of every responsible authority is to make sure that the money is properly used. We delegated that power to schools so that the people at the coal face can use the money to the best advantage of the school.

    Unemployment Data
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from the Royal Statistical Society on the accuracy of unemployment data; and if he will make a statement. [21617]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): I met the Royal Statistical Society working group studying the accuracy of official unemployment statistics and had lengthy discussions with it. We are currently considering its conclusions.
    Mr. Williams: In that review of unemployment statistics, the Royal Statistical Society concluded that the general public do not trust Government data on such statistics or find them convincing in any way. It suggested that the claimant count should no longer be used as the basis for the monthly figures and proposed instead that the quarterly labour force survey, which has much wider international recognition, should be published monthly. Will the Government seriously consider that recommendation and accept the society's criticisms of their fiddled figures?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman should read the report carefully. Its main conclusion was not that the claimant count should be discontinued. It said that the count should be continued, but that more prominence should be given to the labour force survey, which the TUC called "fully reliable". As the hon. Gentleman and Labour apparently agree and as that count shows unemployment at very similar levels to the claimant count, perhaps Opposition Members should stop making nonsensical claims that there are really 3 million or 4 million unemployed people.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the labour force survey, which the TUC says is totally reliable, showed that last year the numbers of those in employment rose by 347,000 and that two thirds of those were full-time jobs? Is it not typical of Labour Members that, when there is that sort of good news, they choose to ignore it and to call into question the statistics—through the survey—that others, including the trades unions, regard as entirely reliable?
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The labour force survey shows that employment rose strongly last year and that the vast majority of the jobs created were full and not part time. Labour Members say that they support the labour force survey, which we have promoted all along. We have increased its frequency from once every two years—its frequency under Labour—to four times a year. That survey shows that unemployment is not 3 million or 4 million, as trade union leaders and Labour Members have been claiming for so long, but 2.4 million, which is almost exactly the same level as the claimant count that they say is fiddled.
    Mr. McCartney: It is astonishing that the Minister can stand there and claim that the Royal Statistical Society report backs the Government's claims for their figures. The report said that the Government's use of the claimant count was "both unfortunate and unhealthy"—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that Opposition and Back-Bench Members are not allowed to quote directly. Could he paraphrase, please?
    Mr. McCartney: I will paraphrase it, Madam Speaker. In civil service jargon, it is fiddled. Since 1979, four out of 10 jobs in manufacturing have been lost and nearly 3 million full-time jobs have been lost to the economy, at a cost of £13 billion. If those jobs have been replaced at all, it has been by part-time, semi-skilled or unskilled, poor jobs. When will the manufacturing industry in this country have the feel good factor?
    Mr. Oppenheim: Perhaps I can educate the hon. Gentleman. In the 1970s, when Labour was in power—that heyday of British manufacturing—British Steel was the world's largest loss maker, British Leyland was the butt of music hall jokes, British Airways was rated below Aeroflot, British manufacturing output fell, our productivity was the lowest in the OECD and our growth in manufacturing productivity was also the lowest. Since then, we have been producing more manufactured goods of higher quality, which is the best guarantee of more high-quality jobs in future.

    Equal Pay
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make it his policy to promote equal pay for women part-time workers. [21618]
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): The Equal Pay Act 1970 already provides for equal pay for equal work, irrespective of the number of hours worked.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Is not the reality that Government policy has undermined fair pay for part-time workers, more than 80 per cent. of whom are women? Does the Minister not recognise that the abolition of the wages councils, without creating a single extra job, has increased the pay difference between low-paid men and low-paid women? Would she now agree with the Equal Opportunities Commission that the introduction of a national minimum wage would increase and promote fair and equal pay and go a great way towards improving the financial position of women in employment?
    Miss Widdecombe: Such topsy-turvy reasoning can have come about only because the hon. Gentleman is dizzy from watching the policy somersaults of his leader. The abolition of the wages councils has increased pay in sectors formerly covered by councils. A minimum wage would cause unemployment, which would almost certainly be disproportionate among women.
    The fact that it would cause unemployment has been acknowledged by the Leader and deputy Leader of the Opposition and forms part of an OECD report, yet Opposition Members do nothing except hang on to what amounts to a deceit perpetrated on the electorate. They promise jam tomorrow but will not say at what level the wage will be set, how many jobs will be lost, and in what sectors they will be lost. That is why I talk about topsy-turvy reasoning. I suggest that Opposition Members do some serious thinking about the damage that their policies will do to women.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that women's part-time wages have increased more than men's in the past three years? Does she also agree that women welcome the opportunity to work part time, because it fits in more easily with their family lives?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is right. It is worth studying what is happening to women's pay as a proportion of men's since 1970.
    Mr. Ashton: Why 1970?
    Miss Widdecombe: I shall explain why 1970—and 1975 and 1979. In 1970–74, during which period, Opposition Members may just recall if they have done their studies, we had a Conservative Government, women's pay as compared to men's rose by 9 percentage points. We then had a Labour Government and it rose by a measly 1 percentage point. Since then, we have had a Conservative Government and it has risen by a further 6 per centage points, and is now at its highest level ever. Opposition Members should apologise to women for their shameful record and applaud ours.
    Ms Short: May I explain to Ministers why the Government are so deeply unpopular and despised by the British people? Are they aware that most of the jobs created in the British economy in the past 10 years have

    549
    been low-paid, service sector jobs because of the Government's strategy of encouraging low-paid employment? The effect is that most of the jobs have been taken up by women, and women's work has been undervalued and underpaid with no access to promotions or pensions. Increasingly, men are being squeezed out of employment or forced to take temporary part-time work.
    Does the Minister not understand that it is in the interests of the British economy that we change that, introduce a national minimum wage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The Government should listen to the people, and they will then know why they are so unpopular. A national minimum wage would improve the status of women in work, stop men being squeezed out of employment and encourage employers to invest instead of compete by wage cutting. People would then feel more confident and the Government would be a little less unpopular.
    Miss Widdecombe: It ill behoves a party that has not won an election for 21 years to preach about popularity. I am amazed that Labour Members have not learnt the lesson of the past, which is that brief and temporary popularity does not lead to success at general elections. After the next general election, they will all be back in their places, still trying to perpetrate deceits on an electorate whom they will not have deceived.
    Since 1979, women's pay, hourly and weekly, full time and part time, has increased faster than that of men. There are 1.5 million more women in work than there were 10 years ago. The greatest increase has been among women with young children, which is a tribute to our child care policies. There has been a huge rise in the number of self-employed women and a trebling of the number of women in law and accountancy. May I suggest to the hon. Lady that she does her homework properly?
    Ms Short: Too long.
    Miss Widdecombe: If my answer was long, it was because the hon. Lady's question was not only long but packed full of inaccuracies from start to finish.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently in full-time employment; and if he will make a statement. [21619]
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Portillo): Estimates from the labour force survey for the winter of 1994–95 show that there were 19.2 million people in full-time employment in Great Britain. That is an increase of 243,000 since spring 1993.
    Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Will he tell the House how many of those people in full-time employment would remain in full-time employment if a minimum wage were introduced and if the strikers charter of the Labour party were adopted?
    Mr. Portillo: Of course, if we went back to strikes, that would have a profound impact on job creation and inward investment.
    I recently heard the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) promising trade union rights that were not enjoyed under Wilson, Callaghan or Attlee—in other words, not only rolling back all the reforms of Conservative Governments but promising
    550
    rights to trade unions that have never been enjoyed before. That is the expense of the deal between the Labour party and the trade unions.
    As for the number of jobs that a minimum wage would destroy, that depends on the level of the minimum wage, and the Labour party will not tell us the level. That is the most cynical deceit of the British electorate. To come before the people of the country and tell them that they should have a minimum wage but not declare its level is deceitful, and it is hypocrisy. If it were set at the level at which the TUC would like it, it would destroy 750,000 jobs.
    Ms Harman: Will the Secretary of State recognise and face up to the fact that is evident to British people—that, as permanent full-time jobs are going, all that people can find in their place are temporary and part-time jobs? Will he admit that the figures show that there are 122,000 fewer full-time jobs in our economy than there were two years ago, and 300,000 more part-time jobs? More and more people are being forced into part-time work, not of their choosing but because the full-time, permanent, secure, decently paid jobs they want are not there in a Tory economy.
    Mr. Portillo: It is most interesting that, on the day that the hon. Lady launched a document on the national minimum wage, she is not prepared to mention the subject in the House of Commons. Having given a press conference in which she refused to announce the level of that minimum wage, she refuses again to tell the House of Commons the level at which she would set the minimum wage.
    What the hon. Lady did come here and do was ignore the facts, because in the past year, full-time jobs have increased by 204,000 and part-time jobs have increased by only 92,000. Where do those figures come from? They come from the labour force survey that the Labour party has advocated this afternoon, which the TUC tells us is entirely reliable. Why did the hon. Lady take the opportunity to tell the House of Commons that she is prepared to destroy jobs by setting a minimum wage, and why did she not tell us its level?
    Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in the survey to which he refers, only 14 per cent. of those interviewed said that they would prefer to be in full-time employment rather than the part-time employment that they were undertaking at that moment?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. Every Government in Europe want to encourage some part-time employment because, for instance, they want women to be able to combine a job with their family responsibilities. In Britain, thanks to the flexibility that we enjoy, 6 million people are able to combine family responsibilities with part-time work, and, as my hon. Friend said, the vast majority have a part-time job because they want one. The curiosity is that now the Labour party wants to destroy those part-time jobs by introducing the minimum wage. It is the most miserable cynicism, and Labour Members should be ashamed of themselves.

    Allerton Outreach Team
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people, to date, have been placed in employment by the Allerton outreach team. [21620]
    Miss Widdecombe: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Bradford council manages the Allerton outreach team, but I understand that, up to 26 April 1995, 65 people have been placed into employment.
    Mr. Madden: Why, then, is the Minister's Department so mean and niggardly in its treatment of the Allerton outreach team? Will she acknowledge that, in finding more than 70 jobs—that is the latest figure—the team has saved the state £1 million per year? Will she urgently arrange for her officials to investigate the reasons for the team's success and, more importantly, ensure that two full-time posts are funded properly by her Department, so that my constituents who are desperately looking for work may be assisted by the team which has been so successful in finding jobs in the past few weeks?
    Miss Widdecombe: Notwithstanding the rather provocative language that the hon. Gentleman used at the beginning of his question, he has raised an important constituency point. I congratulate the Allerton outreach team on its performance. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Employment Department funded the team on a pilot basis. As we have completed that pilot funding, the training and enterprise council has now agreed that it will contribute £10,000 towards the salary of the full-time official and £10,000 to meet the cost of vouchers for training. The Employment Department will continue to assist with vacancies and other services of that type.
    The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we originally funded the team through the programme development fund but, as that has now gone into the single regeneration budget, the Employment Department no longer has any responsibility for it. However, Bradford council can bid against those funds, so I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should address his question to the council.
    Mr. Barron: Does the Minister not recognise that withdrawing funding from the scheme has created chaos similar to that which the Government have created elsewhere in the labour market? The lack of job opportunities in Bradford and insecurity at work nationally are only a part of the Government's failure. In the Yorkshire and Humberside region, 55 per cent. of male temporary workers and 40 per cent. of female temporary workers want, but cannot find, permanent work. What will the Minister say to the more than 61,000 people, and their families, for whom the Government's policies mean lost opportunities, lack of work and insecurity?
    Miss Widdecombe rose—
    Mr. Lewis: Make it quick, your broomstick is being clamped.
    Miss Widdecombe: Well, before my broomstick is clamped, I suggest that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) should study a few figures. Why does he not tell the people of Bradford that unemployment has declined from 9.9 per cent. this time last year to 8.7 per cent currently? Why does he not point out to the people of Bradford the Government's jobfinder's grant pilot and the grants that are available under that scheme, our workwise and 1–2–1 assistance and our work trials assistance? Why does he not try to bring hope to the people of Bradford and to the people of Yorkshire and Humberside instead of always trying to depress them?I
    552
    have said it before and I will say it again: one can tell how well the economy is doing from the length of Opposition Members' faces.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will reconsider the Government's method of assessing employment statistics. [21621]
    Mr. Oppenheim: The Employment Department has two measures of unemployment: the claimant count and the International Labour Organisation standard labour force survey. We always recommend that people should look at both sets of figures to get a good idea of what is happening in the labour market. The LFS of unemployment stands at 2.4 million.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister agree that the number of people whom the statistics show to be unemployed depends entirely on the Government's current definition of the word "unemployment"? As the words "claimant count" inevitably exclude no fewer than 10 categories of people who should be included, the Government's definition is very unlikely to be grossly exaggerated.
    Mr. Oppenheim: With all due respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he should know that we have no direct control over the standard for the labour force survey. That standard is set by the International Labour Organisation, and we do not deviate from it. If he does not like the claimant count, by all means let him concentrate on the labour force survey, which shows unemployment standing at 2.4 million. The TUC supports that survey and so, apparently, does the Labour party. Why then do Labour Members persist in claiming that unemployment is really 3 million or 4 million, when the international standard labour force survey clearly says that it is 2.4 million?
    Mr. Simon Coombs: I recognise that the international labour force survey has some drawbacks, but does my hon. Friend at least accept the fact that according, to that survey, the United Kingdom has the highest level of employment in the European Union? In that context, does he agree that there is a need for extreme caution in the dealings that he and his colleagues have with their European counterparts, so that they do nothing to discourage other countries in the Union from continuing with their disastrous policy of the national minimum wage?
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is right. The international standard figures clearly show that Britain has lower unemployment and higher employment than the other European Union countries that have a national minimum wage set at a reasonably significant level. The Opposition should consider that fact carefully before pretending to the less well-off that there is some simple cost-free way of increasing their pay, especially as the Labour party does not even have the guts to tell them what the level of the minimum wage will be, so that they would know what it would cost in lost jobs.
    Ms Eagle: Will the Government now take on board the recommendations of the Royal Statistical Society report and make the labour force survey monthly? The Government could carry on collecting the claimant count figures but replace the definition of unemployment—the claimant count, which simply counts the number of people

    553
    on benefit, rather than the number who are unemployed—with the definition in the labour force survey. Will the Government now do that?
    Mr. Oppenheim: We certainly do not disagree with the suggestion of the RSS that the labour force survey should command more attention. If the Opposition prefer to quote the LFS figure rather than the claimant count, they will. However, if they do, I must warn them that they will find that the LFS showed that unemployment in 1979 stood not at 1 million but at 1.5 million and that, as I have said before, it now shows the unemployment figure as 2.4 million. The problem with upgrading the survey from quarterly to monthly is that that would cost £10 million. If the Opposition are prepared to commit a future Labour Government to spending £10 million on upgrading the LFS to a monthly figure, let them give a policy pledge here. If they are not prepared to make such a pledge, they should stop complaining that we are not prepared to do so.

    Workfare
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new studies he is conducting into workfare; and if he will make a statement. [21622]
    Mr. Portillo: None at present. The essence of any system of benefit for unemployed people must be that the recipients are actively seeking work and are willing to undertake work when it is made available, but I do not believe that the state should be the employer of last resort.
    Mr. Greenway: What does my right hon. Friend make of rumours that the Labour party is planning to set a minimum wage of £180 a week? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Whatever they say, those are the rumours. Does my right hon. Friend recall that Beveridge said that people should be on benefit for six months, and that that should be followed by work or training for work with a view to long-term employment, as the real means of saving the lives of people in the right sort of way?
    Mr. Portillo: On my hon. Friend's first point, I congratulate him on being the only person who has any idea of the level at which the Labour party would set the minimum wage, because the Labour party simply will not tell us. On his second point, of course it has been understood since the time of Beveridge that people must be willing to demonstrate their availability for work. Ultimately, that must mean that one can test that availability by providing something for unemployed people to do and expecting them to do it. I do not want to quibble about language and say whether that is workfare or not. It is not what I would call workfare, but it seems a perfectly reasonable proposition.
    Mr. Eastham: Let me assure the Secretary of State that 2.5 million people in the United Kingdom desperately need a job. As for workfare, three weeks ago members of the Select Committee on Employment were in America, and we found that, because of the Reagan Government's policies, workfare did not exist there. One of the problems that has been acknowledged is the fact that the mothers of one-parent families need training and, more than anything else, some child care. Is that not a fact that the Government have never faced?
    Mr. Portillo: I am not responsible for policies in the United States; I am responsible for policies in this
    554
    country. I am proud of the service that the Employment Service provides to claimants, helping them to stay in touch with the labour market and become more employable and providing them with opportunities to improve their training and make themselves attractive to employers after long periods of unemployment. Those are the policies that we follow, and we have been opposed in those policies day after day and week after week by the Labour party.
    Sir Ralph Howell: In view of the acknowledged success of the workstart pilot schemes devised by Professor Snower, will my right hon. Friend institute a workfare scheme, which is also supported by Professor Snower and myself?
    Mr. Portillo: We are continuing with the workstart scheme. From April this year there will be 5,000 places at a cost of £30 million. The principle of the workstart scheme is that we provide a subsidy to firms to take on people who have been unemployed for a long time. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that from April 1996 there will be a rebate of national insurance contributions for one year for employers who take on the long-term unemployed. That is another means by which we provide a subsidy to employers to take on people who have been without work for a long time.

    Long-term Unemployment
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new measures he proposes to tackle long-term unemployment. [21623]
    Mr. Paice: In April, we introduced four new measures to help long-term unemployed people and we extended three others. More than 240,000 places will be available on those programmes in this year alone.
    Mr. Jones: A strategy is needed to get thousands of unemployed aerospace workers back into their industry. What will the Government do to help the workers at Raytheon Jets, who have been told that the production of jet aircraft is to be transferred to the United States? What help will they give the workers at Raytheon Jets, at least in saving some of the jobs that are scheduled to go to the United States? It is a loyal, productive and highly skilled work force that deserves the Government's help.
    Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman knows that the details of employment policies, and particularly training policies, in Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Wales, as I presume the factory is located there. Obviously, it is a matter for grave regret when any company decides to relocate outside Britain. Fortunately, far more companies want to relocate to Britain rather than take their jobs abroad.
    Mr. Sykes: When the Minister writes to Mr. Chirac to congratulate him on consigning French socialism to the dustbin of history, what measures will he suggest to the French President? Which regulations will he recommend that the French get rid of first? Will it be the job-shedding social chapter, the 48-hour week, the minimum wage or the ridiculous works councils? Will my hon. Friend tell us which one?
    Mr. Paice: The French people have already demonstrated their good judgment in electing President

    555
    Chirac. I am quite sure that he will follow that by recognising the veracity of our position, which is that the social chapter is designed totally to destroy jobs.
    Mr. Chidgey: Does the Secretary of State recall that in 1993–94 one in seven training and enterprise councils showed a decline in job prospects for scheme leavers and some 48 per cent. of all training scheme leavers were unemployed after six months? Does he expect that the figures for 1994–95, which I trust will be available soon, will tell a similar story of failure, and if so, will he give the House a commitment to amend policy urgently, in order properly to readdress the unacceptable level of long-term unemployment in Britain?
    Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman, who has attended Employment questions for a long time, knows full well that we have already made significant changes to our policy on training for work precisely because we were not happy with its outcome. We were not happy with the number of people getting into jobs. That is why we have refocused it and concentrated help and funding on TECs precisely so that people will get jobs out of them. We expect a significant and sustained improvement in the outcome of training for work.

    Unemployment
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest unemployment figure;and if he will make a statement. (21624]
    Mr. Portillo: Seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment in the United Kingdom was 2,346,200 in March 1995—a fall of 632,300 since December 1992.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: While I welcome those figures, does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the supply side changes of recent years mean that there is still plenty of spare capacity in the economy without taking undue risks with inflation?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes. I believe that, by investing in education, as we do in Britain, by encouraging employers to see the benefit of training and by investing large sums of taxpayers' money in training we can improve the quality of the work force, so that a larger number of our people can participate in work, without taking risks with inflation.
    Ms Harman: Instead of boasting that the problem of unemployment in Britain has been solved, why does not the Secretary of State recognise that it still remains a major problem? Does he admit that, in the past five years, 11 million people have been out of work and, as a result, have had to claim benefits; that long-term unemployment remains a problem, still hovering around the 1 million mark; and that of all the G7 countries, we are the only one to have seen no employment growth since 1979?
    Does he recognise that unemployment is a problem not just for the unemployed but for those in work who fear that their jobs too might be the next to go and know that, if they lose their jobs, the Government will kick them in the teeth with cuts in training and benefit? While the right hon. Gentleman will not tell the truth about the true size of unemployment in Britain, it is no wonder people do not trust the Tories.
    Mr. Portillo: I make no complacent claims about unemployment in Britain. I believe that it is too high. But
    556
    I also believe that it is lower than the European Community average because of the policies that we in Britain follow; that a higher proportion of our people are in work than in any major country in the EC because of the policies that we follow here; that a higher percentage of our women are in work than in any major European country because of the policies that we follow here; that we have seen a faster fall in unemployment than any major EC country because of the policies that we follow here; and that, in particular, the countries where the levels of unemployment are highest and where the levels of unemployment among young people are highest are those countries in the EC that have adopted and applied the minimum wage—the policy that the Labour party wishes to impose upon Britain which would have the same result of destroying jobs, in particular for our young people.
    Mr. Jenkin: Is it not clear that, had the voters last week been considering our record on unemployment and our overall record on the economy, the result would have been very different, but, since their confidence in our management of the economy has been so rudely shaken as a result of the collapse of the exchange rate mechanism, had we not better start pointing out that we made a mistake over that policy and that we have learnt our lessons, whereas the Opposition, with their unthinking commitment to the single European currency, would repeat exactly the same mistakes all over again?
    Mr. Portillo: We have no plans to go back into the exchange rate mechanism, but I believe that the Labour party does. But had the British people known that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) had admitted that the minimum wage that his party advocates would lead to a shake-out in jobs, the result of last week's elections might have been very different indeed.

    Sex Equality Branch
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the priorities for the sex equality branch of his Department. (21625]
    Miss Widdecombe: The sex equality branch is continuing to work successfully in furthering the Employment Department's objective to counter sex discrimination in the labour market and to promote women's interests in the workplace and beyond.
    Mr. Bayley: Why does the Department's sex equality branch not have a written statement of objectives? Why has not it produced a single leaflet to tell women in Britain what the sex equality branch has been doing for them? Are the Government so embarrassed about how little they are doing for women that they have made the sex equality branch the best-kept secret in Whitehall?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman has obviously never heard of Opportunity 2000; he has never heard of New Horizons; he has never heard of Fair Play for Women; and he has never heard of a large number of initiatives, backed with conferences, road shows, leaflets and general information. May I suggest that the hon. Member does a bit of homework before he asks such silly questions?
    Mr. Garnier: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when she visited the Harborough constituency not so long ago,

    557
    women's unemployment was lower than it has been for the past 10 years? Does not that give the lie to the Opposition's policies of demanding positive discrimination? What people want are jobs, not special jobs.
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Our policies have produced a high percentage of women in work compared with the rest of Europe, a higher level of female participation compared with most of the rest of Europe, a lower level of female unemployment compared with most of the rest of Europe. We have done that through our flexible policies, and all that the Opposition have to offer is words, words, words; loss of jobs, loss of jobs, loss of jobs and a far worse world for women. Women in this country do not want to vote for that lot over there.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 May. [21646]
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently in Moscow on an official visit as part of the VE day commemorations.
    Mr. Jones: Does the Leader of the House have any sympathy for a perplexed and lonely young man, Mr. John Richards, the last remaining Tory councillor in Cardiff, who only eight years ago was part of a ruling group with more than 30 colleagues? While Mr. Richards looks around and tries to find out what has happened to his colleagues, how does the Leader of the House explain that calamity? Does he think that—[Interruption]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Jones: Does he think that on Thursday, the electorate showed that they have the same opinion of the Government as Will Carling has of the Rugby Football Union?
    Mr. Newton: My sympathy is with the people of Cardiff for what is about to be inflicted on them.
    Mr. Hunter: Bearing in mind the commemorative theme of the past few days, and in anticipation of the Government's meeting tomorrow with Sinn Fein, will my right hon. Friend reassert that the Government will not bow to the IRA, will never surrender to IRA tyranny and will never seek appeasement with the evil of the IRA, but will remain resolute and resist all that Sinn Fein-IRA has stood for over the years?
    Mr. Newton: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. As he will know, it has repeatedly been made clear that we were not prepared to agree to Ministers joining the exploratory talks with Sinn Fein until it accepted that position and the need for a serious dialogue about decommissioning.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Thursday's local elections were a disaster for the
    558
    Tories and a triumph for Labour? Does he agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), that the Government should stop lecturing and start listening to the British people, beginning tomorrow with the London hospital debate?
    Mr. Newton: The best thing that I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that I have been studying with interest a report in The Guardian of 6 May under the heading,
    "Record haul of seats for reborn left",
    which is followed by a quotation by the then Leader of the Opposition claiming that it shows the result of the next general election. That was in 1990.
    Mr. Prescott: The House will note that the right hon. Gentleman avoided the question on the London hospitals. Is not the simple truth that, 50 years ago, the Tories voted against the creation of Labour's national health service and that, in the past five years, they have closed more than 300 hospitals and will vote tomorrow to close some more? Is not that why one can never trust the Tories when they say that the national health service is safe in their hands?
    Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will set out very clearly in tomorrow's debate a policy, the purpose of which is to create a modern pattern of hospital and primary care provision in London. That is what it will do. As to capital schemes, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, since 1980, more than 800 schemes, each worth £1 million or more, have been completed. That is roughly one a week. At present, there are more than 300 such schemes at the planning, design or construction stage, and that is the biggest sustained hospital and health service development programme in our history.
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 May. [21647]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the imposition of a national minimum wage would destroy jobs? Is it not an act of political cowardice to talk about bringing in a minimum wage while not having the courage to specify its level?
    Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I think that it was the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) who acknowledged that a minimum wage would destroy jobs. Although that has been acknowledged, no figure has been given. All we know is that jobs would be destroyed, and it is time that the Opposition told us how many.
    Sir David Steel: The Leader of the House is a regular tourist in Scotland. Therefore, will he welcome as much as we do this morning's decision by the Court of Session in Edinburgh that British Rail cannot axe its services at the end of May without going through the full consultation procedure? Will he make sure that Government money is there to maintain those services?
    Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman rather exaggerates my activities as a tourist in Scotland, although

    559
    I recall meeting him at a fete in his constituency a couple of years ago. I understand that an application for judicial review has been heard and that the court has ruled that British Rail may not withdraw the service until the statutory closure procedure has been completed. It is for the British Railways Board and ScotRail to consider what action to take in the light of the full written judgment, and it would not be right for me to comment further at this stage.
    Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 May. [21648]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend join me in sending thanks to Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother for her role 50 years ago in supporting King George during the dark and difficult days of the war? Will he also join me in warmly thanking her for her tremendous support and activity during the VE celebrations over the weekend?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend speaks for the whole House. Over the weekend there has been an outstandingly successful series of events of remembrance, reconciliation and hope for the future. They reminded us of the contribution that was made by our service men and service women and many civilians to the effort of 50 years ago. As my hon. Friend says, it has reminded us not least of the contribution that was made by the late King and Her Majesty the Queen Mother during the war and by Her Majesty the Queen over so many years since then.
    Mr. Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 May. [21649]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wilson: Since the threat to overnight rail services between Scotland and England arises directly from Government policies, many of us think that it is precisely for the Leader of the House to answer in respect of what happened in the Court of Session this morning. What does it tell us about this Government that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Transport were both prepared to conspire in a deceit that has been found to be illegal as well as immoral?
    Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the letter and the spirit of today's judgment will be respected by the Government? Does he accept that this excellent decision will give fresh heart to campaigners throughout the country, who see similar threats to their vulnerable services in what the Government are doing to the railway industry?
    Mr. Newton: As I have already said, it is now obviously right for the terms of the judgment to be properly and carefully considered, but I also remind the hon. Gentleman that the decision to withdraw this service was a commercial matter for British Rail, and that representations, of a kind to which he will no doubt wish to contribute, about all sleeper services can be made when the Franchising Director consults on the passenger service requirement later this month.
    Mr. Streeter: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the French people, who on Sunday rejected socialism and elected a right-wing President? Does not that show—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard.
    Mr. Streeter: On Sunday, the French people rejected socialism and elected a right-wing President. Does not that show that all over Europe people recognise that, while left-wing politicians offer sound bites, Conservative policies work?
    Mr. Newton: I certainly wish to welcome the election of the new President, and I think everyone would wish to send him this country's good wishes in his new job. My hon. Friend is right to say that one of the factors in that election will have been the extent to which socialist policies are coming under criticism throughout Europe. Indeed, the French Employers' Federation has said:
    "the excessive level and poor structure of taxes on business add to production costs, slowing down investment and job creation."
    It is exactly the policies that have now been rejected in France that right hon. and hon. Labour Members would now want to impose on Britain.
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 May. [21650]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jamieson: Is the Leader of the House aware that, following last Thursday's meltdown of Tory support in the south-west, particularly in the constituency of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), 55 out of 60 councillors on Plymouth city council are Labour members, and the only bodies that the Conservatives control in the region are the quangos? Is not the message from last Thursday's elections that there is now an unbridgeable gap between the electorate and the Government? The only way in which that can be bridged is by having a general election.
    Mr. Newton: Earlier, I extended my sympathy to the people of Cardiff; I will now extend my sympathy to the people of Plymouth.

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Swindon. [21651]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend has no current plans to do so.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that companies in Swindon and elsewhere would rather stick with a Government who have firmly rejected the concept of a national minimum wage than run the risk of supporting a party that might introduce a national minimum wage at a level so low that it would be meaningless, or at a level that would imperil employment and run the risk of reducing companies' investment in training?
    Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend that the people of Swindon and, no doubt, the people of every

    561
    town in the country would not wish to go down a path that will undermine employment, heap new costs on business, undermine the economic recovery, undermine our capacity to attract overseas investment, and undermine our ability to defend Britain's interests in Europe.
    Mr. Pike: As the Leader of the House's job includes presentation of Government policy to the people of Swindon—[Interruption.] Ah, I know, Madam Speaker—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) widened the question, but I do not want questioning to go too wide.
    Mr. Pike: As it is the right hon. Gentleman's job to present Government policy, does he accept that either his presentation has failed or the policy has failed? Will he tell the people of Swindon what change of policy he now proposes—or does he intend to go?
    Mr. Newton: I would tell the people of Swindon—and, indeed, those represented by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike)—that, when unemployment is falling by 1,000 a day, when we are enjoying the most sustained period of low inflation for more than 30 years, when export volumes have risen by 12.5 per cent. in a year and when
    562
    for two successive years ours has been the fastest-growing major European Union economy, one thing is certain: the policies are succeeding.

    Engagements
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 May. [21652]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the VE day commemorations throughout the country at the weekend were extremely moving? Does he also agree that we have had 50 years of peace in Europe because this country has maintained strong defences, and has refused to listen to the voices of Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament members and sympathisers in the Labour party?
    Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend on both counts. As I said earlier, the celebrations themselves were an outstanding and impressive success; and there is no doubt that the fact that we were able to have them rests on the firmness of this country's defence policy over the years—a policy that has frequently not been supported by the Labour party.

Nuclear Review
3.30 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission I would like to make a statement about the conclusions of the Government's nuclear review. It will be followed in due course by a debate. The findings of the review are set out more fully in a White Paper which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are publishing today, and placing in the Libraries of both Houses and the Vote Office.
First, let me say that safety has been a paramount consideration throughout the review. The review has also confirmed that nuclear power plays an important role in meeting the United Kingdom's energy needs and should continue to do so, provided that it is competitive and is able to maintain rigorous standards of safety and environmental protection.
The nuclear industry argued the case for additional nuclear power stations. The appropriate test of that case is the potential availability of private sector finance for a project to build a new nuclear power station. There is, at present, no case for Government intervention to distort the electricity market by providing finance or guarantees for one form of generation over another. While the market will ultimately be the judge, the review concluded that on the basis of the figures provided by the industry in the review and in the light of the returns available from alternative generation projects, private finance is unlikely to be available at present for new nuclear construction.
The review also examined whether, and over what timescale, privatisation of the nuclear generators would be feasible. The benefit to consumers from the privatisation of most of the electricity supply industry has been clear: domestic electricity prices are now lower in real terms, even after VAT, than two years ago, with further reductions in the pipeline. The average price paid by industrial consumers has fallen by more than 10 per cent. in real terms since 1989, the last year in which the industry was in state ownership. The nuclear stations had to be excluded from electricity privatisation then, because investors were concerned about the risks of substantially increased nuclear costs; about the performance of the advanced gas-cooled reactor, or AGR, stations; and about the costs of financing new pressurised water reactors—PWRs. The situation today is very different. The generators have removed many uncertainties about the costs of managing spent fuel and waste and decommissioning plant. They have completed the first stage of decommissioning Berkeley Magnox station and the costs have been about one third lower than originally estimated. The performance of the AGRs has vastly improved, and Sizewell B was built within budget and is now in operation.
As a result, the Government have decided to privatise the more modern nuclear stations—the seven AGR stations and the PWR station at Sizewell—during the course of 1996. The liabilities associated with those stations will also be transferred to the private sector. The Government have decided to create a holding company, with the parts of Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear that are to be privatised as its wholly owned subsidiaries. The holding company approach has been designed to
564
preserve the identities of Scottish Nuclear and Nuclear Electric and to establish a significant holding company to be registered in Scotland, where its headquarters will be located. The headquarters will include all key group functions. A chairman independent of both Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear will be appointed.
Scottish Nuclear will continue as a separate entity with its own board. Its continued existence will be protected by special shares in the holding company and SNL. The functions currently performed by Scottish Nuclear at its headquarters in East Kilbride will continued to be undertaken there. In addition, it is expected that engineering functions within the group will be reorganised to bring more jobs to Scotland. In all, those developments are expected to bring at least 100 jobs to Scotland.
The new subsidiary companies will continue to participate in their respective markets in England, Wales and Scotland. There will be no change in the market share held by Scottish Nuclear in Scotland, but the establishment of the new separate Magnox company in England and Wales will mean that Nuclear Electric's private sector successor will have a smaller market share than Nuclear Electric has at present.
In private ownership, the holding company will be free to compete, both domestically and overseas, and privatisation will provide powerful incentives for the two subsidiary companies to benefit their customers by raising efficiency and reducing costs. The new company will be totally committed to maintaining the exemplary safety record of the nuclear power generating industry. Safety is of paramount importance and will not be compromised. As the Health and Safety Commission said about the transition to the private sector in its evidence to the review,
"the system of nuclear regulation in the UK … is internationally recognised as a rigorous system for ensuring a high level of safety. It is essentially sound, and there is no reason to change it in any fundamental way to deal with whatever structure emerges."
I agree. The Government's commitment to the continuation of a rigorous safety regime remains absolute.
The Government intend to safeguard financing of long-term liabilities to be passed to the private sector as a result of the proposals through the creation of segregated funds or similar arrangements. The review also considered the future of the Magnox stations. The Government do not believe that the Magnox stations can be privatised. The review did identify, however, opportunities for reducing the costs of discharging their liabilities, Which potentially fall to the taxpayer.
The Government propose in the first instance that all Magnox stations and their liabilities should be held in a stand-alone company owned by the Government.That will create a new baseload nuclear generator with 8 per cent. of the English and Welsh market. In due course, that company will be transferred to BNFL, giving BNFL a clear incentive to maximise revenues from Magnox generation, minimise reprocessing and other back-end costs, and optimise the stations' economic life.
Finally, the review examined the fossil fuel levy in England and Wales and the nuclear energy agreement in Scotland. Both Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear have achieved significant improvements in their financial performance and in defining and reducing their liabilities. In the case of Nuclear Electric, the company and its public and private sector successors should now be able to meet the full costs of liabilities as they fall due, without further help from the fossil fuel levy.

565
The Government have therefore decided that at the time of privatisation, that part of the fossil fuel levy to which Nuclear Electric is entitled should be abolished, at least 18 months earlier than previously expected. Electricity prices in England and Wales will fall by up to 8 per cent. in a full year as a result of that decision, with the average annual household electricity bill falling by as much as £20. Lower prices will also give a major boost to the competitiveness of British industry.
Comparable arrangements will be put in hand in Scotland. The nuclear premium there will be ended and these savings will be passed through to franchise customers in Scotland. Due to these and other savings already in train, domestic electricity prices in Scotland will fall by around 8 per cent. in real terms between 1994 and 1996.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is making an announcement today about issues relevant to the nuclear review which have been examined in his parallel review of radioactive waste management policy.
The proposals I have announced today will make for a more competitive nuclear generation sector operating to continuing, rigorous safety standards. They will strengthen the ability of British companies to market nuclear services abroad. It is the right way forward for this key industry. At the same time, the changes in the fossil fuel levy and the equivalent step in Scotland will bring significant benefits to consumers. I commend these proposals to the House.
Dr. John Cunningham: The President of the Board of Trade's statement could be succinctly summed up as the private sector gets a cut-price bargain; the taxpayer gets the bill.
Does not the statement by the President of the Board of Trade make it clear that the short-term political objectives of the discredited Cabinet lie behind the Government's decision to privatise the nuclear industry and not the interests of taxpayers and consumers, let alone the employees of the industries themselves? The statement has nothing to do with long-term energy policy or how best to introduce competition but seeks to maximise revenue to the Treasury before the next general election.
How does the President of the Board of Trade make sense of creating a nuclear generator bigger than National Power and PowerGen, when, at the same time, the industry regulator is insisting that those companies divest themselves of generating capacity? How does that fit in with his competition policy in the electricity generating industry?
Should not the decision that the right hon. Gentleman has announced today have been included in the prospectus for the recent sale of shares of PowerGen and National Power? Is it not clear, once again, that investors were misled by the Government's issue of a false prospectus in respect of that sale?
Will the President of the Board of Trade explain how the public interest will be safeguarded under private ownership of civil nuclear power? How will he guarantee that short-term profit demands, for example, will not undermine the long-term interests of public safety and the environment? That is a question that he barely addressed in his statement.
What assurances will the right hon. Gentleman give that there will be an effective and long-lasting financial
566
arrangement to cover all aspects of the eventual decommissioning of and waste management from a privately owned nuclear power company?
Will the President of the Board of Trade assure the House that, although I agree with what he and the nuclear installations inspector said about the safety regime, the full licensing process will be followed by the nuclear installations inspectorate in respect of any new owners? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there will be no short-cutting of the licensing process? Will he assure the House that the full powers of Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution will be maintained and that they will hold full public consultations on the duties and responsibilities of any new private owners?
What requirements will be placed upon a privatised nuclear industry to continue to fund research and development, not only into the industry itself but into the health and safety of people and communities associated with it, as well as into the environmental impact of nuclear power?
Is it not clear from the rout of Tories in local election results in Scotland from Hunterston to Torness, and in England from Heysham to Hartlepool and from Copeland to Suffolk, Coastal—the constituency of the Secretary of State for the Environment—that nuclear industry communities have no confidence in Tory party policies, whether on this industry or on any other aspect of Government policy? The nuclear industry communities in particular decisively rejected Tory candidates the length and breadth of the country.
The President of the Board of Trade referred to consumer interest. Is not it clear from recent reports from consumer watchdogs, including the report from the Electricity Consumers Committee a few days ago, that they share our view that, far from consumers getting a good deal, they have been massively overcharged for their electricity since the privatisation of the industry?
The President's announcement of the ending of the nuclear levy a little more than a year before it was due to end anyway raised a pretty feeble cheer from his Back Benchers. Is not it clear that even that welcome but tiny benefit to which consumers will no doubt give a warm welcome will be far outweighed by the costs of decommissioning and waste management which will be left to the taxpayer for decades to come?
What assurances can the President give the House and electricity consumers about actions to end the abuse of salary awards and share options in a privatised nuclear industry? Will we see a rerun of what has happened with gas, water and electricity where people have made themselves rich at the consumers' expense with no discernible improvement in efficiency or performance, or will the President take some belated action to prevent that from happening?
How can the Government present this sale, which will perhaps raise £3 billion, as a gain to the taxpayer? The taxpayer paid £3 billion to build Sizewell B. At the very best it is a draw for the taxpayer. The purchaser gets not only Sizewell B but seven other AGR stations at the knockdown price of what the taxpayer paid for Sizewell B. As the President was forced to admit, the taxpayer will be left with the bill for the decommissioning of the Magnox stations and for the management of the waste that subsequently accrues.

567
May I press the right hon. Gentleman on what he had to say about the proposed headquarters in Edinburgh? What is to be the nature of the special share arrangement? How will it guarantee anything from a private company? Will not the likelihood—indeed the certainty—that this company will maintain a London office undermine any pretence that somehow it will be managed from Edinburgh? Is not that the reality and experience of people in Scotland in respect of Britoil and Guinness, to give just two recent examples?
The President said that the White Paper would be the subject of debate. Will he assure the House that before the proposals are acted upon they will be the subject of not only a debate but a vote so that the House has an opportunity to vote upon them? Is it not clear that people will see through this transparent device? The Tories will never be trusted on tax again. The President can be assured of that given the 20 new taxes and the increase of hundreds of pounds in tax bills in the past two years. Will not the people conclude that the result of the statement is simply that the cost of this squalid Government's failures will end up once again on the taxpayers' doormat?
Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is one of the few Opposition Members with some understanding of nuclear policy, and that is why he is separated from the vast majority of his party when it comes to expressing ideas on the matter. One thing which is clear—the right hon. Gentleman must recognise it—is that there are no agreed Labour policies on nuclear energy of any sort, shape or size, because the party cannot agree on what to do.
It seemed extraordinary that our announcement that we are to reduce electricity prices by some 8 per cent. next year was apparently seen as an undesirable step by the Labour party. The right hon. Gentleman had an extraordinary range of questions to put to me. One that I found particularly interesting was his question about why the cost of the AGRs and the PWR were not recouped by the sale of the PWR within the grouping. That question should not have been put to me, but to the Labour Government who prepared the stations for authorisation in the original case. It was not a Tory Government who took those decisions, but a Labour Government. I am sad that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is not here, because he took one of the last of those decisions, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) confirmed when we were first elected.
I would like to mention the Scottish position. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, as one would expect from a distinguished Secretary of State, has persuasively argued for and achieved a range of safeguards—not that I needed persuading. He has made sure that any successor to my right hon. Friend will be armed with the necessary weaponry as a result of the conditions imposed by the special share arrangements and by the memorandum and articles of the companies.
The headquarters of the company will be in Scotland. That has been enshrined for 10 years as a minimum, and it will remain there after that without repeal unless somebody does something about it. Built into the proposals is a cast-iron undertaking to the Scottish people about the intentions of the Government. If the Labour
568
party has any doubts about that, it must decide what it would want to do if it were ever elected. We have made clear what we intend to do, and the Scottish people can be sure of that.
The right hon. Member for Copeland asked me about the regulator, but he will understand that the regulator is independent and I cannot tell him what to say about the matter. It is entirely for him to comment as he thinks fit. I was asked specifically about the recent flotation of shares in National Power and PowerGen. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman—I am surprised that he has not taken the trouble to find this out—that reference was made to the nuclear review in the prospectus for the sale of the shares.
I found the response of the right hon. Gentleman—who, because of his constituency interests, should know better—particularly distasteful in respect of his reference to nuclear safety, which is in no way a matter of controversy between all the parties in the House. Our standards are excellent, and they have been widely admired and followed through from Government to Government.
The standards are the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive which, as the House will know, is a tripartite body on which the trade unions are represented. It is therefore of particular relevance that, in its evidence to the nuclear review, the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate should have given clear indications that it did not believe that a different regime was appropriate whether the industry was in the public or the private sector. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the procedures will not be changed unless at the behest of the nuclear inspectorate.
There is nothing new in the idea that the nuclear inspectorate should license private sector sites. I would be happy to produce the information for the House—I am sure that I will be asked to do so. I have a list of about 56 public and private sector sites that are licensed by the nuclear inspectorate. It is a matter of historic fact that some of those sites were licensed by a Labour Government, long before we thought of privatising the industry. Those sites are and were in the private sector.
The fact is that any attempt to frighten the public with the scare tactics characteristic of the Opposition will fall on deaf ears, because the regimes are tested in time and have been applied by all Governments to both public and private sector installations. I have not the slightest doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has done the best that he can with an impossibly weak case.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Those first exchanges have taken about 25 minutes. If that goes on, very few people will be called, so I am asking for brisk questions and answers.
Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that employees at the two nuclear power stations at Heysham in my constituency will be most approving of his statement and of the way in which he is seeking to privatise the nuclear industries of Scotland and England jointly? No doubt the alternative would have been that Scottish Nuclear would have somehow acted in a predatory way to grab a couple of English power stations from my constituency. I am sure that the good folk in Scotland would not have wanted that

569
and will realise that it is logical to promote the whole of the British nuclear industry as a British national asset for the benefit of all the British people.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to place the emphasis on the overall national interest. As is widely known and would be expected, we considered a range of options but came to the view that, in the overall interests of the industry and of the United Kingdom, this was the best way forward.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Secretary of State's opening comments confirm that the industry is uneconomical—the private sector would build no private stations. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that to make privatisation work he has had to cherry-pick the profitable bits, while leaving the liability with our children for generations to come.
Can he answer the crucial question this afternoon? What does he expect to be the income to the Government from the privatisation in order to fund tax cuts at the general election? What does he expect will be the total liability of the remaining costs of Magnox and of those sectors to be privatised, which his review confirmed will not be wholly taken on by the private sector? In other words, what is the profit and loss account to the taxpayer? Is it not mainly loss?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will realise that he has tried to put the worst possible slant on what is a perfectly logical industrial evolution. We are not proposing to privatise the older stations—where experimentation and the older technologies were developed. After we moved from Magnox to the AGRs and PWRs, such were the enhanced gains, efficiency achievements and cost structures that emerged, that privatisation became an option.
Apparently, the hon. Gentleman knows that the private sector will not build a further station. I do not know on what basis he makes that calculation. The White Paper says that it will not build one now. If he knows what energy demand will look like in the next 10, 20 or 30 years, he has a wisdom that is wisely contained on the Opposition Benches.
Sir Trevor Skeet: As the nuclear industry is environmentally friendly and very competitive on price compared with conventional fuels, will my right hon. Friend ensure that it has about 25 per cent. of our energy supply? On the transfer of the Magnox reactors to BNFL, will he confirm that that company will be fully compensated for the increased liabilities that are being placed on its shoulders?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend asks an important question. The transfers will take place on a commercial basis. The facts will be carefully considered and the arguments weighed at the time. I cannot give my hon. Friend an assurance about the specific market share. The essence of our energy policy is that we should have diversity of supply and competition between sources of fuel, so it is now for the various generators to seek the best possible deal in the light of what they can offer the market.
Mr. Adam Ingram: Does the President of the Board of Trade accept that last week we accurately speculated on the content of his announcement and that
570
that speculation united all political parties in Scotland, provoked a furious reaction from the business community and caused the Financial Times to call the proposal a "folly". Does he accept that the people who work in Scottish Nuclear's headquarters in my constituency will believe none of the assurances that he gave today? He told the House that the new headquarters of the corporate company will be enshrined in law for 10 years. Will he give the same guarantee to those currently employed at Scottish Nuclear's headquarters in my constituency?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will understand if I say that I find the Opposition's allegations about what people do and do not believe slightly lacking in intellectual credibility for one overriding reason: whenever we have privatised an industry, the Opposition have said that it is unpopular, nobody wants it and it will destroy jobs and investment. It has now been proved that they were so wrong that they are not now prepared to undertake to re-nationalise a single industry. They have torn their party apart by removing the conditions of clause IV because they know that the whole intellectual case against privatisation is bankrupt.
Mr. John Whittingdale: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which is undoubtedly in the best interests of the nuclear industry and consumers? Will he say a little more about the fate of Magnox stations, such as Bradwell in my constituency? Will he confirm that those stations will remain open for as long as it is safe and economically viable for them to do so? If they are closed, will staff employed there be able to transfer back to Nuclear Electric and work in its power stations in the private sector?
Mr. Heseltine: I know that my hon. Friend has a considerable interest in this matter. We hope that the Magnox stations will continue in active life, producing electricity on an economic market base. It is very much our purpose in creating the stand-alone company that it will become part of BNFL and have every incentive to maximise its performance. I hope that my hon. Friend understands that I cannot foresee how long those arrangements will be in place, although we hope that they will be long-term. I cannot foresee the employment consequences and it would be misleading of me to give the assurances that my hon. Friend seeks.
Mr. Andrew Miller: The City institutions cannot even think in terms of the short life of this Government, let alone that of Stroutium 90, so how on earth can the President of the Board of Trade confidently say that the private sector will go for this package unless he is giving the industry away at well below its true value? Will the package give taxpayers' money to the President's friends in the City?
Mr. Heseltine: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is worried about because if we can find no one to buy it, he will have no difficulties.
Dr. Michael Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who were somewhat critical of the delay in producing the nuclear review now consider that the wait was well worth while, as privatisation is included in the presentation? Will the privatisation of the nuclear

571
industry facilitate the construction of more nuclear power stations? What constraints, if any, will be placed on the private company in that regard?
Mr. Heseltine: I know of my hon. Friend's deep interest in those matters. There will be nothing except the statutory constraints, although planning and safety arrangements must obviously be complied with before one can proceed to build a new power station. Equally, we have given every support to Nuclear Electric in its bid to supply a nuclear station to Taiwan, and we shall give the industry every support in pursuing other world opportunities.
Mr. John Home Robertson: If one is shooting oneself in the foot, the clever thing to do is to stop pulling the trigger. May I tell the President of the Board of Trade that my constituents at Torness do not want to be privatised, and they certainly do not want to be shunted into a sham holding company, which would inevitably be dominated by its larger partner?
The President of the Board of Trade told us that the pill will be sweetened south of the border with a bribe of £20 per household arising from the lifting of the nuclear levy, but he was rather coy about the deal in Scotland. Will consumers north of the border receive an equivalent deal?
Mr. Heseltine: I explained that, with other reductions in electricity already forecast and the abolition of the levy arrangements in Scotland, something of the same order of reductions will take place. However, the House will be aware that Scotland starts from a position very different from that of England and Wales, because electricity prices in Scotland are already about 10 per cent. less than prices in England and Wales, so one is not comparing like with like. I do foresee significant reductions in electricity prices in Scotland, and that is much to be admired.
I find it extraordinary—although it reveals the attitude of the Labour party—that, when we offer to return to people the money that they themselves have earned, it is regarded as a bribe.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend accept my strong support for that policy of privatisation of the nuclear industry? I speak as someone many hundreds of whose constituents are employed in that industry, and no doubt that contributed to the fact that the Conservatives retained control of the local authority in Macclesfield, in anticipation of the excellent announcement that was made today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Was my right hon. Friend surprised at the sour note struck by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)? Considering that, for the past 15 years, the Labour party has been wedded to a policy of slow strangulation of the nuclear industry, there would not have been any review under a Labour Government because they would have continued their policies, which would have led to the destruction of the nuclear industry and the jobs of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that 126 nuclear projects are going on or are in prospect in the next quarter of a century throughout the world, and that a huge business opportunity exists for Britain? Will not the nuclear industry be far better able to take advantage of that opportunity in the private sector than in its present
572
position, which has existed for so long, where its managers have had to look over their shoulders at politicians to decide whether they can run their industry in the most successful way?
Mr. Heseltine: I knew, from the years that I had worked with my hon. Friend, exactly how much support I could anticipate from him for my announcement today, and I welcome the public revelation of that fact. I totally support his opinion. There would not have been a review by the Labour party. Indeed, all the evidence today is that it is trying to interfere with the regulators whose task it is to drive down prices in industry after industry, in order to find a range of politically acceptable nostrums. The only effect of that will be to keep prices higher than they could otherwise be.
I fully accept and greatly welcome the excellence of the announcement for Macclesfield. I realise that one of the great advantages of leaks is that a leak enabled that constituency to make so wise a judgment. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am now working on a range of policies to deal with less fortunate constituencies.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Has the President of the Board of Trade already influenced the nuclear installations inspectorate? A spokesperson for that organisation is quoted in The Herald this morning as hoping that the Government's timetable for privatisation can be kept on track. Is not that inspectorate meant to be an independent organisation, fearlessly inspecting nuclear installations—not part of that madcap privatisation, and not hoping that it can be kept on track?
Will the President give a serious answer to the anxieties that exist in Scotland? Given the experience of companies such as Guinness, which made commitments that then were broken, British Gas and British Steel, in respect of which commitments were made as part of a privatisation process and then broken, and Britoil, in which case, the President will remember, there was a golden share, why should anyone in Scotland have any confidence in Tory promises, paper guarantees or golden shares that turn to base metal?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that, as I said originally, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will possess a share, either jointly with myself in respect of a holding company or individually in respect of Scottish Nuclear, to ensure that the proper safeguards are operated. We have gone to considerable lengths to discuss the matter with the parties concerned to ensure that there is a clear understanding of the Government's intention. I must say, more in sorrow than in anger, that I find it intolerable that the hon. Gentleman should think that the inspectorate is capable of being influenced—but he reads the newspapers, so perhaps I do understand why he believes that that is possible.
Mr. Allan Stewart: In contrast to the neanderthal, knee-jerk reactions of Scottish Opposition Members to my right hon. Friend's statement, I warmly welcome his decision to privatise the nuclear industry. As he knows, a substantial number of my constituents are employed by Scottish Nuclear Ltd. in East Kilbride. Will he confirm my interpretation of his statement that not only

573
will there be no job losses at East Kilbride as a consequence of the decision, but in fact it will create substantial additional employment opportunities?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has represented his constituents extremely forcefully and we are well aware of the local concerns about the matter. He will know, as will all hon. Members who are interested in this subject, that there have been significant job losses in Scottish Nuclear in recent times. That is a feature of the modernisation of many of our major companies. I have made it clear that we think that some 100 jobs will be created in Scotland which would not exist if it were not for the announcement.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the President aware that he is undermining the future of commercial nuclear power by hiding its capital costs from public view? If and when future hydrocarbon costs move in a direction whereby nuclear power becomes fully competitive, taking into account capital costs, is the President not aware that there will be a long lag? The nuclear power industry is so profitable and it is so ready to invest that it will bitterly regret the many years of neglect of research and development and investment under this Government.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman need not be so pessimistic. The fact is that it is the easiest thing in the world to hide the capital costs in the public sector, but one cannot hide the capital costs in the private sector. While I would be the first to recognise that the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the absence of clear financial disciplines under the present regimes, that is a criticism which could be levelled at the public sector owning and operating any industry.
The costs of the new company that we are talking about today will be clear. It will have to raise its funds from the market place and remunerate them in the proper way. I hope to see the market change and the hon. Gentleman may be right in expecting to see relative cost changes. It takes about 10 years to build a new nuclear station, and that is not an impossible time scale in the context of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Den Dover: A few years ago the Government were quite right to hold back from privatising the nuclear industry. However, today's announcement deserves great praise because it shows that we are continuing the privatisation of the power industry in a practical and a pragmatic manner.
Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that he is right and, as with all the other privatisation measures that we have taken and have had to fight to get through Parliament, I am sure that this measure will prove justified also.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Why has no mention been made of the need for a group safety director to serve on the main holding company board? What engineering functions does the Secretary of State have in mind in the context of his statement about engineering functions coming to Scotland? Does he accept that, unless the apparatus of the safety monitoring mechanism and key
574
engineering functions come to the headquarters, he might as well be putting up a brass plate in Edinburgh and little else?
Mr. Heseltine: I am surprised that it has taken the hon. Gentleman so long to come to that view. The nuclear installations inspectorate has operated for many years and it has the power to say whether it wants safety directors to serve on the boards of companies. When it was in power, the Labour party had every chance to influence the nuclear installations inspectorate.
The hon. Gentleman has asked a question to which the obvious answer is: the nuclear installations inspectorate has not thought it necessary, as part of its rigorous and world-renowned regime, to state that a safety director should serve on the boards of companies. I have no concerns about the proposal if the experts, who are charged by the House to carry out their responsibilities in the area, think that it is necessary. I would not wish to undermine the hon. Gentleman's credibility, but I must tell him that it would take more than a parliamentary question from him to persuade me.
Mr. Phil Gallie: As a supporter of the nuclear industry, unlike most Opposition Members, may I welcome the move to privatise it? That is the only means of bringing about investment and further development. I also welcome the announcement of new jobs in Scotland, and the opportunities for more engineering jobs that will go with the investment and development. May I remind my right hon. Friend that, if he and his predecessors had, listened to Opposition Members, there would have been no Torness?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We would not have had any of the great privatised companies either, if I had listened to the Labour party. It is simply because the Government have had the guts to do what they have done that we have so many world-class players, converted out of the public sector and turned into world-class private sector companies.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Have we not reached a sorry state of affairs, when the Government who privatised rain are now privatising radiation? What guarantee have we that the President of the Board of Trade will not do the same trick as he pulled with the coal industry and organise a shabby deal with one of his Tory friends, as he did when he sold the coal industry to R. J. Budge? Will he guarantee that this time he will not engage in a crooked deal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—or refuse to examine it when requested to in the House? What guarantees have we that the same thing will not happen again?
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has used language and accusations that are unacceptable in the House. I ask him—
Mr. Skinner: It was all on "Panorama".
Madam Speaker: We are not on "Panorama" in the House, thank goodness. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would rephrase what he has just said—
Mr. Skinner: No. It was a crooked deal.
Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If he wishes to rephrase it of course I shall accept it and call on the Secretary of State to respond.
Mr. Skinner: I have no intention of withdrawing the fact that the Government engaged in a crooked deal to

575
sell off the English part of the coal industry to R. J. Budge—one of their Tory friends, and a director who had been discredited before the sale took place.
Madam Speaker: If that is the case, in accordance with the power given me by Standing Order No. 42 I order the hon. Gentleman to withdraw immediately from the House for the remainder of this day's sitting.
The hon. Member then withdrew.
Mr. Douglas French: Notwithstanding the commercial logic of privatisation, is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will cause considerable anguish and anxiety to my 900 constituents who work at Nuclear Electric in Barnwood in Gloucester? Is he aware that his statement, although strong on job creation in Scotland, said little about job implications in Gloucester? In particular, would it not be possible to reconsider the proposed changes on the Magnox front? Magnox could easily have been left in the hands of Nuclear Electric at Barnwood, as the management there recommended.
Mr. Heseltine: I want to ensure that my hon. Friend's views are clearly understood, and I should be happy to discuss those matter with him. However, the figures that he mentioned alone suggest that the cause of his concern may not be so substantial. We have talked about an extra 100 jobs in Scotland, and my hon. Friend is talking about a constituency interest involving 900 jobs, so it should be reasonable for us to allay his anxieties.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: As I have constituents who work in the two Magnox stations in Gwynnedd, and as that county has suffered more than any other and still suffers from the effects of Chernobyl, the President of the Board of Trade will understand if I press him on his statement about minimising back-end costs in respect of Magnox stations. Will he give an assurance that adequate funds will be available from the public purse, as necessary, to ensure that any decommissioning of those stations is done in a thoroughly safe manner and that no risks whatsoever will be taken when their life comes to an end?
Mr. Heseltine: Yes.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision will be welcomed by the coal industry, which feels that its competitiveness has been undermined by the nuclear levy for far too long? Does he agree that, at long last, that industry can compete on much more equal terms with other potential providers of energy?
Mr. Heseltine: I hear what my hon. Friend says and, of course, it must be true, but the most exciting development for the coal industry is its enhanced competitiveness and productivity following privatisation.
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Was not The Economist magazine right when it said that it was a short-term financial fiddle to help the Tories but not the country? Why should the Government cherry-pick the nuclear industry so that a few individuals can make a great deal of money, while the vast majority of the British
576
people are bribed with their own money in the short run and have to face higher taxes to pay for decommissioning costs in the long run?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that the same question was asked earlier and I answered it. In respect of the Magnox stations in the public sector and the Nuclear Electric stations in the private sector, there will be segregated funds to ensure that the costs of decommissioning are met as the consumption of electricity increases.
Mr. Piers Merchant: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a masterstroke? Is not the fact that he has been able to reach absolutely the right conclusion a tribute not just to him, which it is, but to the work of Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear over recent years? Does he agree that privatisation will benefit the consumer with lower prices, the taxpayer because of the proceeds of privatisation, the industry by giving it independence, and British exports by setting Britain's nuclear industry free to compete and thrive on the world market?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has, in summary, set out the excellent ideas that were enshrined in his pamphlet. I agree exactly with him. I should say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) that the segregated funds that I mentioned will be in the private sector, applying to arrangements in respect of Nuclear Electric and Scottish Electric. There are no segregated funds in the public sector, but that will not prejudice the spirit of what I said.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Should not potential investors beware? Has not the President of the Board of Trade said that he will not interfere with the competition policy of the regulator, who has said that PowerGen and National Power are too large and must divest themselves of certain parts of their organisations? Therefore, potential investors may be investing in an organisation that may be ordered to be broken up by the regulator shortly thereafter.
Mr. Heseltine: The regulator will want to comment on those matters, but the House will appreciate that, on the announcement that I have made today, the nuclear companies will increase their share of the market. If anything, we are enhancing competition by splitting the nuclear industry into a public and private sector. There will be a free-standing Magnox company and a privatised company. It is a matter entirely for the regulator to decide his own views, but competition is enhanced, not diminished, by what I have said today.
Mr. Michael Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the privatisation will depend entirely on the mix of assets, liabilities, income streams and planning permissions—such as that at Hinckley C—that are passed to the new company? In particular, will he confirm that the segregated funds for future decommissioning liabilities will consist of liquid rather than trade assets, so that the public can be reassured that there will be no core in 50 or 100 years time?
Mr. Heseltine: In respect of the private sector, following the answer that I have just given, we certainly

577
accept the spirit of what my hon. Friend says. We expect them to be cash or liquid funds, but we shall examine the matters in detail.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I disagree with virtually all the right hon. Gentleman's arguments in favour of privatisation, but does he realise that his announcement today will kill off the nuclear industry, that, if the nuclear industry had been in private hands, no nuclear reactors would ever have been built, and that the privatised nuclear industry that the right hon. Gentleman has announced today will never build any new nuclear power stations?
Mr. Heseltine: I do not know which Sunday newspapers the hon. Gentleman reads, but I could not help noticing that The Independent on Sunday, not a newspaper overwhelmingly committed to the Conservative cause, said:
"Privately owned nuclear stations are not unusual. Outside Britain, the majority are already in the private sector, including plants in the United States, Spain, Sweden, Belgium, Germany and Japan."
It is a little rash for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that none would have been built here under the private sector.
Mr. Ian Bruce: The House will not be surprised that my right hon. Friend believes that, as the review says, the private sector will not want to finance a new nuclear power station now, but if a future management of the company wanted to ask the private sector whether it was willing to finance Sizewell C, or
578
some other nuclear power plant, to get on with that and to find the funds, would he encourage them if it could be done without any public subsidy?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. As long as there were no public subsidy, and subject to the usual statutory procedures, I would encourage it, yes.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: The Secretary of State has made repeated references to the importance of nuclear safety, and he has correctly identified the publicly owned nuclear industry as a major contributor to that safety. As the nuclear installations inspectorate is considerably smaller than many of its international comparators, what guarantee can the right hon. Gentleman give that, in the private sector, shareholders will continue to give the same commitment in terms of expenditure and resources to safety and investment in research so that the companies will be able to carry on in the future and the safety measures in particular will be stressed? At the moment, we have a small inspectorate and a large commitment from the nuclear industry to safety. How can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that that will continue under the new owners?
Mr. Heseltine: It will continue in exactly the same way as it continued under the Labour Government when they licensed private sector nuclear sites. The same inspectorate will carry out its statutory duties. Neither this Government nor any other Government would dare to try to influence the nuclear installations inspectorate in, or prevent it from, the proper exercise of its duty. To suggest anything other than that is, frankly, to cast a slur on a distinguished group of men and women doing a thoroughly honourable job.

Points of Order
4.27 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a report in the Evening Standard, and there has been a report on television, about a serious problem at the Homerton hospital, which had to close its accident and emergency department for 32 hours, arising from its inability to cope as a result of the closure of Bart's. There has just been a report of a man, seriously ill as a result of an accident, being turned away because of a bed shortage. I know that the Secretary of State for Health is facing the sack shortly, but surely, while she is still responsible for the national health service in London, she should be here making a statement on what is happening in London.
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that the Secretary of State or any other Health Minister is making a statement today. But, as the hon. Lady is aware, we have a debate tomorrow on the health service in London. She may be fortunate enough to catch my eye and raise such matters then.
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Secretary of State for Social Security has said that he will make a statement this week restricting the funeral grant to £500. Has he said that he will make a statement to the House, which would be entirely appropriate in view of the mean-minded nature of the act, which will cause extreme stress at a time of great strain?
Madam Speaker: No, I have not been told that such a statement is to be made in the House. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it is for Ministers to determine whether to make a statement by means of a written answer or orally at the Dispatch Box.

Interpretation (Amendment)
4.28 pm
Ms Jean Corston: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to eliminate sexism in the language of future Acts of Parliament and other instruments.
All legislation passed by Parliament is drafted in a form that assumes that the male gender defines humanity. We are all referred to as "he" or "him". No doubt I shall be told that the masculine imports the feminine, or that "he embraces she". That statement is often referred to as a joke; a joke which wears a little thin.
It is bad enough that legislation routinely excludes half of the human race, but sometimes it makes us appear ridiculous. For example, the Charities Act 1993 describes the powers and duties of the official custodian for charities. Section 2, sub-section 3 of that Act reads:
"The official custodian shall perform his duties in accordance with such general or special directions as may be given him by the Commissioners, and his expenses (accept those re-imbursed to him or recovered by him as trustee for any charity) shall be defrayed by the Commissioners."
That section, which was produced—I repeat—in 1993, contains five references to the official custodian in the male gender, yet when the Bill was going through Parliament, the official custodian was a woman.
The effect of my Bill would be that "he" and "she" would be used only when specific reference were made to a man or a woman—for example, when referring to the rights and duties of mothers and fathers in family legislation. All other legislation would be drafted in gender-neutral language, with the word "person" used where appropriate. That would not be impossible. It would not even be difficult. In February 1993, I introduced a private Member's Bill on miscarriages of justice. It was drafted in gender-neutral language, for which I received invaluable assistance from staff in the Public Bill Office, it does not reek of political correctness and it reads as perfectly acceptable English. All that is required is a different mind-set.
I am not the only person in Parliament who thinks that the language that we use is important. Baroness Castle started her maiden speech in the other place in November 1990 with the words "Fellow Peers" instead of the customary "My Lords". I first became conscious of sexist language about 20 years ago, during the setting up of the Equal Opportunities Commission by the then Labour Government. Certain sections of the media had a field day with jokes—which no doubt Ministers on the Front Bench are sharing at the moment—such as person hole cover for manhole cover and fire person for fireman. Now we routinely refer to inspection covers and firefighters. The use of the words "chair" and "chairperson" have been derided, yet when I look back to meetings where nominations for chairmen were sought, I remember that I always used to look around the room at the men present, and would go on to consider a woman if none of the men seemed suitable. Language frames our unconscious thoughts.
On 18 March, Madam Speaker, my determination to pursue this issue came to a head when I went to Birmingham for your installation as the chancellor of the Open university. During his address, the vice-chancellor confirmed that advice had been given that it was in order for you to become Chancellor. That was necessary

581
because the university charter, which was approved by Parliament, referred to the chancellor as "he". I cannot think of anyone more suitable than you, Madam Speaker, to be chancellor of the Open university, and although you and everyone present treated it as a matter of wry humour, I could not help thinking that it was ludicrous. The very idea that the drafting of that document should have excluded you and half the human race is simply unacceptable.
Women have never been given any rights by this place; rights have always been hard-won. Only in the middle of the previous century did the courts decide that the word "person" included married women. Until then, women had ceased to be persons in their own right once they married. The Council of Europe, of which Britain is a member, recommended on 21 February 1990 that member states should encourage the use of non-sexist language and bring the terminology used in legal drafting into line with the principle of sex equality. It acknowledged that the sexism characterising current western usage in most member states, whereby the masculine prevails over the feminine, is hindering the establishment of equality between women and men, since it obscures the existence of women as half of humanity.
We cannot have actions that are equitable without language that is equitable. Language is the mirror of society. Women must be able to see themselves in that mirror.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Jean Corston, Ms Clare Short, Ms Harriet Harman, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Ms Tessa Jowell, Mr. Peter Hain, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mr. Clive Betts, Mr. Win Griffiths and Ms Angela Eagle.

Interpretation (Amendment)
  INTERPRETATION (AMENDMENT)
  Ms Jean Corston accordingly presented a Bill to eliminate sexism in the language of future Acts of Parliament and other instruments: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 119.]

Former Yugoslavia
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
4.35 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I am glad that the House is debating the position in the former Yugoslavia. I apologise to the House because, as I told the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), a private commitment tonight will prevent me from being here for the winding-up speeches.
Four years ago next month, fighting erupted in the old Yugoslavia, briefly in Slovenia, then in Croatia. This autumn, it will be three years since a British battalion group first deployed with the UN protection force in Bosnia. The whole House agrees that it has done stalwart work, but we remain far from a settlement to the crisis.
In the past few weeks, fighting has once again returned to the front pages. Our attention has been pulled back to the precarious balance that prevails in Croatia as well as in Bosnia. There is a real risk of a relapse into substantial war, in place of the ragged peace of recent months. I can briefly update the House on the facts as I know them since we had our exchanges last week.
In Croatia, levels of tension are high, following the Croatian military action in western Slavonia last week and the shelling of Zagreb in response by the Krajina Serbs. Over the weekend, there have been reports of shelling of the remaining Serb held pockets in western Slavonia, and the situation in other areas of Croatia is also tense. On Sunday, UNPROFOR secured agreement from the parties to withdraw their forces from the confrontation line. However, as yet there is little sign of that happening.
I told President Tudjman of our deep anxiety in London on Sunday, and urged him to prevent further military action by the Croatian forces. Chancellor Kohl, who was with us, endorsed my comments. President Tudjman assured me that Croatian forces would take no further military action. That commitment has to be met.
In Bosnia, too, the situation is tense, although there have been no significant recent changes in the military balance. In the past few days, shelling and other exchanges of fire have intensified including at Bihac, Tuzla and the Posavina corridor. There was a particularly violent incident on Sunday, when the Bosnian Serbs shelled Butmir near Sarajevo, killing 10 Bosnian soldiers and civilians, and wounding up to 10 other people.
Some conclude from this upsurge of violence, both in Croatia and Bosnia, that we face a futile task, which it would be better to abandon.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later.
We are not yet at the point at which, in our judgment, it is right to abandon the task. The work that we and our partners are carrying out in the former Yugoslavia may one day become impossible to sustain, but lives are being saved, towns and villages are being restored to something like normality, and a wider war is being averted.

583
I should like to explain to the House the balance of our judgment, and we shall listen carefully to what the House says about that balance. As I speak, in our judgment the risks are undoubted, the benefits still real. So far, we have judged that the benefits outweigh the risks. We believe that is so today. It may not always be so.
There have been two sets of criticisms of our policy: that we should be doing a good deal more than we are, or that we should be doing a good deal less. Each time, we have, of course, often considered the alternatives. They have always seemed to us worse than the situation that they are supposed to cure.
We need to remind ourselves in what British interest our troops and aid workers went to the Balkans, and why they remain. In August 1992, 1.8 million people had been forced out of their homes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Britain had taken the lead in establishing an airlift to Sarajevo to help feed and provide for those people, but the fighting across Bosnia and the lack of proper logistic support severely hampered the relief work. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees foresaw a humanitarian catastrophe that winter.
Beyond the human crisis, we saw a risk of sliding from local fighting, which of course is cruel and destructive, into a regional conflagration, which might spread beyond control. No one could or can ignore the fault lines that run through that part of Europe today, as they have for centuries. As the killing continued in Croatia and in Bosnia, we watched anxiously for the news of the first violence in Kosovo, Macedonia and elsewhere. We saw then, and they are still visible, the signs of the danger of a wider Balkan war, in which the United States of America and Russia would back different sides.
We were clear as to what we could do to save lives and contain the conflict. We were also clear as to what we could not do, and I have tried to be frank with the House about that at all times. We were not willing—not Britain, not Europe and certainly not the United States—to impose a settlement from outside by force. We could not start to build something new from the ruins of Yugoslavia while its peoples continued to tear down the building and fight over the rubble.
The main responsibility—again I repeat what I have said consistently to the House—for starting the war rests with the Serbs, but in essence these have always been civil wars. We cannot find peace by ejecting Croatian Serbs and Bosnian Serbs from their own lands in Croatia and Bosnia. The war in Bosnia has involved at least three parties, none of them a majority in that country. What military solution can there be in such circumstances? In practice, only an agreement between the parties will enable the different communities to live together in peace.
There has been a second, more common delusion: that somehow we should have gone in halfway. We might, say, help one side with our aircraft and bombs while they fight it out on the ground. I know of no Government whose military experts think that the use of air power could swing the balance of advantage in the mountains of Bosnia. Equally, if the arms embargo were lifted, the fighting would at least continue and, most of us now think, escalate.
Having waded thus deep halfway into the current, we would then face a choice of plunging headlong onwards, or retreating to the bank, as those whom we have begun
584
to favour were swept away. At the beginning, half-measures often seem risk-free and a practical alternative, but the half-measures that I have mentioned, which have been advocated quite often in the House and outside, are neither practical nor risk-free.
Mr. Winnick: I should like to refer the Foreign Secretary to his response to me last Wednesday in column 332 of Hansard during answers to a private notice question. I had asked about safe areas. He said, in effect, that events had moved on. In view of the outrage, which he has already mentioned today, perpetrated by the Serbians against civilians in the capital of Bosnia, what is the purpose of designated safe areas if no action is taken to try to ensure that the Serbs do not take military action causing the deaths of so many innocent people? Perhaps he will respond to that.
Mr. Hurd: Anyone who has gone to Sarajevo in recent months knows what the purpose is. It has not been fully achieved, and the hon. Gentleman is right in his comment on what has just occurred, but Sarajevo has changed substantially. It is no longer a place where thousands and thousands of shells rain on it every week—it used to be. That is only a partial achievement, but it has been reached because the UN has been there and has been active. The hon. Gentleman's point, which I understand, and my answer illustrate precisely where we are.
If by some quick, surgical, in-out strike, we could collectively have brought all the suffering to an end, I do not doubt that we would have done so, but at no time in the course of all the bloody unravelling of Yugoslavia has a proposal to that effect been suggested which on examination made any sense.
Of course—I concede this to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen)—we in these islands have no close interest in the detail of a further Bosnian constitution or in the precise relationship between a Croatian Government in Zagreb and its Serb minority, but we do—I hope that my hon. Friend and those who think like him, who are quite numerous, will agree—have an interest in stopping a war spreading across the map of Europe, particularly, as I have said, a war that would range the United States and Russia on different sides. Most of our constituents want in addition that we should play our part in saving lives and relieving hunger. Those are the two main objectives. The fact that we cannot do everything is not an argument for doing nothing.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: The Foreign Secretary has mentioned the UN mission, which is to protect safe areas and to save lives. Will he comment on newspaper reports that the UN commander in Bosnia requested air strikes to protect the safe area in Sarajevo from further shelling, and that that was overruled by the UN at a political level? Is it right that the judgment of the UN commander on the ground should be overruled in that way?
Mr. Hurd: There are several UN commanders, and there is a UN chain of command. That chain of command decided yesterday not to ask the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to respond to the attack on Butmir. It is for the force commanders on the ground to recommend the action that they consider right in the circumstances. UN forces should maintain their credibility, and we support proportionate responses to violations of UN Security

585
Council resolutions. On occasion, that may call for robust action, including use of our air power, but that must be done with the approval of the UN chain of command.
We were caught between what might be called the unpalatable and the impracticable. We have sought to do three things. First, we have tried to contain the fighting. With the arms embargo, we aim to limit the fire instead of throwing on more oil. By sending UN forces to Macedonia—not British forces, but including American forces—we have deterred anyone tempted to make that country into a new battlefield.
Secondly, we have attempted—we have managed—to soften the war's effect on civilians. Tens of thousands of men and women from Britain and elsewhere—military and civilian personnel—are working in Croatia and Bosnia to save lives and alleviate suffering.
Thirdly, we have tried to create the conditions for peace. That involves soldiers on the ground mediating local disputes, brokering local ceasefires. It involves the diplomatic effort, slowly coaxing the parties by persuasion or pressure towards a settlement. That goes on all the time. Those people encourage the parties to see that war does not offer them or anyone a satisfactory answer, and they offer them a basis for peaceful negotiation.
As I said last week, none of that may seem dramatic. It does not lend itself to the rhetoric that goes with more violent action, but Bosnia has suffered too much from rhetoric and trumpet-blowing from afar. We have got on with the job that we believed we could realistically do. That is an honourable task for our forces, our aid workers and for our diplomats.
Thirteen of our troops, as well as two British aid workers, have been tragically killed in the course of that task. We work alongside others. The French have lost 35 dead; the Spaniards 14. Conspicuous individual contributions have been made, and I salute and congratulate the British officers and men whose awards for gallantry have been announced today.
So far, we have not succeeded in our peace-building efforts. If one can put it this way, the spider, despite repeated efforts, has not yet reached the ledge, but as Robert Bruce found, that is not a reason for no longer trying.
We have averted a wider war, and in large parts of Bosnia and Croatia we have brought a measure of peace and comfort to millions of people, mainly through the core of protective support for humanitarian assistance provided by UNPROFOR. The Sarajevo airlift, for example, has been a crucial lifeline.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Having seen for myself much of what has been achieved in Bosnia, I agree with all that the Foreign Secretary has said about UNPROFOR. He must surely acknowledge, however, that something is very wrong with the UN chain of command of which he has spoken, when General Rupert Smith, the UN commander in Bosnia, calls for an appropriate and proportionate response to deal with aggression against people in the protected areas, and that is overruled by political decisions.
Mr. Hurd: I have given our position on that; my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence may want to add his own knowledge when he winds up the debate. Of course, there is a UN chain of command,
586
which—as the hon. Gentleman knows—is partly military and partly civilian. Any decision about air strikes must be approved by the chain of command: that is what the "dual key" is about. It is not possible for NATO or individual Governments to go against that. The conclusion reached yesterday was the conclusion that I have reported to the House.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Foreign Secretary is aware of the widespread anxiety about UN operations as a whole. Is the root of the problem really the UN's shortage of money? Is that really the fundamental problem?
Mr. Hurd: No, the problem is not shortage of money. I shall sum up what I consider to be the fundamental problem, in a way that I hope the hon. Gentleman will find acceptable and relevant.
Two specific gains over the past year have not been fully remarked. Just over a year ago, the leaders of the Muslim and Croat communities in Bosnia agreed in Washington to halt their fighting and build a federation—on which American diplomacy is to be congratulated. Since then, most of central Bosnia—most of the area where our troops are—has been at peace. That is still a tenuous achievement; in Mostar, for instance, where there has been a huge amount of destruction, efforts at reconstruction are hampered by distrust between Muslims and Croats. Nevertheless, by signing that agreement, the two factions ended some of the most savage incidents and disasters of the war.
A second important move has been the rupture between the Bosnian Serbs and Belgrade. Last summer, President Milosevic decided to accept the contact group plan, and to seal the border with the Serbs in Bosnia until they did the same. I do not suppose that he acted out of sudden remorse for his earlier part in the crisis. The isolation of Mr. Karadzic and his followers over the past nine months has not itself brought peace, and some traffic over the border continues; but by and large, according to international reports that we have received and our own information, the border is closed, and that remains a real advance.
Ten days ago, I would have added a third success—the economic agreement and ceasefire brokered in Croatia last year. That has not been destroyed, but it is in jeopardy; I hope that it can be revived. The agreement was largely the work of Lord Owen, who has played an indispensable and—I must say—usually thankless part in the progress that has been made.
Our own military, humanitarian and political contribution has matched that of any other country. I want to update the figures, to dispel the idea that our troops or our aid workers are simply sitting there doing nothing, while being exposed to constant humiliation.
Today, we have 3,400 men and women in the British armed forces serving with UNPROFOR, and a further 3,000 serve in the wider Adriatic theatre. The Royal Welch Fusiliers are helping to protect the people in the isolated enclave of Gorazde. In central Bosnia, the Royal Highland Fusiliers are handing over to the Devonshire and Dorset regiment the task of cementing the fragile peace that I have described. The RAF has been flying the airlift to Sarajevo since it began in July 1992.
Much of the work is not headline, but low-key. Our troops patrol the confrontation lines. They help to build confidence between the opposing parties, man observation

587
posts, broker local agreements and liaise between the factions. British forces have helped to repair roads, schools and houses, often while off duty. They have helped to reconnect electricity, water and gas supplies for thousands of people. New bridges have been built, hundreds of miles of aid routes kept open, and 1,500 mines cleared from 68 minefields. Our troops have escorted nearly 4,500 convoys, carrying 250,000 tonnes of aid, and the RAF has flown 24,000 tonnes into Sarajevo.
On the civilian side, Overseas Development Administration trucks and drivers are the backbone of the UNHCR fleet. They have run nearly 2,000 convoys with 150,000 tonnes of aid. The ODA has flown some 450 aid flights to Sarajevo with 15,000 tonnes of aid: that is nearly 40 per cent. of all aid flights to Sarajevo in the past year.
Other ODA programmes cover engineering, telecommunications and medical support; 20,000 refugees in central Bosnia have been given winter shelter. We are the third largest donor of humanitarian aid, after the Americans and Japan. The UNHCR acknowledges that the ODA is pre-eminent on the ground in Bosnia.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Given the contribution made by the ODA and other British civilian personnel, will the Foreign Secretary give us an idea of the implications for that contribution of any withdrawal of the military contribution?
Mr. Hurd: I shall try to do so shortly.
I listed those contributions because they are not always remembered, and I feel that those concerned—and all of us—can be proud of them. They make a real difference to the lives of the victims of war. I readily accept, however, that that is not enough: it is softening the problem, but not solving it. The flare-up of fighting in western Slavonia last week, and the intransigence of the Bosnian Serbs, show the limits to what can be done if the parties themselves are unwilling to co-operate.
We have said before that UNPROFOR can remain only for as long as its task are practicable and the level of risk manageable, but how do we measure that? That is the question that interests many hon. Members who are in the middle of the argument. We must plan for the possibility that we shall have to withdraw; certainly our presence should not be taken for granted.
The UN is not there as a permanent armed relief operation. It went for an humanitarian purpose, and its most important work now is to help the political process. That, however, requires the parties to make certain choices as well. The UN cannot just stay in the Balkans for ever to pick up the bits and save people from the consequences of their own actions.
There is an urgent need, and a longer need. The urgent need is clearly for another stop to the fighting. As I have reported, there is a new ceasefire in Croatia, and we expect both sides to respect it. In Bosnia, we need to renew the cessation of hostilities that expired last week. Those are not ends in themselves, but they are preconditions for progress towards a lasting settlement.
What should be the form of that settlement? We cannot impose it, but the blueprints that have been suggested for it exist. The parties know them well, as do those who have followed them in the House. In Croatia, we favour the reintegration, under Croatian sovereignty, of the
588
Serb-controlled areas, with autonomy for areas where the Serbs constitute a majority. In Bosnia, we have suggested a loose union of the Muslim-Croat federation and the Serb regions. The Bosnian Serbs would need to return much of the land that they now occupy.
Mr. Macdonald: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr. Hurd: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I suspect that he may be trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The contact group is working hard to secure mutual recognition between Bosnia and Serbia and Montenegro. That mutual recognition could transform the prospects for peace. The Bosnian Government endorsed that idea, and if President Milosevic were to do the same—which is not impossible—he would be entitled to further relief of sanctions. Those are the ideas that we put forward—when I saw "we", I mean unanimously, in the contact group. But there is only so much that we outsiders can do. We can point the parties towards the negotiating table, but only they can decide when to sit down and talk seriously about peace.
I return finally to the question of British troops, which is in the forefront of the minds of most right hon. and hon. Members.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Before my right hon. Friend moves on to that important aspect, will he reiterate that when—I will not say "if'—a peace settlement is achieved, it will be internationally guaranteed, with all that that implies?
Mr. Hurd: Yes. Clearly that is necessary. As my hon. Friend knows, there are plans to make that effective in practice.
As to the presence of British troops. I understand the concerns in this House about British troops being involved in a long-drawn-out, inconclusive and risky operation. I understand also why some right hon. and hon. Members want to draw a line. The House should not delude itself about the consequences of the withdrawal of UNPROFOR. I say "the withdrawal of UNPROFOR", because I do not think it would be conceivable for British troops to withdraw alone, leaving in the lurch the contingents alongside whom our soldiers work—such as the New Zealanders, French and Spanish—and whose lines of communication they protect.
NATO plans for withdrawal are being finalised. It would be a difficult operation and could result in a flare-up of the war in Bosnia, greatly increased suffering and atrocities, and perhaps a spilling over of the war into other parts of the Balkans. The dangers and miseries of that need no description. But there are circumstances, as we have made clear to all concerned, in which we would have to withdraw. If the arms embargo were lifted and arms flooded into the area, we and most other troops contributors would judge that the time had come when the UN could no longer fulfil a worthwhile mission as peacekeeper. That is one possibility.
If, even with the arms embargo, the fighting flared up because the generals on either side mistakenly thought that they could achieve military victory, in those circumstances, too, the risks to our troops might outweigh the good they could do. There is a third possibility. If, month in month out, there was no sign of an effective peace process, and if it became clear that the parties were

589
simply exploiting the presence of the UN force to advance their military position, then, too, the troop contributors might decide that their presence was no longer contributing to peace.
We constantly review that judgment month after month, as we must, and as others do. By "we", I mean the British Government. It is a difficult judgment, and I do not think that this is the last time that the House will have to debate such a choice. Such choices may well be the pattern for the future. The nature of foreign policy has changed. Few choices are now absolute between good and evil. There is no longer that which President Reagan called an evil empire. There is no longer the likelihood of a world war. In my judgment, although this is more controversial, we are not likely often to see one sovereign state invading another, as Iraq invaded Kuwait.
We see something different in Bosnia, Somalia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Cambodia, Angola and Nagorno Karabakh—something to which the House is getting used, but with which it is finding it extraordinarily difficult to deal. We see relatively new-born states without natural frontiers. There are frontiers drawn on the map as a result of history. Frontiers are needed in a world of nation states, in which we shall go on living.
Few people seriously argue in most of those cases that the problem can be solved by shunting frontiers a few miles east, west, north or south. There is no magic in redrawing maps in any of those cases. Within each of those states, there are divisions, whether ethnic or ideological. They are usually divisions deepened by recent or ancient atrocities and by distortions of history.
Faced with the suffering that results, and about which many of our constituents feel strongly, some people and organisations in this country, and some non-governmental organisations, are beginning to argue for an international system based on the imperial principle of the international community imposing from outside a particular solution and form of government—as we did with the slave trade, for example. Others try to over-simplify the truth. It is much easier to make choices if one believes that there is nothing but virtue on one side and nothing but vice on the other. But making the choice easier by creating heroes and villains, when in fact the responsibility is shared, does not produce the right answer.
There will certainly be many places and many cases where we in Britain feel that we cannot help. We cannot be everywhere and try to play a part in everything. But there will be cases, such as Cyprus, Rwanda—where we went in and came out, and did a good job—and now Angola, where the British Government judge that it is in our interest to contribute with others to an international effort. I greatly welcome the professionalism and enthusiasm of our armed forces for that kind of task.
Individual judgments will be difficult. Our contribution needs to be clearly thought through and defined, but a crucially important point when debating foreign policy, in respect of Bosnia or elsewhere, is that it is a British interest to make from time to time, as in Bosnia, a specific and considered contribution to a more stable and less savage world.
5.6 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are united in grave concern at the deteriorating conflict throughout the former
590
Yugoslavia. Yesterday the House did not sit as a mark of respect for the 50th anniversary of peace in Europe. That gives added point to finding ourselves debating today the outbreak of war in one part of Europe. We have seen in Bosnia and Croatia, as so often before, that civilians pay the price for the willingness of their politicians to maintain war. Both sides of the House deplore civilian casualties—whether it involves Serb civilians fleeing from Croat soldiers, Croat civilians being hit by rockets in Zagreb, or Muslim civilians being hit by the mortar shells that fell on Sarajevo and Tuzla over the weekend.
Also of concern to the House is that a principal victim of the renewed fighting of the past week has been the United Nations and its mandate in the former Yugoslavia. It is only one week since the ceasefire formally came to an end. In that time, UN mandates have been comprehensively breached. The no-fly zone over the whole of Bosnia was breached when planes flew over Bihac. The heavy weapons exclusion zone around Sarajevo is allegedly being breached at present by heavy mortars in the hills around the city and by the alleged presence of two tanks within the exclusion zone.
The UN mandate for safe havens has plainly been broken time and again in the last seven days—most recently this weekend, with the shelling of Tuzla. The UN agreement for the opening of Sarajevo airport has been broken by the inability to fly planes in and out of that airport with safety. As someone who has flown out of Sarajevo, the Foreign Secretary will agree that it is not an airport in the sense that most right hon. and hon. Members would recognise. The terminal is a portakabin without windows. Nevertheless, that rudimentary structure provided a vital link between Sarajevo and the outside world, which has now been severed again. The UN-protected areas in Croatia have been violated by the Croatian Government, who sent a substantial military force to storm across the UN line around one protected area.
I find it disturbing that none of those challenges to the UN mandate has been met with a UN response. It is only too clear that some parties to the conflict have used the last four months of ceasefire to apply the three Rs of regrouping, refunding and rearming. The question is, what has the UN been doing during those four months? What has it done to prepare the safe haven for the likely resumption of hostilities? What has been done to try to achieve the best of all outcomes for the safe havens—demilitarisation—so that they do not provide legitimate military targets within the UN areas?
What makes it perhaps most surprising that we find ourselves caught unawares by the resumption of hostilities is that the breakdown of the ceasefire should itself be a surprise. I visited Bosnia in the first week of January. After bumping around in a Land Rover for three days across the tracks in Bosnia, I can tell the House that I am not surprised that it is easy to get a ceasefire in Bosnia around the middle of winter. The temperature there is below 5 deg C; there is frequent snow; visibility is very poor. Those are not the conditions for fighting an infantry war, which is why there is normally a reduction in military activity in winter. The test of any ceasefire was bound to come in the spring.
I do not believe that the cessation of hostilities need be a surprise, given the positions of the two major participants. The Bosnian Government made it perfectly clear to me when I visited them that they had no intention

591
of extending the ceasefire if there were no agreement on the contact group peace plan by the time that the ceasefire came to an end. That position is understandable.
We have to understand that the Bosnian Government do not want the present confrontation line to become frozen into a permanent division of Bosnia. The ghost that haunts Bosnia is the green line of Cyprus, where for 20 years a partition has been drawn along where a ceasefire line was negotiated. Equally, on the other side, the leadership of the Bosnian Serbs plainly had no intention of giving up the territory that was required if they were to agree to the contact group peace plan, nor had they any intention of honouring the terms of a ceasefire in which they were moving spirits.
Article 7 of the ceasefire that they signed at the end of December explicitly states:
"The parties agree to assist fully in the total restoration of utilities and the establishment of joint economic activities aimed at the normalization of life in all territories, and in particular, in and around the Safe Areas."
If that meant anything, it must have meant opening up access to Sarajevo and lifting the siege.
Far from honouring that article, the Serbs have tightened the noose around Sarajevo, which now has less contact with the outside world than it had before the ceasefire. Radovan Karadzic, who may have prime responsibility for initiating the ceasefire, also has to accept prime responsibility for sabotaging it. Given that that breakdown of the ceasefire was predictable—and, indeed, predicted—I find it puzzling that there has been no response to the repeated violations of the UN mandate that have followed in the wake of the collapse of the ceasefire.
The Foreign Secretary said that the Government and the UN would support a proportionate response to violations of the UN mandate. I understand that, and I fully share that view. We have to ask the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence why there has been no response, because, at present, the reaction of UN and UNPROFOR forces does not appear to be proportionate to the events of the past week.
I fully agree with what the Foreign Secretary said about our inability to impose a solution by military intervention. The big problem with imposing a solution by military intervention is not whether we could successfully carry it out but how long we would have to stay to make the political settlement stick and how we would get out after imposing a political settlement that nobody wanted until the military arrived.
I also agree with the Foreign Secretary that there are severe limitations on air power. It is a low-intensity ground war that cannot be won from the air alone. It is difficult terrain with successive mountain ranges which give only short spans over which a target is visible. It is not, as some Americans sometimes appear to imagine, the easy desert terrain in which Operation Desert Storm was waged from the air.
Nevertheless, I still take the view that the UN could have been more robust in the use of limited air power in response to local violations. I continue to take that view despite an extremely aggressive encounter with General Sir Michael Rose in Sarajevo in which, I might say, he carpet bombed me, because I had maintained that view in
592
an article before I went there. If he had been as robust with the Serbs as he was with me, I would feel more content with his record in Bosnia.
The last time that air power was used by the United Nations was six months ago in Banja Luka, in retaliation for the bombing of Bihac. The bombs were not dropped on the airport buildings, or on the planes that carried out the Bihac bombing, but on the runway, which was operational again in 48 hours. Its operational capability was demonstrated only a fortnight ago when planes using the same runway again bombed Bihac. There has been no use of air power since.
Last month, at Question Time, I referred the Foreign Secretary to the statement by Colum Murphy, an UNPROFOR spokesman in Sarajevo, who said on 28 March:
"Attacks that come from the outside and deliberately target civilians will meet a determined response, including the use of air power".
Since that statement was made, such attacks targeting civilians have happened in Bihac, Sarajevo and again this weekend in Tuzla, all three of which are UN safe areas. We understand from exchanges earlier that General Rupert Smith asked for a response to the attack on one of those safe areas. That request was refused by people higher up the UN's civilian chain of command. Why make a threat if we are not prepared to carry it out?
The next time that we make such a threat, what possible reason would there be for the Serbs, or anyone else, to listen to that threat? Every time that our bluff is called in the former Yugoslavia, the UN loses part of its authority. A major casualty of the events of the past week has been a further loss in the little authority that the UN has left. That will have repercussions well beyond Bosnia.
Mr. Winnick: I fully support my hon. Friend. Does he agree, that every time that the Serbs take military action, such as the atrocity over the weekend, and no military response is made to safeguard the safe areas, the Serb military commanders will believe that they can get away with it? As a result, such actions have been taken time and again, as my hon. Friend said. Should it not be made clear to the Serbians that such atrocities against safe areas will definitely result in a military response? If it is not made clear, then, as the Foreign Secretary said last Wednesday, they will have no need to worry and can continue to tease and taunt the international community.
Mr. Cook: I would have preferred it not to become known that General Rupert Smith had requested the use of air power. Unfortunately, the whole world, including the Bosnian Serbs, knows that he requested it and was overruled. What signal does that send to those with whom he will have to negotiate in future? It is the first law of negotiations that one backs up the person sent to carry out the negotiations. What loss of authority is involved for General Rupert Smith the next time that he issues an instruction to those with whom he is dealing?
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) I must say that, next time, a threat will not do. I doubt whether such a threat will be taken seriously until one is implemented.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, until Mr. Akashi is removed, there will be little credibility for the UN operation in Bosnia?
Mr. Cook: I would not wish to personalise a profound issue that involves a number of different institutions. One of the key issues is that there is some tension between the military presence in Bosnia and UN civilian presence. One of the lessons of the Bosnian experience is that we must look closely at how they relate to each other and where the command chain rests in any future operation. Unless the operation in Bosnia is a success, it is difficult to see how any operation will be launched by the UN in similar circumstances in the future.
Last Wednesday, one or two Back-Bench Conservative Members demanded immediate withdrawal and put forward a position of extreme isolationism. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said that we had no strategic interest in the former Yugoslavia. I think that Britain has a profound strategic interest in the future authority of the UN. We are, after all, a permanent member of the Security Council. We cannot claim continuing membership of the Security Council unless we recognise the authority of the UN as one of our strategic interests.
I believe that we make an error if we think that we can escape by leaving the peoples of the Balkans to stew in their own troubled waters. The history of the Balkans shows that troubles there have a capacity to boil over into the rest of Europe. If the conflict escalates, it will have wider repercussions in which we may well have a strategic interest. It will complicate our relationship with Russia if it feels obliged to intervene on the Serbian side. It could potentially reopen the conflict between Turkey and Greece with profound consequences for our negotiations with Cyprus.
Perhaps most fundamentally, it will gravely complicate what may be one of the most important foreign policy issues of the turn of the century, which is the relationship of Europe to the world of Islam, which will not take easily to indifference on the part of Europe to the fate of the largest Muslim population within Europe.
We are not in Bosnia out of altruism—we have wider strategic objectives in preventing the spread of that conflict. However, we should not forget that one of the reasons for being there is that our constituents saw the victims of war on television and responded with a considerable sense of solidarity and sympathy to what they saw.
Those who oppose a continuing presence in Bosnia should not seek to identify their view with the views of the troops on the ground. I have had the opportunity to visit them and I should like to record my appreciation of the help that I obtained from the Foreign Office and the British forces to enable me to do so. It is important that the House recognises the courage with which our troops have discharged the duty that the House has laid upon them. We should not forget that some of those we sent there have paid the supreme sacrifice.
Most of our troops in Bosnia are living in exceptionally primitive conditions. Throughout the winter in Gorazde there was no electric light despite the fact that daylight lasted for only a few hours. Yet, on the bases I visited, morale appeared high. One could witness the strong satisfaction of people who believed that they were doing
594
a valuable job and were dedicated to doing it. However, we all have to have some caution as to how we interpret morale on an overnight stop.
When the company sergeant major marches one round the back of the barracks and bellows, "MacPherson, are you happy with your living quarters?" and MacPherson says, "Yes sir", one knows not to take that reply at full face value. However, the impression was that there was good morale and the sense of a rewarding job being done with commitment. That sense of satisfaction comes from the troops knowing rather better than some of the media over here what they had achieved. It is worth repeating that.
Over the past two winters, our troops have helped to provide food and fuel to over 2 million civilians of all three different ethnic groups in Bosnia. Over the past year, they have restored gas, electricity and water to communities that had lost those essential utilities. In Vitez the British troops have reopened the schools so that the children can return to education. Most important of all, the British troops in central Bosnia have played a key role in helping to negotiate and enforce the ceasefire between the Croat and Muslim populations who were previously engaged in a conflict which probably killed more people than the war between the Serbs and the Muslim population. No officer I met during my time there wanted to put an end to the work that they were doing.
Of course, if the commanders on the ground come back with an assessment that the deteriorating situation means that their men face unacceptable risks, they must be withdrawn. I hope that those would be the only circumstances in which the British presence would be withdrawn. I support the Foreign Secretary in his view that our presence in Bosnia is worth while, and that we should continue to be there.
As politicians, we have the right to ask our troops to remain only if we are doing everything possible to achieve a settlement. What can be done to make a settlement of the dispute more likely? I want to outline three priorities which should guide our activities in the immediate future. The first priority must be to restore the authority of the UN.
I should like to record some anxiety about our attitude to our troops in Gorazde. As I understand it, we have said that we will not renew our presence there after September as there is no fuel to run the vehicles because the Serbs will not allow fuel through to the troops in the safe area. If the troops have no fuel, there is no alternative to them withdrawing. However, with all the logistical capacity available to us, is there no way that fuel could be got to Gorazde? If we withdraw in the face of that pressure, what message does it send to the Serbs who will be able to believe that they can treat with impunity the claims of the military and that the UN will leave the safe areas? Which safe area will then find the noose tightening next time round?
The second priority must be to maintain pressure on the leaders of the two countries on either side of Bosnia who orchestrate much of the activity of the Serb and Croat populations within Bosnia. I hope that there will be no step to reduce sanctions on Serbia until Mr. Milosevic has at least recognised Bosnia and accepts full closure of his border with the Bosnian Serbs. To do anything that would relax sanctions until we achieve that outcome can only encourage the Bosnian Serbs to believe that, in the fullness of time, the world will come to live with the present distribution of territory inside Bosnia.

595
I know, because the Foreign Secretary has written to me, that he met President Tudjman during the VE day celebrations, and that President Tudjman gave him an assurance that there would be no further military action inside Croatia. I must ask the Foreign Secretary a question: did not Croatia give similar assurances during the negotiations of the trade agreement from which it got association status with the EC?
Mr. Hurd: On a point of fact, there is no such agreement. Discussion is taking place with Croatia, but there is no agreement, and it is clear to me and, I hope, to our partners, that there could be no agreement with Croatia until we are satisfied on that sort of point.
Mr. Cook: I welcome that intervention, and I support the Foreign Secretary entirely in his view that there could be no decision by the European Union to grant association status to Croatia until we are satisfied that Croatia is prepared to recognise the authority of the United Nations, and will not seek, by military power, to overturn UN mandates.
I wish to spend rather more time on my third priority because it is the most profound of the three. The time may have come to reconsider the cartographic diplomacy that has marked our approach to Bosnia. The history of the past three years is studded with various different maps of Bosnia—the Vance-Owen plan, the Owen-Stoltenberg plan and the contact group peace plan. They all have in common the feature of approaching diplomacy on the basis of drawing lines on a map.
There are dangers with that approach. One danger is that one can legitimise the gains made by military conquest. One may even provide an incentive to military aggression by having made plain where one would tolerate the line being drawn on the map. The worst problem of that approach is that it accepts that the basic difficulty in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia is a deep ethnic hostility, which can be separated only by a demarcation line in order to resolve the tensions on either side of it.
There is certainly ethnic hostility in Bosnia, which has been exploited by the leaders of former Yugoslavia. President Milosevic must accept the major responsibility for the tragedy of the past three years in that he has whipped up Serbian nationalism. While he has recognised in the past year the price that his economy is paying for the sanctions on his country, he has now found that he can longer control the puppets whom he helped to power in Bosnia and Krajina. He is not the first politician to discover that it is easier to release the force of nationalism than to bring it back under control.
Tudjman also must accept substantial, if lesser, blame. He was elected with the slogan, "Croatia for Croats", and wrote a constitution which states that the Croat state is an expression of the Croat people. That leaves little room for the rights of minorities, or for an accommodation with the substantial Serbian minority in Krajina.
The real problem which we have in trying to secure a reconciliation in the Balkans is that the two principle leaders have obtained and retained power through ethnic confrontation. It is therefore hard to see how they could survive the compromise necessary for a permanent agreement to be reached. The rest of Europe must ask
596
whether we should accept that the only way to settle this issue is on the terms of those leaders which require us to impose apartheid on nationalist lines.
The ethnic differences are slight, and are not based on race or even language. They are based only on religion, but the Muslims in Bosnia are the least fundamentalist of any in the Islamic world. Indeed, I have heard it alleged that they are the Anglicans of the Islamic world. In recent history there has been a high degree of integration of the ethnic communities. One quarter of all post-war marriages in former Yugoslavia were mixed, and the schools were integrated before the war. Children from all ethnic communities went to school together in a way which they do not in Northern Ireland, or even in Scotland.
There may have been greater divisions in rural areas than in cities, but the tragedy of Sarajevo is that it was as cosmopolitan a city as any in Europe, and it possibly had a greater tradition of tolerance of religious diversity than most cities in Europe.
I ask those who argue that the only realistic settlement is to separate the ethnic communities whether they have really taken on board how unrealistic it would be to achieve that in practice. The ethnic communities live in alternating villages, and often in the same village. In Vitez, the confrontation lines between Croat and Muslim are only 10 yards apart across the same street. I submit that the only realistic permanent solution for the peoples of former Yugoslavia is for them to learn to live together with tolerance and mutual respect for each other's human rights.
If we are to try to contribute towards that, we must support the citizen groups and civic forums which are bringing together different ethnic groups, as well as negotiating with the political leaders. We must support communities such as Tuzla, which still has a multi-ethnic sector administration. Most of all, we must encourage and insist upon a free media. The power base of both Milosevic and Tudjman is that they both have total control over television, which has 90 per cent. penetration throughout the countries. That gives them a more powerful weapon than tanks and heavy artillery.
President Tudjman assured the Foreign Secretary that the action in western Slavonia was a limited action which would not be repeated. I understand that the liberation of that area has been reported on television throughout Croatia in terms of rejoicing, and that there has been no suggestion that this was a limited action which would not be repeated.
The UN special rapporteur suggested two years ago that one objective of the UN should be to fund a free and independent information agency. I suggest that one practical step which might have a significant impact on the politics of the Balkans is for the international community to consider sponsoring a television station to provide an alternative to Government propaganda and an antidote to the repeated poison of nationalist hatred.
There is certainly an adequate supply of Serbo-Croat journalists who would be willing recruits for a free media. Given the enormous investment which we have made in the military presence and humanitarian relief, it is perhaps strange that we have not yet put more modest resources into a vehicle to help provide the change of opinion which will be necessary to achieve a political settlement. The UN will always be responding to the actions of other players rather than setting its own agenda for development

597
if we focus solely on the military war and ignore entirely the propaganda war being waged by Governments on both sides.
The ultimate goal for Bosnia and the other nations of the former Yugoslavia must be an outcome which respects the territorial integrity of Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia and which provides freedom of movement within each state. There must be a supervised high degree of autonomy within the states for the ethnic minorities of each of them, and the right for those ethnic minorities to have some form of association with the members of the same ethnic communities in other states. Any respectable permanent settlement must include the right of refugees to return to the places from which they were expelled.
We will make a mistake if we imagine that we can achieve that outcome solely through negotiation with the leaders of the countries, and without reconciliation between the communities on the ground. The peace and reconciliation in Europe which we celebrated this weekend was based on a major programme of civic education in Germany after the war, and I doubt whether there is much prospect of peace and reconciliation in the Balkans unless similar civic efforts to achieve the same reconciliation between the communities is made.
Finally, may I echo the closing point of the Foreign Secretary? He was absolutely right to say that, while the House debates the specific and particular problems of the former Yugoslavia, we should not regard them in isolation. The tragedy that we should recognise is that the problems of the troubled former Yugoslavia are only too representative of the new nature of the threat to the security of Europe and the world.
Conflicts between ethnic groups and civil war within states are now more frequent than war between states. In the past four years, the UN has recorded three wars between states, but has also recorded 79 conflicts within states. Dealing with the complexity and bitterness of a civil conflict is much more challenging than dealing with the simple morality required to denounce aggression between states. It is a challenge that we cannot avoid because it is now a more common threat to world peace.
It is vital to the people of Bosnia and Croatia that a solution is found that offers them the prospect of permanent peace. But let us not forget that it is just as important for all those other nations with a common intention that the UN mission is a success. All those nations are also potential losers if it should fail.
5.37 pm
Mr. David Howell: As the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) reminded us, spring has come to the Balkans, and the killing has begun again. Before I look at some of the things which we in this country should do or stop doing with our allies and friends, I would like to make one or two background observations which have shaped my view about how to proceed from the grim present situation. Everyone who is returning from the Balkans at the moment speaks of the way in which the spirit of hatred, and the spirit of war which follows that intense hatred and the yearning for revenge, has worked itself up to new heights.
The chilling remarks that Mr. Karadzic made when he visited some of us in the House a few years ago, which were broadly to the effect that the choice was kill or be
598
killed, seem to have penetrated ever wider circles. Clearly, the atmosphere is such that we are as far as we ever were, if not further, from the necessary conditions for peace.
Even to begin starting the engines of reconciliation, about which the hon. Member for Livingston spoke with some eloquence, is a vast task. Obviously, it is one that we have to work at, but it leads me to the first pessimistic conclusion of my comments. Given that no will exists among the outside powers for decisive intervention, which is hard to define anyway, to halt the machinations of the extremists in Serbia, Bosnian Serbia, other parts of Bosnia, Croatia or wherever, we have to be reconciled to the fact that it could take many years to wind down the spiral of hatred and change the mood that is working itself up even now.
Once that mood and that type of war have seized hold—other such wars have lasted a decade or more in the post-war period—there could be years of the sort of spring killing that we are witnessing now. Unless we are prepared to recognise that it could be a very long process, we will waste a lot of energy. I am afraid that there will be a lot of rhetoric—trying to find solutions just around the corner which are not there.
The second general point is that we are suffering from static reporting in the media of a dynamic situation. We are looking at a different set of motives and alliances than those that existed a year or two ago. An alliance is developing between the Zagreb and Bosnian Croatians and the so-called Bosnian Muslims, who are not really Muslims at all. That is a misnomer that we go on using. As we know, there are Serbs and Croats in the Government of Bosnia.
As the hon. Member for Livingston rightly said, the scene is a mishmash of different groups, who bear little or no relationship to distinct groups of Serbs or Croats and certainly not to the Muslims. No such clear distinctions exist. There has been a constant tendency to depict the battle and the bloodshed in terms of those separate groups, when the only sensible separation is between those who lived in peace for years and those who wanted to stir up extremism and impose violently a completely different order for other ends. We should not be deceived by the propaganda to the effect that this has always been an area of conflict. There have been wars, but these people have lived in peace for years, in the same villages and families.
The reporting has been poor at bringing home to us the vast complexities of the situation. I disagree totally with those hon. Members, including, I am afraid, some of my right hon. Friends, who have referred to the conflict as a civil war. No description of what is going on in the area could be more misleading.
In some senses, the conflict has civil war elements, but it is a war of intentions and motives, many of which were definitely initiated in Belgrade, with the ambitions of Mr. Milosevic and his team, as they moved into positions of power. We know now that he fears that he has unleashed forces that he cannot control. He writes letters to Mr. Karadzic pleading that the future of Yugoslavia should be decided not by Mr. Karadzic but by acceptance of the contact group's peace proposals. It is too late. He should have thought about that when he started.
The reporting and depicting of what is going on has been bad, which makes it difficult for us to decide what to do. The immediate matter, however, is the role of troops in general and of our marvellous troops in

599
particular, which rightly concerns the House from day to day. What should they do? Like the whole House and many of our electors, I have always wanted them to fulfil some humanitarian role. Increasingly, it is a task to which modern, organised military cadres are being put. They have to move in, in a way that no other forces can, deliver humanitarian help, food and medicine and connect up electrical and water systems. Our troops have done that job superbly and, as long as it is possible for them to do it, I hope that they will continue.
Also, if protected areas exist, it has always seemed a reasonable aim—if it can be delivered and I am not sure that it can—that they should somehow remain protected and that, where civilians think that they can walk around without being slaughtered or shot down, our military forces and those of other countries should do their best to preserve those conditions. It is not succeeding.
Who among us was not shocked the other day at seeing a Serbian sniper's cold-blooded assassination of an old lady as she got out of a minibus? She was shot down in front of the cameras and the telephoto lens. That is monstrous evidence that no areas are adequately protected, despite our wish that they should be. We heard about the difficulties at the weekend and we want some effective action—difficult though that is—in response to local violations of those protected areas.
Peacekeeping is another phrase that has crept into our discussions of the role of our troops. What sort of "peace" do my right hon. Friends think is being kept? From the Croatian point of view, although they are certainly not all virtue and goodness, they are being asked to keep a peace in which a large chunk of Croatia is seized territory, another is under Serbian control and another is occupied by Croatian Serbs, who for years were ready to live in a sort of autonomy. Perhaps President Tudjman provoked them and reduced their rights—I am not sure of the facts of that development—but they were prepared to live in Croatia as Serbs.
From the early days, when Vukovar was smashed, Serbian and the former Yugoslav federal forces seized chunks of Croatia. Would we want a peace in which that arrangement was left in place? However much the local people wanted autonomy and different cultures, if they were part of our land, we would want them to remain that way and not be declared as having questionable status, or be under another country as part of this "peace".
The "peace" also apparently means the partition of Bosnia, which from the point of view of the Bosnian Government must seem an intolerable peace to have to accept. As the hon. Member for Livingston reminded us, it makes no sense when one considers how people have lived for hundreds of years in those parts of the world, or of how they are going to live. However many lines are drawn on a map, whether or not the contact group's latest plan is accepted, and even after ethnic cleansing, there will be areas in which different groups are hopelessly intertwined—living in the same village or street, marrying each other and living in the same family.
I do not think that we would accept that sort of peace. It is not acceptable and, given that our troops are not being made part of a massive offensive force—no one is suggesting that—it is not right to impose on them the role of keeping that sort of peace.
600
I am no longer sure that the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend and his opposite numbers in the European capitals for maintaining the arms embargo are still as convincing as they were. In practice, the arms embargo has long since been broken and heavy weapons are now available to the Bosnian troops. The only reason why they do not demand that the embargo be lifted now is that they believe that, if such an announcement were made, there would be an immediate Serbian-Bosnian onslaught, and they want to be ready for that.
The embargo is now irrelevant at best. It may even have been a mistake. The propositions put forward in an excellent new book, "A Short History of Bosnia" by Noel Malcolm, which I strongly recommend to the House, are extremely persuasive in that context. The embargo arguments were never strong and I am no longer convinced that the proposition that bloodshed would increase if it were removed is valid. Bloodshed is increasing anyway.
That is the gloomy and negative scene we face. Where do we turn for more effective solutions? Which key do we turn in which lock to check some of the bloodshed before it spreads further? I agree with my right hon. Friend that one of the keys is still in Belgrade. That is where the extremism began and where the power still lies to try to unravel the extremists' poison, which is destroying this multi-ethnic group of countries.
Belgrade could stop it. It could also stop the war with the Croatians in Krajina if it talked with Zagreb. Pressure must be maintained on Belgrade to keep the border blockades and stop fuelling the Bosnian-Serbs. It is not working at present. Although Milosevic says that he is maintaining the blockades, financing of the Bosnian-Serbs continues. They are receiving money and resources from Serbia, and that should stop.
Sanctions should continue to be applied. It should be explained to Milosevic that we are against not the Serbian nation but actions by the Serbian state, whether of omission or commission, which allow the Bosnian-Serbs to continue to fight, kill and hold on to territory.
The humanitarian role should continue and we should be careful about defining a peace which merely alarms the people who feel that they are losing by that kind of peace. We should certainly not designate our troops as part of that kind of peacekeeping. We must continue to put all our energies into the diplomatic process to try to get some of the seeds of the flower of reconciliation to grow. That is how we must work between Belgrade, Zagreb and the Bosnian Government in Sarajevo. It is not an enticing or positive menu, but it is better than trying to keep a peace that will not hold, claiming that we are doing things which we then cannot deliver, speaking loud words but not carrying the big stick to back them up, and promising that people will be protected but then failing to protect them. That is the shame.
Hon. Members sometimes ask why we bother at all. The hon. Member for Livingston was right to raise that question, as was my right hon. Friend with his usual eloquence. The answer must be given in general terms. First, this is a war generated in a potentially peaceful part of the world. Balkan wars have arisen from time to time but, generally, conflict has not been a mode of life for those peoples. It has almost been imposed on them from outside.

601
If violent extremism is victorious and we end up with partitioning, ethnic cleansing, bits of country carved out from other countries and a forcibly redrawn map, extremism will have won and that would be a loss for the rest of Europe. If we have not learnt that lesson from history, we have learnt nothing. Secondly, the conflict could spread rapidly to Vojvodina and Kosovo, where the extremist tendency promoted by Belgrade is ready to take a much firmer line that it has already.
My conclusion is that diplomacy must continue to do its best. The seeds of reconciliation must be planted, but it will take many years to get this right, given that we do not have the will to intervene decisively from outside. Our troops must not be asked to keep a peace that cannot hold and the position must be monitored at all times while they continue to do their brave and wonderful work.
5.55 pm
Mr. Edward O'Hara: I shall not discuss the areas of former Yugoslavia which have been dealt with earnestly and honourably by the Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). I associate myself with their many wise observations on the position in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia. I draw the attention of the House to another potential flashpoint to the south, which will no doubt be discussed by less honourable and right hon. Members in the course of the debate: the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia.
The importance of that flashpoint is that it is the one area of former Yugoslavia where the United States has deployed a small peacekeeping force. Hon. Members will be aware of Macedonia's internal problems: the substantial Albanian minority and other ethnic minorities, and human rights problems—an explosive cocktail indeed. Kosovo, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Guildford, abuts Macedonia. Fortunately, blood has not yet been shed in that part of former Yugoslavia, as it has in the north.
Attention may have been deflected from the danger in that area by the nature of the dispute between Macedonia and Greece, which is seen as being ostensibly over a name, although it amounts to more than that. A name is important as it gives an area an identity. I shall not indulge in a lecture on the ancient identity of the Macedonians and on Philip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great, but the Greeks were historically correct in the campaign that they launched in the early days of the dispute. Understandably, detached outsiders say, "But that is ancient history, isn't it?"
Nor shall I engage in a lecture on the falsification of the history of Slavo-Macedonia since 1944, although that, too, has much hard factual content. I simply remind the House that Tito's renaming of Vardar Banovina as the Republic of Macedonia in 1944 was a political statement. More than that, it was a territorial claim. It laid claim to territory in Greece and in Bulgaria. Notably, the objective was the warm water port of Salonika on the Aegean.
The Greeks fought a bloody civil war on that issue between 1945 and 1949, when we were celebrating the peace that was commemorated as recently as yesterday. Clause 49 of the constitution of the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia enshrines that claim and subsequent propaganda, especially by a political faction, the VMRO, has kept the claim alive ever since.
602
President Kiro Gligorov may argue that he cannot control the publications of political parties, but I believe that the adoption of the sunburst emblem of Vergina, recently discovered in Greek Macedonia on the coffin of Philip II of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great, is a wilful act of authorisation of that claim. If hon. Members wish to empathise with the strength of feeling about that emblem, it is as though the thistle were stolen from the Scots and adopted by another country. It is an emblem, but it stirs up passions.
President Gligorov has mounted an impressive propaganda campaign about that, which has deflected attention from some of the more substantial issues in that earlier dispute and, in great measure, has succeeded in casting the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia in the guise of the little victim of the big bully, Greece.
More recently, that attention has been directed at the stories of hardship and privation arising from the limited blockade that Greece has enforced of exports through Greece into the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, but the very recent decision of the European Court, vindicating Greece's decision to impose that limited blockade, has at last directed attention at the substance. The European Court upheld Greece's contention that its national security was at stake, that there was a threat of war and that therefore, under the terms of its membership of the European Union, it was entitled to enforce that blockade.
It is a threat of war indeed, because that so-called little victim—the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia—has a box of matches and is playing with fire. There is a danger that wider warfare in former Yugoslavia will result. I am therefore pleased to note the success of the change of emphasis brought about by Greece's limited blockade on the former Yugoslav republic. It concentrates the attention of the major powers on what matters in the dispute between Greece and the former Yugoslav republic. The pity is that they have not yet persuaded Mr. Gligorov to concentrate on the issues.
Greece has no territorial dispute with the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia. It is almost unique in the Balkans in having no such territorial claims on any of its neighbours. Greece has demonstrated its desire to have policies of support and co-operation with its neighbours in that part of the world by its breakthrough in its relationship with Albania, on which both Governments deserve congratulations because thereby another potential flashpoint to the south of the Balkans was damped down. Greece is physically located in the Balkans. It wants nothing more than to achieve a similar relationship with the former Yugoslav republic, but it needs support to do so.
It is no wonder that, in matters of politics in the Balkans, Greece feels misunderstood. It cannot understand why, after it stood alone with the United Kingdom against the forces of fascism between 28 October 1940—Ohi day, as it is still called—and 27 April 1941, when Athens finally fell, its former allies now appear to be taking the part of forces against which it stood, especially when, after the second world war, it endured those further four years of civil war to hold the line against the communist advance to the Aegean. That was done for the United States and for the United Kingdom especially—the world powers of the time—and those Governments objected, in 1944, to Tito's change of the name of Vardar Banovina.

603
Being located physically in the Balkans, Greece has a more intense interest than anyone in peace and prosperity in that region yet it is accused of rocking the boat in former Yugoslavia. It might, with justice, argue that the boat in former Yugoslavia was rocked in the first place notably by Germany, in its premature recognition of Croatia and Slovenia without perhaps working through the consequences before that was agreed, and by fellow members of the European Union, including the Government of the United Kingdom.
Greece bears no responsibility for the mess in the north of former Yugoslavia, which has been described at some length by previous speakers in the debate, nor is it guilty of trying to create a further mess in the south—quite the contrary.
If you will forgive an image that may lack the dignity that the gravity of the position deserves, Madam Deputy Speaker, one might compare what is happening in Yugoslavia to a dispute that is confined to a sack. In that sack there are warring combatants, in a mishmash of arms and legs, if I may echo the words of the right hon. Member for Guildford. It is a mess, but it is at least contained in the sack. One might regard the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia as the bottom of the sack. Greece holds the key to preventing that sack from splitting, and the dispute from spilling out further east and south.
I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) who mentioned the serious danger, if the warfare in former Yugoslavia cannot be confined to that territory, of the involvement of Russia and Turkey in future. They have more than a weather eye on what is going on elsewhere in former Yugoslavia at the moment.
I earnestly entreat the House to pay serious attention to the actual position in the former Yugoslavia. The internal problems of the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia must be resolved before that country can receive recognition beyond the conditional recognition that it has at present. I earnestly entreat the House to support Greece and to see the situation from Greece's point of view. We must help Greece to achieve and to sustain a relationship of co-operation and support with the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia and with all its neighbours in that part of the world for the sake of peace, security and prosperity in that area and throughout the world.
6.10 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I will not respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) in detail, but I suggest that his speech contained a degree of special pleading that is not supported by the facts. I share his love of Greece and his sense of indebtedness to the great civilisation that was born in that land to which we all owe so much.
I had the privilege of leading a large parliamentary delegation to Greece in September 1993 and, although I was overwhelmed by the friendship and hospitality that was extended to us, we were extremely concerned—to put it mildly—by the expressions of almost blind allegiance to the Serbian cause that were voiced by many Greek politicians. If the hon. Gentleman were to read some of their comments, he might recast his thoughts a little. Of course I agree that it is very important that Macedonia
604
should not become part of a wider Balkan war; we are entirely at one on that point. However, Greece's handling of the issue has made that more, rather than less, likely.
Mr. Michael Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in putting the Greek case, the hon. Member for Knowsley, South inadvertently echoed the sort of language that was used in the 1930s about Austria?
Sir Patrick Cormack: I shall not be led astray by my hon. Friend, who has made his own point in his own way. I do not criticise my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, but it is a pity that neither the Foreign Secretary—we understand how busy he is—nor the Ministers of State are present to listen to the debate. When we debate important foreign issues in the House, I believe that there should be a greater presence throughout on both Front Benches.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): In fairness to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, he has apologised to the House and explained why he cannot be here for the debate. He has to meet a number of Russian delegations who attended the VE day celebrations. It is very important that we maintain close relations with the Russian Government and the Russian people.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister of State said nothing about that to the House. The Foreign Secretary made a passing reference to it which we all accept completely, as I did a minute or two ago.
Mr. Baldry: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir Patrick Cormack: No, I will not give way to my hon. Friend again. I think that it is important that one be able to make speeches without constant interventions of that sort.
A number of hon. Members who have spoken in the debate—particularly the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who I think made a very thoughtful speech—have referred to the events of the past weekend. My wife and I were among the vast crowd that stood outside the palace yesterday, and we were much moved, as I am sure everyone was, by what we had gathered to observe, commemorate and truly celebrate.
However, for me, the celebrations were marred a little by the thought of what is happening in Europe at present. Anyone who has regard for what has happened in the Balkans, the very heart of Europe, over the past four years cannot help but feel a sense of disappointment and a degree of shame. I believe also that we are still on the brink of a full-scale Balkan war. I hope and pray that that does not happen, but we are not far from that eventuality. The west needs to adopt a degree of resolution, clarity and cohesion in its policy toward the Balkans that we have not seen to date.
I have been critical of our policy in the former Yugoslavia on many occasions. I still believe—I make no apology for reverting briefly to this point—that if there had been greater resolution in the autumn of 1991 when Dubrovnik and Vukovar were being shelled, and if the air and naval patrols for which some of us called had been sent in to deter the Serbs, we might have escaped the appalling catastrophe and horror of Bosnia.

605
A number of myths, which have formed the basis of our policy towards Bosnia in particular, should be exposed and dealt with. They lie behind the sort of vacillation that we have seen in the past 24 to 48 hours to which a number of hon. Members have referred already. General Rupert Smith asked that certain action be taken, but his request was countermanded by civilians on the ground. Of course I do not hold the British Government responsible for that incident; that would be absurd. However, I was a little less than happy about the responses that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to interventions on that subject.
I shall deal with the myths as I see them. Two have been referred to eloquently this afternoon. First, there is the myth that we are dealing with an area that for centuries has been rent by enmity between different races and religions. That is not true. In his admirable speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) referred to the "History of Bosnia" by Noel Malcolm, which was published last year. That should be compulsory reading for anyone who is interested in that conflict. Anyone who has read that book would not perpetuate the myth.
My right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Livingston referred to Sarajevo. In 1984, when it hosted the winter Olympic games, it was held up as an example to the whole world of mutual tolerance with people of different faiths living together in harmony. It was not the recent creation of Tito's authoritarian regime, as some hon. Members have suggested. The synagogues, mosques and Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches of Sarajevo were not built during the time of Marshal Tito. For centuries, the populations have lived together, intermarried and, as the hon. Member for Livingston said, been educated together. Even during the last appalling three years, many of them have stuck together.
In my office in the House I have seen the leaders of the Serbian Council, which consists of 200,000 Bosnian Serbs who strongly support a multi-ethnic Bosnia. Furthermore, as has already been said, there are still Croats and Serbs serving within the Government of Bosnia.
Here I come to the second myth on which I believe that policy has been too closely based. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford has spoken of it too. It is the myth of Bosnia as a Muslim country. That just is not true. Anyone who has had the privilege of meeting people such as Haris Salidic, the Prime Minister and former Foreign Secretary of Bosnia, and many of his colleagues in the Bosnian Government, knows that they are dedicated to the idea of a pluralist multi-ethnic state, not one in which people are put into artificial compartments that have never existed and that cannot exist if true peace is to return to that shattered country.
But how often have we heard, both on the BBC and even from Dispatch Boxes on both sides of the House at earlier stages, references to "the Muslims", as if Bosnia were a wholly Muslim-led nation, with a wholly Muslim Government? The hon. Member for Livingston said that the Muslims of Bosnia are, as it were, the Anglicans of the Muslim world. I too have used that term in the past, and it is true that it is difficult to imagine people less fundamentalist.
Yet what has happened over the past three years would have driven many people into the arms of the fundamentalists. That has not happened in Bosnia. It speaks volumes for the courage and dignity of the
606
Bosnians, and their sense of balance and proportion, which they have maintained against the most overwhelming odds, that they have not been so driven.
On 3 March, I hosted a large meeting in the Palace of Westminster at which learned doctors from the almost totally destroyed medical centre explained how they were trying to rebuild the centre, and asked for help. We were dealing not simply with qualified doctors, but with some of the most eminent physicians and surgeons in the world—people who have perfected various techniques in brain surgery and other specialties, people who were in the vanguard in Europe before the devastation of the war. They want nothing more than to be able to get back into the vanguard of medical advance in Europe.
The third myth, which was also mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, is that of the civil war. Yes, he is right to say that there are elements of civil war, but they have developed. It all began as a war of aggression led by the old Yugoslav national army, which was largely Serbian and which Milosevic meant to use as an engine to create a greater Serbia.
My right hon. Friend referred to Milosevic in sensible terms. Yes, he is there and in power, and yes, it would appear that over the past 12 months he has begun to recognise something of the enormity of the monster that he has unleashed. But even now he could do much to make us believe a little more readily in his conversion if he recognised Bosnia.
Certainly, as has been said both by my right hon. Friend and by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Livingston, that must be a precondition of any lessening of sanctions against Serbia. We should not forget that we would be wise to treat with Milosevic and to make it plain in treating with him that we acknowledge that, at the very least, Mladic and Karadzic—already named by the investigators as potential war criminals—have a substantial case to answer on war crimes.
Here I come to my fourth myth. How often have we heard, in the House and elsewhere, about maintaining neutrality between "warring factions"? That term has been used time and time again. Yet one of those so-called warring factions is the legitimate and recognised Government of an independent sovereign state, the President of which was invited to London this weekend as a Head of State to take part in the commemorations and celebrations to which several hon. Members have already referred. One does not refer to the Government that one recognises of a state that one recognises as a "warring faction" in the same breath as one uses that term to describe people who have been guilty of some of the most appalling atrocities inflicted by man on man since the second world war.
Probably no one in the Chamber knows and cares more about the holocaust than my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). Although, of course, one cannot begin to make comparisons in terms of size, some of the things that have happened in Bosnia rank in fearfulness and horror with what happened during the holocaust. There have been concentration camps, exterminations and mass rapes. We all know the figures that have been quoted and have not been refuted. Indeed, they have been reinforced by those who have investigated them internationally—the 30,000 rapes three years ago, and so on. Little children have been violated, and men have had their genitals cut off and the parts presented on

607
plates. Those are documented atrocities that certainly brand those who have committed them or connived in them as war criminals.
This is no civil war in the ordinary accepted sense of the word. It was unleashed by an aggressive nation determined to build a greater Serbia upon the ruins of Yugoslavia, and that nation is now beginning to realise that that is not on. So in future when we talk of the conflict, let us not be enslaved by those myths.
We need a more resolute approach. Although I have called for tougher action I have never advocated putting mass ground forces into Bosnia. I have said that the air strike, properly used, and the ultimatum, delivered and followed up, have a part to play. We saw the truth of that in February last year in Sarajevo, because the fragile peace that has persisted since then in that tragic city began as a result of the resolute action taken at that point by General Rose. On the day on which General Rose's award for gallantry has been announced, I congratulate him on that—but I also share some of the misgivings of the hon. Member for Livingston about his subsequent actions. However, one must acknowledge that the terms of engagement were less than clear.
When a firm decision was taken and the Serbs believed it, they backed off. I am of the school of thought, as are many generals with real experience, that, faced with firmness, that not very well trained army would not have stood up to proper air strikes. It is appalling that, after the carnage at the weekend, General Smith's request was turned down. If NATO and the United Nations are to regain credibility and authority, it is absolutely essential that we do not continually have our bluff called by brigands—for it amounts to that.
The conflict is wider and bigger than the subject of our debate. The signals that go out from the way in which it is handled are incredibly important as we struggle towards a new world order. If the United Nations is to have credibility and authority, it cannot be seen as a body of vacillating men and women who haver and waver and then do nothing.
What is the way forward? I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford that, to a large degree, the key is in Belgrade. I make no apology for returning to a plea that I have uttered before in the House. As we are still on the brink of a Balkan war that could erupt, suck in Greece and Turkey—two NATO powers fighting each other—and have America and Russia supporting different sides, the leaders of the four permanent members of the Security Council that are involved—Britain, France, the United States and Russia—should come together for talks.
When I urged such a summit before, neither my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister nor my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—and I greatly respect them both—dismissed it out of hand or said that it was a bad idea; they said that the time had not yet come, but there are occasions when initiatives have to be seized. The coming into power of a new French president provides just such an occasion, and I would like Britain, in the person of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to take the lead, to seize the initiative and to invite President Chirac, President Yeltsin and President Clinton to meet, perhaps here, or somewhere else in Europe—I do not mind where the meeting is held—and to summon President Milosevic
608
to a session of that meeting. Other interested parties should be able to participate when the big four have talked the matter through.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and the right hon. Member for Livingston talk about a diplomatic solution. Of course they are absolutely correct, but we have to make sure that matters do not drift on, and that we try not to impose a diplomatic solution, but make it plain that Serbia has no future as an independent nation until it plays a full part in helping to bring about such a solution. We have to make it clear to Karadzic and Mladic that there is no hiding place for war criminals. They have a time to come to the table, but it is only a brief time, because we are concerned about bringing peace and reconciliation to a part of Europe which is at the heart of our continent and central to its future.
While I have never castigated or impugned the integrity or good intentions of my right hon. Friends—I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is in his place—I believe that there should be more urgency, and I hope that we will see action, if not this day, at least this month.
6.34 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Since the affairs in the former Yugoslavia that we are debating began, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Sir P. Cormack) has displayed a sustained and eloquent interest and, as his speech today eloquently demonstrates, he has maintained an independence of mind and judgment which, whether one agrees with every aspect of what he says, none the less should excite the admiration of all hon. Members.
By the miracle of technology, the events in which the hon. Gentleman told us that he and his wife participated yesterday will have been seen all over the world. They will have been seen in the former Yugoslavia, where no doubt many people find the sentiments to be entirely admirable but wonder why for them the reality is rather different.
People in the former Yugoslavia will see that the taking of life, looting, rape, destruction of property, conquest of territory, persecution of minorities and ethnic cleansing were all good reasons for going to war in 1939, and that, having successfully overcome them, there should be proper commemoration. But they will also ask why, when the same evils are abroad on the continent of Europe, there does seems not to be the same unity of purpose as there was in 1939.
It can legitimately be said that circumstances are different, but we are under a substantial obligation to analyse why that is so. If it is not possible to create a concerted response such as that which we have been commemorating over the past two or three days, we should ask ourselves as searchingly as we can what is the most effective response that we can offer.
I associate myself at the outset with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who rightly said that to describe what has taken place in the former Yugoslavia as a civil war is a somewhat facile and self-serving description. It is a description most frequently applied by those who are of the school of thought that what takes place in the former Yugoslavia has nothing to do with us. I note with interest that, while that response

609
frequently occurs at Foreign Office or Defence Question Time, when looking around the House when we have the opportunity to debate the issues in detail one finds that that school of thought is very poorly represented, if at all.
The Foreign Secretary gave a most lucid account of precisely why what takes place in the former Yugoslavia is of interest to us. The school of thought to which I referred suggests that what happens there creates no obligations, and in particular no moral obligations, on the people of the United Kingdom.
Considered from the pragmatic point of view of the political, economic and military interests of the United Kingdom, a conflict at the very heart of Europe with the potential to spread to Kosovo or Macedonia, a conflict which might involve our allies in NATO and members or potential members of the European Union and which might result in a truculent Russia and a guilt-ridden United States drawn into increasing patronage of the combatants, there is no doubt whatsoever that we have a substantial interest in the area.
What of our moral responsibility? It has become unfashionable to refer to moral responsibility in the context of Yugoslavia, although in relation to operations in the Gulf, moral responsibility was a frequently discussed issue.
Membership of the Security Council of the United Nations carries with it not only rights but obligations. If those moral obligations are not always recognised by hon. Members, those who are so sceptical about them should pay a visit to the young men and women whom we have sent to Yugoslavia to assist the United Nations effort there.
In truth, if not all politicians in the House feel a moral obligation for what happens in the former Yugoslavia, almost without exception the armed services personnel to whom I have spoken on the three occasions when I have visited the former Yugoslavia feel a moral obligation to fulfil what they see as being useful and necessary work on behalf of the international community.
I therefore have no hesitation in asserting that there is a moral obligation, which the House should recognise and emphasise right now, to prevent ethnic cleansing in Europe so far as we can. We cannot do that alone. We can only do it through existing international institutions. The United Nations and NATO have been most directly involved in the operations in the former Yugoslavia. The United Nations has been much criticised.
One has to ask oneself what one expects when some of the resolutions from which the mandates are drawn are, to say the least, delphic; when in the beginning the political and military direction afforded to the United Nations forces was, to say the least, inadequate; when, on occasion, insufficient or inadequate military resources have been available to the United Nations; and when, as some of the contributions today have already acknowledged, there is a system of dual command in which assets such as aircraft are not under the overall command of the commander on the ground, which flies in the face of all the accepted canons of good military command and control.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. and learned Gentleman has talked about an international moral responsibility and the laudable objectives of a unity of purpose and a concerted response, but is not the truth, however sad that may be,
610
that the United Nations, as presently structured, simply does not have the wherewithal to pursue those laudable objectives?
Mr. Campbell: I agree with that general proposition. Perhaps on some other occasion we can discuss the important lessons to be learned from our experience in the former Yugoslavia.
I wish to return to a question which to some extent has already been explored. It concerns the request apparently made by Lieutenant-General Sir Rupert Smith during the weekend for the use of air strikes in response to the mortaring of Sarajevo, or a part of Sarajevo, which resulted in a number of dead and injured. That request was denied. The Secretary of State sought to lay out the position as he understood it, but I share with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South a certain reservation about the extent to which the Secretary of State was able to satisfy us on the matter.
The whole sorry episode is perhaps illustrated by the quotation ascribed to a United Nations spokesman, who is widely reported as having said, "We will not do nothing." If that is the response of the United Nations to a gross and severe provocation, it is hardly surprising that the deterrent effect of threats made by the United Nations has been rather less forceful than many of us in the House would have preferred.
It is right to recognise that the United Nations effort can be only as good as its members make it. If we are to embark on such joint operations involving the United Nations and NATO, much clear thinking has to be done. There have to be clear political and military objectives and clear rules of engagement which both sides endorse. Above all, there have to be adequate resources, not just in terms of numbers but in terms of quality. What is the point in declaring a no-fly zone if it takes months to deploy the aircraft to enforce it? What is the point in authorising a naval blockade if it takes months to deploy the ships to enforce it? What is the point in declaring that certain areas are safe areas if there is neither the will nor the resources to protect them?
The question that must be in the minds of many hon. Members today is: if tomorrow Serbian forces set out to overrun one of the United Nations safe areas, what would the United Nations response be? Could there be circumstances in which the United Nations would stand back and allow such a safe area simply to be overrun?
People often contrast the success of the Gulf war with operations in Yugoslavia, but the parallel is wholly inept. Yugoslavia is what one might described colloquially as a blue-helmet operation in which the political direction and the ultimate military control is provided by the United Nations. The Gulf was notable for the fact that there was not a blue helmet in sight. Security Council resolutions authorised action and the allies took action. One is at least entitled to ask whether, if a similar arrangement had applied in the former Yugoslavia, circumstances might have been different.
We must also recognise that major operations on the part of the United Nations stand a chance of success only when the United States is engaged politically and militarily, and in this instance the unwillingness of the United States to put troops on the ground has been a major source of difficulty. We should recognise that the conflicting views on the issue of the arms embargo have weakened the perception of the allied effort. I heard

611
Secretary of State Perry tell a group of people in Washington not so long ago that NATO is more important than Bosnia. That he felt it necessary to say it was an eloquent indication of the extent to which the differing views of how to deal with Bosnia have, from time to time, caused considerable difficulty in the alliance itself.
What then should our policy be? We must stay as long as the mandate can be implemented, without undue risk to those whom we have sent there. That judgment places heavy reliance on the commanders on the ground. It does not mean that there is no risk. We must accept—and we should be willing to take responsibility for accepting—that we are putting the lives of men and women from the United Kingdom at some risk. The events in Maglaj a few days ago are a clear and recent example of that.
There is no question but that we have done extremely well in the former Yugoslavia, not just in what we have achieved in facilitating the humanitarian effort—it is right that the aid organisations and the Overseas Development Administration should be properly recognised for the tremendous efforts that they have made both in the supply of material and in the provision of utilities—but in what we were able to broker in the federation between Bosnian Croats and what we should now rightly call the Bosnian Government side of the argument. That federation is occasionally precarious, but the fact that it is in existence at all and that it continues to hold is substantially due to the efforts of our British forces there.
We should also recognise what we have been able to deter. It is less easy to calculate, but in the context of what we are describing, it is extremely significant; it bears not only on the risks to our forces, but on the question of the willingness to implement our threats. Anywhere in the former Yugoslavia, members of our forces say with considerable authority that they believe that one of the reasons why they have—relatively—inflicted fewer casualties than others is that they have made it clear that any effort to engage British forces will be met with a resolute response and full use of the terms of engagement which allow for self-defence.
We must not withdraw from the former Yugoslavia unless we are compelled to do so. Once again, I notice absent from the debate some of those who, from time to time, blithely call for withdrawal. I am sorry that they are not here, because I would say to them that they should not talk about withdrawal until they have driven the road from Gorni Vakuf to Vitez and seen the physical circumstances that withdrawal would involve. Then and only then would they be in a better position to make a judgment about the desirability or otherwise of withdrawal.
Withdrawal would be difficult and dangerous. Estimates of what it would involve range from 40,000 to 50,000 additional troops and six weeks to several months. One thing is clear, as the Secretary of State for Defence acknowledged last week: there can be no question of the United Kingdom withdrawing its forces unilaterally.
Our policy has become one of containment. Indeed, we are accused of that by the Bosnian Government. It is right to say, however, that they are as much the architects of that policy as any others involved. So long as conflict seems more likely to bring rewards than does negotiation, containment is probably the only policy available to us.
612
We should not lift the arms embargo. The right hon. Member for Guildford made quite an eloquent case against those who have argued for the continuing imposition of the embargo, but the one issue on which he did not touch, to which the Secretary of State referred in opening the debate, is that a lifting of the arms embargo would make withdrawal inevitable. It would provoke an immediate response by Bosnian Serb forces to make use of their present advantages. Time would also elapse before any heavy weapons were delivered and before those to whom they were delivered were proficient in using them. The policy of lifting the arms embargo used to be described as "lift and strike". The more sagacious minds on Capitol Hill now describe it as "lift and pray".
The contact group is the best hope. Within its membership, some have a particular role to play in impressing on some of those involved in the conflict the need to reach an accommodation. I say unequivocally that a Germany which aspires to permanent membership of the UN Security Council has to demonstrate a capacity to influence Croatia. A Russia which wants to command special NATO recognition has to continue to press Mr. Milosevic to renounce the notion of a greater Serbia and give Bosnia-Herzegovina necessary recognition.
A United States which has embarrassed NATO over the arms embargo has to continue to press the Bosnian Government, especially to persuade them that there is no prospect of the international community entering the conflict on behalf of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Whether that would be right or wrong is neither here nor there: there is no political will for such action.
Towards the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who opened the debate on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, there was an interesting and thoughtful passage about other ways in which the conflict might be resolved. They are well worth exploring, but the fighting must stop before such interesting ideas stand any chance of implementation.
Nothing prepares one for the destruction that one sees in the former Yugoslavia. It is not the houses damaged by shell fire that affect one most, but those that have been burned out, not so that others can occupy them, but so that no one can occupy them. Such houses have in truth been cleansed by fire. Parts of the former Yugoslavia are a hellish place, but I have no doubt that what has occurred is nothing compared to what might have occurred but for the presence of the United Nations and the United Kingdom forces.
6.55 pm
Mr. Michael Stern: I do not wish to follow directly the very eloquent speech of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), because I want to return to the topic of an area of the former Yugoslavia with which the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) dealt. In commenting on the potential military and economic conflict taking place in and around the Republic of Macedonia, the hon. Gentleman forcefully put what might be called the Greek case. I do not wish to go into a detailed, line-by-line contradiction of everything he said, but in putting a slightly different point of view, I should merely like to echo the comment that I made in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Sir P. Cormack).

613
When an economic aggressor tries to justify the theft of a national name and a national symbol by saying that peaceful actions inevitably lead to greater aggression by another nation, I wonder whether I am alone in hearing echoes of conflicts the end of which we were celebrating earlier this week. I wonder if I am alone in thinking that a nation—Greece—which is forced to use such phrases to justify its views and actions is guilty of at least some moral fudging.
I make no apology for referring again to Macedonia, because, as the hon. Member for Knowsley, South rightly said—in perhaps the one part of his speech with which I agree—it is a potential flashpoint, despite being part of the former Yugoslavia where, so far, conflict has not developed to any very significant extent internally, along the lines of ethnic mix. That part of the former Yugoslavia made the transition to independence without significant bloodshed.
In an Adjournment debate on 30 November 1992, I called on the Government to support Macedonia's efforts to achieve recognition and I received a ready response from the Minister of State. I said that it was the one part of the former Yugoslavia that was able to negotiate the removal of the Yugoslav army without bloodshed. Despite that, it remains a centre for potential conflict, for reasons that are partly internal and partly external.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, South detailed the conflict with Greece, which constitutes the external reason for Macedonia remaining a potential flashpoint. The conflict can be described from the Macedonian side only as economic aggression by Greece. Nobody forced Greece to impose economic sanctions on Serbia, which are creating serious economic problems in Macedonia. That small country relied on the export of its produce to provide some sort of living for its relatively small number of inhabitants. It now has to use an extremely long land route through Bulgaria for its exports because the natural route through the territory of its so-called peaceful neighbour is barred to it. That cannot be the way to avoid conflict.
The ethnic mix in Macedonia is another reason for potential conflict. Sensibly, and with considerable international help, the Macedonians, unlike the people in any other republic of the former Yugoslavia, have gone so far as to try to establish the boundaries of this ethnic mix. This was achieved in a recent census, which has generally been accepted as accurate by most observer nations and which led to a focus on certain problems.
For example, the Albanian minority in Macedonia, which previously believed itself to be rather larger, is barred from its traditional sources of higher education in Kosovo. It looks to the Macedonian Government to provide the ethnic higher education that was a traditional right of Albanian populations in adjoining countries. However, it has not so far been satisfied on what many people, especially those from minority communities, regard as a legitimate demand.
I am not trying to minimise the problems in Macedonia or to say that they have all been solved by the Macedonian Government, but any solution cannot but be made infinitely more difficult by the imposition of economic sanctions by a country to which we are allied. There is no reason for those sanctions, at least none that is accepted by any Macedonian.
Mr. O'Hara: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the imposition of the partial humanitarian and trade blockade by Greece is the only peaceful means that it has
614
to draw the attention of other countries to its dispute with the former Yugoslavian republic of Macedonia? Does not he further accept the judgment by the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice that Greece is entitled, despite the plea by the European Commission, to impose the blockade under article 224 of the treaty of union because the tension between the two countries constitutes a threat of war? Does he accept—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is too long. He is starting to make a speech.
Mr. Stern: Doubtful court decision or not, the Greek Government's unilateral action in imposing economic sanctions on Macedonia is leading directly to additional poverty and starvation, and that cannot be accepted by any civilised nation.
Macedonia's economy was fragile before the Greek action, and it is far more fragile now. That means human suffering, which western nations have taken some action to try to alleviate. A systemic transformation facility of the World bank was opened in 1993 and expired in 1994. Such facilities are intended to lead to a full IMF programme of assistance for nations suffering from economic deprivation or aggression. Has that facility been renewed, or are negotiations being held aimed at renewing it? I trust that, if there are such negotiations, the Government are playing their full part in them. Perhaps, if the Minister cannot answer that at the end of the debate, he will write to me about it.
I undertook to be brief and not to reply in detail to the many doubtful points made by the hon. Member for Knowsley, South. I shall conclude by focusing briefly on the undoubted problems in the area. We cannot prevent conflict either by attacking the economic stability of any part of the former Yugoslavia or by condoning economic aggression by any of our allies. The Government have gained many friends in Macedonia for their robust attitude to Greek actions in the past; I hope that they will maintain that attitude.
7.7 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Some hon. Members have said that Yugoslavia used to have a multi-ethnic population. We are being asked to support the integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina on the ground that the Muslim-dominated Government in Sarajevo wish it to continue. In December 1991, Britain and other countries, under pressure from Mr. Genscher, decided to turn their backs on the territorial integrity of the former Yugoslavia. If we had been interested in retaining a multi-ethnic country in south-eastern Europe we should have defended the former Yugoslavia at that time.
In October 1990, I told the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the dangers on the horizon in that part of the world. In reply to a letter from me in April 1991, the Prime Minister said that he agreed that the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia should be maintained. We now know that, some eight months later, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary abandoned that position. We must ask what had changed in the interim. Frankly, I do not think anything had changed in south-east Europe to make them conclude that we needed to recognise the independence of Slovenia and Croatia, far less to encourage the population of Bosnia to hold a referendum on leaving the former Yugoslavia.

615
The only thing that changed the Government's mind—this was and, to large extent, remains my only criticism of Government policy on the issue—was their succumbing to German pressure because of the need for a quid pro quo on the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty. Following that, folly has led to folly, which has brought us to the present position.
Mr. Macdonald: My hon. Friend said that, in December 1991, the Government, when they should have been defending the principle of a multi-ethnic Yugoslavia, recognised the independence of Croatia. Does he acknowledge that, in December 1991, the war in Croatia had been going on for only six months, ethnic cleansing had already taken place and the city of Vukovar was a pile of rubble? Were not the activities of the Serbian and Yugoslav army in Croatia precisely what led to the breakdown?
Mr. Wareing: I refer my hon. Friend to the speech that I made in the House on 1 November, which appeared in columns 150–153 of the Official Report, when I was the first person to mention the names Arkan and Seselj. I was the first person in the House to say who the real war criminals were, who led the irregulars in eastern Slavonia and other parts of Croatia. I assure my hon. Friend, therefore, that I am fully aware that war and ethnic cleansing were occurring, but it was not all one way.
At the time, I was highly critical of the actions of the Jugoslav national army—I criticised the bombardment of Dubrovnik—but it is a pity that people with an anti-Serb attitude are never prepared to criticise the Croats or Muslims when they endanger the peace and break ceasefire after ceasefire, as Muslim forces have in recent times, breaking out of the so-called safe havens and expecting no retaliation from Bosnian-Serb forces. I have been critical of all of them. What I liked about the Government's policy, until they recognised Croatia, was its even-handed approach, and in that speech on 1 November 1991, I said so.
The Government took no notice of the Badinter report or of Lord Carrington's view that Slovenia and Croatia in particular did not matter. The Badinter report suggested that Slovenia fulfilled all the necessary conditions for recognition as an independent democratic state, but the same could not have been said about Croatia. When we viewed the position at that time, we should have remembered that one third of the Serb population of the former Yugoslavia lived outside Serbia. It was they who were being ethnically cleansed in Zagreb and Krajina. The largest section of the Serb population in Croatia lived in the city of Zagreb and it was they who first suffered from ethnic cleansing.
In September 1991—remember the date—Croat forces, who may have been irregulars but they were certainly Croats, went into Bosanski Brod, which is located in north Bosnia. At that time, Bosnia was recognised by the international community, including Britain, as a part of the Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia. What did they do in Bosanski Brod? They massacred an entire community.
I will never forget where I stood on 2 May 1993. It was on the edge of a mass grave. I had already seen the bodies of 42 men, women and children who had been massacred
616
by Croat forces in that part of the world before it was liberated by Serb forces. I saw two people's bodies being discovered. One was a woman. I knew it was a woman only because she had worn a blue skirt with white spots. The stench was indescribable; I felt like a British soldier arriving at Belsen. Those Serbs had been massacred by Croat forces, who had come from just across the River Sava from Slavonski Brod in Croatia.
When I and my colleagues—hon. Members on both sides of the House—arrived in Belgrade that night, we contacted the media, who were totally indifferent to what had happened at Bosanski Brod. It was easy to get there—we had done so, and had seen and smelt the bodies. We were literally sick at what we had seen, but the media did not want to know. I am sure that they will suppress most of what I have to say in the House tonight. Our reports did not fit in with their angle or line, so they did not print them. They could have taken photographs, as I did, and seen what had happened.
In Derventa and Bosanski Brod, there was Ustashi graffiti on the walls, and it was clear that, by any stretch of the imagination, Franjo Tudjman's adherents were not all pure democrats. In "The Wastelands of Historic Reality", published by Tudjman in 1989, he pours doubt on the extent of the holocaust and especially on what had happened to Serbs, Jews and gipsies at Jasenovac concentration camp, the biggest such camp in the Balkans. Ironically, on VE day it was taken by Croat forces in their recent aggression—if we are going to use that word, let us use it in every case—against the Serb population in western Slavonia, who have had roots in the region for centuries.
Mr. Gapes: My hon. Friend mentioned Jasenovac camp and the book by the President Tudjman. I hope that he will confirm that the book, as I understand it, includes an allegation that the Jewish people in Yugoslavia were in charge of their own extermination in that concentration camp, and that it forms part of an anti-semitic tinge to President Tudjman, which our Government seem to have ignored in the past few years. They were prepared to invite Tudjman here—a man who admired the fascist Pavelic Government—but they did not invite anyone representing the partisans of Yugoslavia who defeated Hitler and his armies.
Mr. Wareing: That is true. In his book, Tudjman refers to Jewish guards being in control of the situation in Jasenovac.
Much more can be said about the record of the extremists in Croatia. Le Figaro has reported that fascist insignia are blossoming in Tudjman's Croatia and in Herzegovina. It says that in Herzegovina, on the road from Mostar to Sarajevo, some Croat volunteers proudly showed the swastika as a symbol on their uniform, and some were wearing Wehrmacht helmets painted in black.
I consider it outrageous that not only Tudjman but his vice-president were invited to the celebrations here in London. They were not invited to other capitals. Indeed, the Israeli President refused to meet the Croatian President recently, when his country's delegation opened the memorial museum of the holocaust in Israel. According to the New York Times, the invitation to Tudjman to attend the opening of the holocaust museum was an insult to 6 million dead Jews. It certainly was.

617
My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) said earlier that Tudjman had fought against the Nazis. It is true that he was a colonel in the partisan army. Is it not rather ironic that no representatives of the successors of that partisan army were invited to the celebrations last week? The Prime Minister would have been better advised to invite no one from the former Yugoslavia than to invite someone who is defensive on the question of Nazi genocide.
In 1944, Hitler made an offer. He said to the Croats, "We will free 1 million Jews in exchange for 10,000 trucks." In his book, Tudjman describes Hitler's offer as incredibly favourable. What was the alternative? The alternative was the gas chamber; but Tudjman saw fit to refer to an "incredibly favourable" offer.
The Ustashi leader, Mile Budak, who was executed after the war for his quisling activities, is now recognised in Croatia. Schools are named after him; a commune in Zagreb is called after him, as are streets, squares and other public institutions. He was recently described as a martyr and a Nobel prize nominee in the 1930s—but he was, in fact, the ideologue of the Pavelic state set up by Hitler in 1941.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) pointed out the other day, in a private notice question, that one Dinko Sakic—the last commander of the Jasenovac concentration camp—had seen fit to return from exile in Australia. This war criminal, who was never brought to trial, has returned to Croatia, and has said—according to a Dalmatian periodical—
"I am proud to have been an Ustashi."
In the Zagreb journal Magazin, to which my hon. Friend referred, he said:
"I am proud of all I did. If I were offered the same duty today, I would accept it."
Those are the people with whom, unfortunately, we found our Ministers associating during the VE day celebrations—celebrations of the defeat in Europe of fascism, which had caused the deaths of many millions of people in the second world war, including our own people.
We have had evidence of the desecration of the Jasanovac memorial complex. No action is taken by Tudjman to thwart the activities of his fascists. Those fascist tendencies have been noted not only by Le Figaro, but recently in articles quoted by Deutsche Welle in the Süddeutsche Zeitung. The German Government, with Mr. Kohl and Mr. Genscher representing the foreign office, may have encouraged the creation of Croatia, but I am sure that they are having second thoughts.
I think that it would be well worth while for representatives of our Government to have words with the former burgermeister of Bremen, who is currently representing the European Union in Mostar: I am sure that he would have something to say about the activities of Croatian forces in that part of the world. The invitation to Tudjman was the wrong message to give.
I have mentioned the media. I observed them to be at fault not only in Bosanski Brod; when I went to Gorazde on 2 September 1993, when all was peace and quiet, I heard the BBC World Service tell the people of Britain and the world that it was coming under heavy shellfire. The UN commander there—the Muslim commander there—was able to tell me that no shells had been fired on Gorazde for six days.
618
I believe that General Sir Michael Rose—whom I was proud and privileged to meet only two weeks ago—performed a wonderful task in very difficult circumstances. He had to face abuse from Saladzic, and from people who should really thank the British forces and UNPROFOR for getting so much aid to Sarajevo and other parts of the world.
We hear people who know nothing—such as Madeleine Albright, the United States ambassador to the United Nations—call for air strikes against Serbs who are bombarding Sarajevo. No one excuses that action, but what is the reaction when Bosnian Muslim forces use the "safety" of the safe haven to launch their attacks and break ceasefires in Tuzla, Sarajevo and other parts of Bosnia? What is the reaction of Madeleine Albright—or the United States ambassador in Zagreb, Mr. Galbraith—to the outbreak of conflict in western Slavonia? When the Croat forces were launched on that area, Mr. Galbraith's reaction was only to criticise the retaliation on Zagreb.
As far as we are concerned, none of that is justifiable or moral, but we must have an even-handed approach. We must recognise that, if there is to be a solution to the problems of the former Yugoslavia—if the rights of all ethnic minorities are once more to be recognised—we ourselves must recognise that the Serbs too have rights. We hear talk of the dangers of a greater Serbia. There is nothing wrong with people of one nationality wanting to live together in the same country.
The Germans did that. I applauded with everyone else when the Berlin wall was breached. I remember standing under the Brandenburg gate at the start of the new year in 1990, and rejoicing with the crowd that Germany was united again. The new Germans have grown up, as in West Germany, in a spirit of democracy. We should have nothing to fear from a united Germany. If it is good for the Germans to be united, why is it wrong for Serbs?
Government policy should sometimes include the word "no". I remember the former Prime Minister saying "No, no, no." We should say no to those people who need to be reconciled to the present situation in Croatia and who want that country to be treated as if it were a western democracy—which it is not. We should have said no in December 1991. We should be prepared now to put the utmost pressure on the Croatian Government to liberalise and to democratise themselves.
If it was possible for Mr. Gorbachev to play a role in bringing about democracy in Hungary, Romania, Poland and the Czech and Slovak republics, it should not beyond our wits to bring such pressure to bear on Croatia, so that she can rightfully take her place as a truly democratic and fair country.
7.31 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: I have had the opportunity to discuss this subject several times with the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), so I know how well briefed he is and how sincerely he feels. It was good to hear him speak this evening.
In approaching this debate, two quotations persisted in my mind. One derives from a wonderful service in Winchester cathedral on Sunday, when the choir sang:
"And they shall beat their swords into ploughshares
And their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation;
Neither shall they learn war any more."

619
Feeling that rather undersold the value of our armed forces, I checked the biblical source and discovered that the words
"Neither shall they learn war any more"
was a reference to a vision of Isiah, not a prediction. I fear that it will remain a vision, for it is no more realistic now than it was then. We need our armed forces, and they are making a massive contribution in the former Yugoslavia.
The second quotation that stuck in my mind comes from the wonderful book "Eastern Approaches", by Fitzroy Maclean. I recommend those hon. Members who have not read it to do so, and I recommend to those hon. Members who have read that book to re-read it, because it is highly relevant now.
Fitzroy Maclean writes about telling Churchill how worried he was that, if Tito were to be aided to power in Yugoslavia, that would lead to a communist state having special links with the Soviet Union, which might be bad for the United Kingdom's broader interests:
"The Prime Minister's reply resolved my doubts.
'Do you intend,' he asked, 'to make Jugoslavia your home after the war?'
'No, sir,' I replied.
'Neither do I,' he said. 'And, that being so, the less you and I worry about the form of government they set up, the better. That is for them to decide'."
I am not sure how far the House can go in deciding the form of government that Yugoslavia should have, or even in distinguishing the different factions. I use that word advisedly, despite the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Sir P. Cormack). Although there is no doubt that the Bosnian Serbs have been the main aggressors, there has been enormous fault on all sides. The Bosnian Serbs have the arms of the former republic of Yugoslavia and therefore the military advantage—but there have been atrocities on all sides, as anyone who has visited that sad country knows.
The United Nations' response has been to deploy troops, initially to help to ensure the distribution of humanitarian and medical aid, and to assist the promotion of peace. However, there has been a dichotomy throughout our presence in the former Yugoslavia. The UN's emphasis has been on keeping or promoting the peace whereas NATO, entrusted with the military role, has as its theme the mass application of force, manoeuvre and the destruction of the enemy within a limited time frame.
Over the past three years, our position has continued to be ambiguous, in trying to maintain a peace that does not exist and seeking to impose a peace that does not exist. A couple of years ago, I had the opportunity to ask the Supreme Allied Commander Europe how many soldiers he thought he would realistically need to impose peace in the former Yugoslavia. Being an American, he replied, "Peter, I would need one soldier to sit on the head of every male Bosnian." Hon. Members can work out the numbers for themselves.
Peace enforcement would require massive military force. Peacekeeping, which does not exist, requires less. We have the major problem of seeking to enforce a peace that does not exist. The Ministry of Defence manual on wider peacekeeping states:
"A level of consent is crucial for the success of a peace operation."
620
As a contributor to United Nations forces, we must maintain impartiality. However, we also need credibility. If we lay down a rule that is then flouted, we will lose our credibility.
There is an inevitable imbalance between impartiality and credibility. There is a quantitive dimension to that dichotomy, as well as a time frame. From a quantitive point of view, an isolated act of aggression—one shell or a series of shells fired into a safe haven—can be met with a sharp response by the UN through NATO. If there is a continual and deliberate military barrage over a period, and if the UN responded in strength over that period, the risk of that response being perceived as impartial among the three sides would be diminished. The larger the time frame within which that response continued, and the more sustained that it is, the more we would apparently lose impartiality.
Furthermore, none of the three sides has all its forces completely under control. They do not all come completely under the control of the three groups. There are warring factions, and a brigand element.
I spoke of the UN's role in humanitarian aid and peace promotion. The latter role has increased and more of it has been nailed to the UN soldier's job description. There were air strikes in 1993 and 1994, and after the Seville meeting, United States Secretary of State Perry said that such strikes would be more decisively made and widespread in the event of Serb aggression or intransigence. Air strikes have the purpose of protecting UN forces and maintaining safe havens created under Security Council resolution 836. Wider air strikes could also have the purpose of destroying the combat capacity of one of the forces.
As to the first, UN forces are lightly armed and have no tanks or heavy artillery, which is important. Possibly of more significance is that UN forces are deployed to assist in the completion of the roles with which they have been tasked. They are not deployed in a way that enables them to engage in military operations against any of the three sides. The reverse is true. They are integrated in the community and are sitting targets in the event of a breakdown of peace, if they become involved in the conflict. It has been possible to deploy our troops in the manner in which they have been deployed only because it is now possible, with the support of good military technology, for forces on the ground to call up air strikes at short notice to assist them. However, the troops on the ground cannot prevent violence
Several hon. Members have implied or specifically stated that, by maintaining forces in the former Yugoslavia, we are able to prevent the spread of conflict, but it does not work that way. Troops were heavily deployed in Gorni Vakuf and the war raged around and through that town. Troops were deployed in Vitez and between the two periods that we were there, a year ago and in March, civil war raged between Muslim and the Croats. Similarly, the terrible events of Novi Travnik took place despite the presence of United Nations forces nearby.
If our aim is to stop the war by force, we will need to deploy our troops elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia and with different weapons. We cannot get to where we would need to be to stop the war from where we are now because our troops are in the wrong position to stop the war and have the wrong equipment. If we decide that it is our role to separate the combatants, we will need to start from somewhere else. We cannot get to a peace enforcement role from our current position. We would need to withdraw and redeploy with different weapons.

621
I understand the frustration that is rightly felt in the United States at having armed forces that cannot act to stop the war located in the former Yugoslavia. However, the truth is that they cannot stop it, because they do not have the necessary weapons or numbers of troops and they are deployed in the wrong place.
In the past year, there has been a federation of Muslims and Croats, which seemed to be very promising. When I and other members of the Select Committee on Defence were in the former Yugoslavia a year or so ago, we thought that there was a confluence of various factors that seemed to be quite promising.
First, after the horrific bomb that killed 68 people in a Sarajevo market in February, there was revulsion throughout the world and a feeling that something must be done. That led to a strengthening of attitudes, at least in the short term.
Secondly, the Muslim-Croat federation seemed to offer hope. The fact that two of the three sides were no longer fighting each other offered hope of further peace. In addition, rather more than a year ago, there seemed to be a war-weariness on all sides.
The final factor was the courage and determination of United Nations troops and, exceptionally, of British forces, which are widely regarded as being quite outstanding, inspired by the truly remarkable leadership of General Sir Michael Rose. Those factors came together rather more than a year ago. It seemed that peace had a chance; a remote one, but one that needed to be taken.
Now things look quite bleak. The Croats have taken advantage of no longer being in conflict with the Muslims and we have seen a pre-emptive strike by the Croats. The Muslims have taken the chance over the past year, especially during the four months of the ceasefire, to re-equip and rearm. I am told that they are now extremely well equipped and armed. They have all the arms that they need other than heavy equipment such as heavy artillery and tanks. They are well equipped for fighting in mountainous terrain.
Where do we go from there? If military skill and courage could find a solution to the problem, it would have been sorted out some time ago, but they are not enough. The troops have been given tasks that are not achievable, and they must not be given further such tasks in future. Tasks that are militarily unachievable should be phased out.
The expression "safe havens" carries with it a message of hope, but if that message is not backed up with military force, a safe haven is not safe, merely a pious hope. It would take much greater force than is deployed at present—I believe an unacceptably greater force—to prevent war in the safe havens. To make the safe havens completely militarily safe is not a realistic objective.
I regretfully welcome the decision that the Royal Welch Fusiliers should not be replaced when they leave Gorazde in September. The military situation in which they have been put is almost impossible.
We in the United Kingdom should not be sucked further into the Bosnian quagmire. We must resist those people, whose background is normally political rather than military, who say that we should extend air strikes. If the United Nations is perceived as partial, it will forfeit its current status as a promoter of peace.
I conclude that we must hunker down and phase out where we can. This year's statement on defence estimates—the White Paper—says that the
622
"safety and security of British troops in Bosnia remains of paramount importance to the British Government."
Our troops are in positions of enormous risk and I know that the French, who have tragically lost 35 soldiers against our sad loss of 13, will certainly be considering withdrawal over the next few weeks. Those losses are a major factor in French thinking.
But how do we get the troops out, if that is the decision that is taken? There was a NATO plan that, apparently, involved some 80,000 troops over six months. The latest figure that I have heard suggest that some 40,000 troops might be involved.
The last thing that commanders on the ground need is more armour. The problem is withdrawing along a narrow mountain road—and only one road is available in the north of the British deployment area. We certainly need helicopters, but we do not need armour. To send more troops would compound the problem.
The British people and others will need to face the serious issues that will be involved if we decide to withdraw. What will happen if women and children try to block the road of withdrawal? My view is clear: we would have to face down such a threat and not yield to it. We could not be blackmailed in that way, and I invite the House to consider what would be the implication of not being blackmailed in that way. We would need to back our troops in a difficult situation, which could be bloody. They deserve our complete support. The United Nations contribution has been worthy, even noble, and United Nations troops must not be put at risk by being held up in such a way.
In conclusion, I shall deal with the credibility of the United Nations and NATO. It is often said that we cannot withdraw, because it would mean failure, a loss of face and credibility for the United Nations and NATO. However, they will not retain credibility by compounding an error. The United Nations and NATO have done their best. It is a good best but, at the end of the day, we cannot stop people fighting if that is what they are determined to do.
7.48 pm
Mr. Calum Macdonald: I shall follow the good example of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Sir P. Cormack), who tried, in his excellent speech, to scotch some received myths about the situation in the former Yugoslavia.
In doing so, I fear that I will disagree with a couple of my hon. Friends. 'They will not be surprised by that, and I should say that I respect both their knowledge of the former Yugoslavia and their knowledge of foreign policy issues in general. In particular, I respect the genuine affection of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) for the old state of Yugoslavia, which has led him to the analysis that he brings to these debates. I believe that that analysis is profoundly mistaken.
I shall take up first the myth that is often put about that early recognition of Croatia, prompted by the German Government, led to war in the former Yugoslavia. That interpretation flies in the face of the facts. Croatia was recognised in January 1992. By that time the war had been going on in Croatia for a full six months. Vukovar was a flattened mess, Dubrovnik had already been shelled and ethnic cleansing had already taken place. An end to the war in Croatia came within a couple of weeks of its being recognised. Therefore, I do not understand how it can be said—it often is—that recognition led to the war or brought about a worsening of it.

623
My hon. Friend the Members for West Derby and for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) mentioned the role of President Tudjman and the Croatian Government in this whole mess. Obviously, no Opposition Member can feel very much political sympathy for the politics of President Tudjman. He is a right-wing nationalist with an authoritarian personality, if not authoritarian tendencies, and he has undeniably expressed anti-semitic sentiments.
My hon. Friends are sadly mistaken if they think that President Tudjman's shortcomings could possibly justify the campaign of ethnic cleansing and territorial aggression by the Jugoslav national army or the nationalist Serbs in Croatia in 1991. I must point out to my hon. Friends that, sadly, eastern Europe today is full of right-wing nationalist politicians and leaders, and I am sure that some of them harbour all sorts of unpleasant prejudices. As I have said, those shortcomings could not in any way justify the policies pursued by the Serbian regime in Belgrade since 1991.
Mr. Wareing: Does not my hon. Friend see that, because of the way in which the Serbs were being treated inside the newly declared independent state of Croatia, the Serbs who lived in Bosnia, with their memories of what happened during the years 1941–45, were realistically worried about what would happen in a state that might be absorbed by Croatia? There was no doubt that the Croatian regular army was active in Bosnia, certainly in Herzegovina, in the early days of the war there. The Serbs were frightened of being part of a Bosnia that would come under the influence of President Tudjman.
Mr. Macdonald: Before I say anything about the activities of the Croatian army and the Croatian irregulars in Bosnia, I must tell my hon. Friend that the policies of the Tudjman Government in the early and middle part of 1991, insensitive and heavy-handed though they may have been, are nothing like the authoritarian repression that the Serbian Government had been practising since the mid-1980s in places such as Kosovo. Just as I would say that that sort of authoritarian repression would not justify a reaction by the people of Kosovo to the extent of ethnic cleansing and other atrocities, so I say that the far less authoritarian style of the Croatian Government in 1991 could not in any way be used to justify what the nationalist Serbs and the Jugoslav national army have done in Croatia.
I must point out to my hon. Friends that that pattern is not unfamiliar in eastern Europe, where populations are being separated by the creation of new countries, notably in the Baltic states. Sometimes there is insensitive treatment of those populations. For example, some Russians have found themselves marooned in the newly independent states. However, that could not justify a policy by the Russian Government against the Ukraine, the Crimea or the Baltic states that parallelled the policies carried out in Croatia and Bosnia. It is not right to try to claim justification for what the nationalist Serbs have done in the former Yugoslavia on the shortcomings of the Croatian regime in particular.
I acknowledge that atrocities have been committed by all sides. I acknowledge particularly that there have been atrocities committed by Croatian irregulars in Herzegovina. However, there is a clear difference between isolated atrocities and the sort of systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing and terror carried out by nationalist Serbs and the Jugoslav national army in Croatia and Bosnia.
624
That difference has been recognised not just by myself or by journalists but by the investigators from the United Nations who have studied in close detail exactly what happened in all those countries. The head of the UN investigation team, Cherif Bassiouni, made it clear just a couple of months ago that that team's investigations estimated that 90 per cent. of the atrocities had been committed by Serbian forces, and that there was evidence of a systematic and planned campaign to remove wholesale populations from the areas that the nationalist Serbs wished to take over. Those points must be made firmly.
I should like to express my appreciation to those individuals and organisations who helped me on my most recent visit to the former Yugoslavia. During the Easter recess I took the opportunity to go to central Bosnia. I visited Zenica, Mostar and Tuzla. Although I did not accompany UNPROFOR, I saw evidence of the good work that it is doing and of the necessity of its remaining in that region. I also talked to people who work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and saw evidence of their work. I was impressed by the good work that they were doing.
I also saw evidence of the work of British non-governmental organisations such as Oxford Aid, which is carrying out good work in Mostar helping to resupply a new hospital unit. I must say a special word about those working for the Overseas Development Administration in Bosnia, in Zenica and Tuzla. I saw the immensely valuable work that they were carrying out. They are enormously dedicated people, and I hope that the Government will continue to support and finance the work of the ODA in that area.
It is interesting that many of the people working for the ODA—for example, those driving the lorries in convoys in Zenica—are ex-service men who had previously served in Bosnia with the British Army through UNPROFOR. They were so convinced of the good work that they were doing that, even after being demobbed, they wished to return to continue that work in a civilian guise. That is an eloquent testimony of what has already been said tonight about the high level of morale and commitment among the British forces in the former Yugoslavia.
I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on an excellent speech, which I hope will be noted by those who take an interest in the issue. He did not engage in inflated rhetoric of the kind that the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence often warn us of, nor did he advocate imposing a political solution by force. He did not even say that we needed new policies as such, and his central message was that the policies that we had needed to be implemented and enforced. He said that we needed consistency, resolution and determination in the prosecution of the existing policies, and that that would begin to bring about radical change in former Yugoslavia.
My hon. Friend also rightly warned us away from the endless fixation with maps, and with drawing lines and dividing up territories in former Yugoslavia. That is particularly correct with regard to the contact group plan, the latest of the peace plans to be advanced. The key issue in the plan is not the internal division of territory, with 49 per cent. going to one side and 51 per cent. to the other. The argument is not whether those figures should be adjusted by one or two percentage points.
The crucial matter is the survival of Bosnia-Herzegovina as an independent sovereign state within its pre-war borders, with a full, independent and recognised

625
international personality. That goal has been repeatedly stated in international declarations and European Community statements, and also by the Government. That goal is clearly insisted upon by the UN Security Council, most notably in resolutions 820 and 836.
UN resolution 836 reaffirmed the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the responsibility of the Security Council in that regard. The resolution went on to reaffirm that any taking of territory by force or any practice of ethnic cleansing was lawful and totally unacceptable. I emphasise that particular aspect of the contact group plan, because I feel that the Government are very much resiling from it.
I fear that the Foreign Office is beginning to fudge this key issue. At the beginning of this year, I corresponded with the Minister of State, who has now taken his place on the Front Bench. In a letter to me dated 3 January 1995, the Minister said that any settlement would need to be agreed by all parties and preserve the integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina within its existing borders. That is something with which we could all agree.
The Minister went on to say that the arrangements would have to include some relationship between the Bosnian Serbs and Serbia for them to be acceptable to the Bosnian Serbs. That too is something which would be agreed on both sides of the House. But the Minister went on to say that the demand that the Bosnian Serbs must join the Croat and Muslim federation before they can have a relationship with Serbia was not a realistic basis for negotiations, and would not contribute to securing a peaceful settlement.
The Minister of State appeared to say that it is not a requirement of the contact group plan or of a plan for a peaceful settlement that the nationalist Bosnian Serbia should be required to join the federation that had been established between the Bosnian Government and the Croat representatives. I found that a puzzling statement, as it seems to me that real and recognised states come in only three forms. One can have a confederation, a federation or a unitary state. The Minister appears to be suggesting that what is projected for Bosnia-Herzegovina would not fit any of those three forms.
If that were true, I fear that Bosnia-Herzegovina would not be a fully independent sovereign state in the sense demanded by the UN Security Council resolutions. That was previously thought to be the goal of the Government's policy. That is why I was particularly alarmed when the Foreign Secretary said that what he envisaged for Bosnia-Herzegovina was a "loose union" between the Muslim and Croat federation and the Bosnian Serb territories. I tried to intervene at that point, but the Foreign Secretary declined.
That does not fit the goal which was widely believed to underpin previous UN Security Council resolutions. It does not fit the goal of re-establishing and recognising Bosnia-Herzegovina as a fully independent and sovereign entity. More importantly, it does not fit the goal of the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The British Government and the Minister of State are deluding themselves if they think that a "loose union" of that kind will be acceptable to the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina or will lead to a lasting settlement. The Secretary of State for Defence will reply to this debate and not the Minister of State, but that point must be clarified in the near future.
626
One of the most important factors in the approach of the Foreign Office and the Government is that it simply ignores the existence of vast numbers of Serbs living within Bosnian Government territories at the moment. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South pointed out that some 150,000, or perhaps 200,000, Serbs live within Bosnian Government territories. It is important to note that Dr. Karadzic rules over what is probably a minority of the pre-war Serb population. Large numbers of Serbs still live within Bosnian Government territories, while large numbers fled abroad or to other parts of former Yugoslavia.
It is vital that the Government begin to address the existence of these pro-Bosnian Government Serbs, who have now formed themselves into a Serb civic council which has held meetings in Belgrade, Montenegro and Sarajevo. It is crucial that the voices of those Serbs—the sane Serbs—who want to see a democratic and plural community and Government in Bosnia are listened to. They should be given equal status to Dr. Karadzic's representatives in any future international discussions about the contact group plan.
It is notable that much the same happened in the areas of Croatia that were taken over by the nationalist Serbs. Not only were the Croat and other non-Serb populations in those areas cleansed, but large numbers of Serbs fled from them because they did not want to be ruled by such extreme nationalists. It is estimated that, of the 500,000 people living in the UN-protected areas in Croatia before the war began, fewer than 200,000 are left. The majority have gone—they have been cleaned out or have left, so we should be wary about thinking that the people who rule those depleted and depopulated areas command a mandate or popular support.
The main point is that we need, not new policies as such but a firm attachment to and the delivery of existing policies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said. In particular, we should give the Muslim-Croat federation much greater support. It has problems—notably, the fact that the population of Bosnia cannot merely be divided into Muslims or Croats as there are also people who do not think of themselves in such sectarian terms and they have to be found a place in the federation. Nevertheless, it has re-established relationships between groups that were fighting, and the Government should therefore fully support its success. That is not happening.
During my visit to Mostar, I found it striking that we are re-committing on a smaller scale the errors that we have committed throughout Bosnia on a large scale. The city has nominally been placed under a European Union administration and an EU administrator, whose deputy is a former commander of the Royal Marines. Legally, they have the right to issue decrees and laws, but they have no power to enforce them. They have 150 police, seconded from European Community countries, but they are simply there as advisers and have no role in enforcing the laws and edicts put out by the new administration. There is a huge gap between rhetoric and action in Mostar, which reflects the huge gap between rhetoric and action in Bosnia as a whole.
Secondly, the Government should provide full political support and ensure proper funding for the war crimes tribunal in The Hague. Justice Goldstone is to be admired for the courageous and systematic way in which he has tackled his task, and he should get full, explicit, open and voluble support from the British Government.

627
Thirdly, we want robust implementation of the UN mandates that already exist to supply humanitarian aid and protect the safe areas. As has been said, UNPROFOR is not there as a peacekeeping force—there is no peace to keep—but it has a mandate to deliver humanitarian aid and protect the safe areas. It does not require massive intervention to implement that mandate. It does not require 150,000 or 200,000 troops, or the absurd, massive numbers of which the Prime Minister sometimes talks. It does not mean that we fight someone else's war and it does not require any new resolutions. It simply means implementing what we have been saying that we would do for the past three years. From the events of this weekend, when four people were killed in Tuzla and eight in Sarajevo, it is clear that we are still not implementing those humanitarian and safe area mandates, and that has to be done.
The policies that I have suggested are limited, modest and eminently achievable. They require not a change of foreign policy but merely its honest implementation. If that were done, the balance of the conflict would quickly turn. The balance—both of the forces on the ground and in a diplomatic and wider sense—is already beginning to turn. The announcement of the investigation of Karadzic and Mladic for war crimes and the fact that they are likely to be indicted before the end of the year, will increasingly isolate the nationalist Serbs, both politically and diplomatically, and exclude them from future discussions as genuine partners. In retrospect, that will be seen as a major turning point in the history of the conflict.
At the same time, the war on the ground is moving against the nationalist Serbs, with the reconquest of western Slavonia, the capture of Mount Vlasic in Bosnia and the fact that Croat forces are within shelling distance of the Krajina capital, Knin. In all, the evidence provided by recent events means that the old adage that there cannot be any military solution to the war cannot be sustained. There can be a military solution. It will take time, but the strategic position of the nationalist Serbs is weak. They lack population, are thinly stretched and are slowly being cut off from resources.
Mr. Gapes: Is my hon. Friend saying that he would be happy for the military conflict to continue for perhaps three or five years, with our lightly armed British personnel sitting ducks in the middle? That does not seem to be a helpful solution, or a means of getting a peaceful outcome to the conflict or of saving the lives of British soldiers.
Mr. Macdonald: It is fair to say that threats to UNPROFOR personnel have come from the nationalist Serb forces. The further removed they are, the better it will be. I was pointing out that the balance of force and the reality on the ground are beginning to change and that is not merely my view. In The Guardian on 3 May, General Michael Rose said:
"The Pale leadership clearly has yet to learn that, although the world may not be prepared to fight a war on behalf of the Bosnian government, the Bosnian Serb army is already overstretched, sanctions are hurting, and that to delay a peace settlement might cost them all that they have hitherto gained."
He recognises that their long-term position is weak and unsustainable. We are often lectured about having to pay heed to the reality on the ground, but that reality is changing. Time is on the side of those who want a
628
multi-ethnic, multicultural, democratic Bosnia. Why should we and the Bosnian Government settle for anything less than that goal?
I am not convinced that the Foreign Office has woken up to that shift in the balance. The days are gone when the nationalist Serbs could reject peace plan after peace plan and the international community would return each time with a fresh compromise. We need a new determination and consistency on the preservation of Bosnia, the prosecution of war crimes, the delivery of humanitarian aid and the protection of safe areas. The Government signed up to those goals and they will be judged by how their actions match their rhetoric.
Before I finish, I must tell the House about a couple I met when I was in Tuzla. The wife was a councillor in the local Tuzla administration. I visited the couple at home and had assumed that both partners were Muslims, because the wife was politically active. However, she turned out to be a Croat from Dalmatia, and although her husband was from Tuzla, he was a Serb who had been fighting with the Bosnian Government forces since the beginning of the war. Sadly, his brother had been killed in the front line. They were fighting not for an ethnically pure community—how could they? —or to achieve the removal of any part of the population from that region, but for a multi-ethnic, plural, democratic society in Bosnia.
We not only share those principles, but they underlie all the progress that we have made in Europe since 1945 and which we have been celebrating this weekend. Those are the principles that we should apply in former Yugoslavia.
8.20 pm
Mr. Robert Key: We were right not to pass by on the other side. Among many uncertainties that I have about the Balkans, that is a certainty.
First, I congratulate the service men and women from this country who are either in the Balkans or in a support role in this country—the tail which is so often forgotten in these circumstances. I also congratulate the Overseas Development Administration and its officials and staff, and the non-governmental organisations, which are doing such a tremendous job in the Balkans. I applaud the skill and patience of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the determination of my right and learned hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Both have been outstanding, as I have discovered while searching back over the past two or three years to find a trend in British policy towards the conflict in former Yugoslavia and see where we are going.
It is clear that tens of thousands of lives have been saved because of the United Nations and British intervention, and I for one am proud of that achievement. Whether one calls what the British forces have been doing a "peacekeeping" or "buffer" role is academic: the fact remains that British Army doctrine is leading the world in that area. I gather that a new publication on peacekeeping has attracted sales of tens of thousands—even from the French, despite the fact that it is in English, which is really going it. I therefore congratulate the Ministry of Defence as well.
There is fighting on both sides in former Yugoslavia just today. Arms are getting through—no one knows exactly how, although there are many suspicions. The tragedy is that 13 British soldiers have already lost their lives and 162 United Nations soldiers are dead. I am sure

629
that it is in Britain's interests, first, that we follow the need for humanitarian aid—we have a moral obligation to do that—and, secondly, that we maintain a diplomatic effort. It is clear that there can be no military winners in this conflict, but it is in Britain's interest to ensure that we play a full role in the diplomatic effort in former Yugoslavia, not least because of the danger of the spread of uncertainty and conflict.
Many people in this country forget just how close former Yugoslavia is. As they speed away on their package holiday to Rhodes, they might wonder why their plane is diverted instead of going in a straight line. When they are off to the Greek playgrounds, they might wonder why they cannot take the route that they flew before—or drive there, as I did as a student 30 years ago. They might also wonder why the Italians are so concerned about the conflict—until they look at a map and discover that the shelling of Zagreb takes place only 100 miles from Italy.
We should also remember the sheer scale of the operation for our country. The account that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave of the numbers involved was a little conservative. If one includes the Royal Fleet Auxiliary staff, the Royal Marines, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force people—all 800 of them—in Italy, and all the Army personnel, the figure is nearer 6,500.
Former Yugoslavia has seen a century of remarkable turbulence. Substantial readjustment would always have had to be made following the collapse of the Tito regime and it would be foolish to imagine that we could stop that turbulence in a year or even five years. If one thing is worse than a religious war, it is a tribal war, and in this instance we have both.
Twenty-nine years ago, when I was driving through Yugoslavia as a student, I was stoned in Montenegro. I have often asked myself and many other people why I and my student friends from Cambridge should have been stoned. Was it because we looked like hippies? My hair may have been a shade longer—it was certainly not white with wisdom. I probably looked a little like a German. We were driving on a new road that had just been opened up through the mountains, and it had opened a whole valley to the influence of new people and ideas. There was massive suspicion, prejudice and, of course, ignorance.
Above all, I was simply foreign, and those people were not used to foreigners. In any event, I brought back the stone that dented my little old Sunbeam Rapier. A few miles down the road, we were swept to the side of the road to let a large black limousine with many outriders go past, and were told that that was Marshal Tito. So I remember the Yugoslavia of the 1960s, when there was much hope for that part of Europe, with its glorious environment and countryside. It has been a tragedy to see so much decline.
On British policy, I looked back over the weekend, between celebrations in my constituency of Salisbury, at the debate in the House on 25 September 1992, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said:
"By any military standards, the situation in the former Yugoslavia is a textbook example of what Britain should not become involved in. It is difficult to imagine a more appallingly difficult situation. There are no clear objectives. There is every prospect of getting sucked into an open-ended commitment, starting with humanitarian aid and the escorting of convoys and released prisoners from the detention campsߞall the most worthy and desirable objectives. Yet there is the greatest risk of a spread of the conflict.
In 1964 we went into Cyprus and we are still there."
630
He said later:
"I always said there could come a time when we could no longer walk by on the other side."—[Official Report, 25 September 1992; Vol. 212, c. 143–144.]
I strongly agree.
By 14 January 1993, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement to the House on further deployment in Bosnia, he set the tone by saying:
"It is no exaggeration to say that there are many people in Bosnia today who owe their very survival to the presence of British and other United Nations forces.… our paramount concern was for the safety of British troops. This, of course, is still the case ….
None of this marks any change in our policy in the area.… Our position remains that it is not appropriate to intervene in what is essentially a civil war. Our overriding concern, as always, is to ensure the safety of our forces."—[Official Report, 14 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 1057.]
He said:
"Clearly, it is desirable that the project should continue but not 'at all costs'."—[Official Report, 14 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 1061.]
Following through the thinking in the Ministry of Defence, it is clear that we were facing a difficult situation with the arms embargo and much play was made about the Russians and Americans. It is clear that if the arms embargo were lifted there would then be fighting and UNPROFOR would be caught up in it. If that happened, the UN would withdraw.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who was no doubt wearing a very sober suit at the time, said:
"We judge that lifting the arms embargo would lead to an intensified conflict, with severe risks that UNPROFOR would be caught up in the fighting and lose its impartiality in the eyes of the warring factions. In such circumstances, UNPROFOR could no longer carry out the UN mandate and would have to withdraw."—[Official Report, 21 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 57.]
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said something very significant. Replying to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), he said:
"An arms embargo is currently applied to all sides. Obviously, it has been breached to a certain extent, probably by all sides … Removing the arms embargo would mean the certain withdrawal of UNPROFOR."—[Official Report, 3 May 1995; Vol. 259, c. 329.]
That surely can only mean either that it will not make any difference if there is any fighting or that he was so certain that there would be fighting if the arms embargo was lifted that he was prepared to say that there would be withdrawal following the lifting of the arms embargo. In recent days, therefore, there has been a significant shift.
In a letter that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary sent to all Members of the House, he said:
"We do not want to withdraw, but that may become the only option. The planning for what would be a difficult operation is nearly complete.
The next few weeks are important."
Obviously the position is very fluid.
We shall have a difficult time, not least because of what several of my hon. and right hon. Friends and Opposition Members have mentioned—the interest in, and reporting by, the media. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) referred to something which I also intended to mention. I refer to the remarkable comment by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)— I told the hon. Gentleman that I intended to quote him

631
with approbation—who said in the debate on the Army, and it was a pity that there were not more people present for that debate:
"The inadequacy of press and media reports was brought home to me. I stood in Gorazde and listened to the BBC World Service, which was saying that, for several days, a major artillery bombardment of Gorazde by the Serbs had been going on. I stood with the Muslim commander and not a shot had been fired for five weeks. Yet the BBC was continually repeating the news that the Serbs were bombarding Gorazde. I merely add a word of caution: a propaganda war is going on, and none of the press reports can be taken at face value to establish the facts."—[Official Report, 23 February 1995; Vol. 255, c. 527]
That is a disturbing development in the entire conflict in the former Yugoslavia. The journalists, with the best will in the world, are obviously not in a position to be able to make objective judgments of what is going on. They are under enormous pressure, perhaps from their hosts and guardians of the day. In any event we need to, shall we say, take with a pinch of salt the commentaries which come from that country.
In the aftermath of war, there is always great trouble for the civilian population. I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary saying that about 300 mines had already been cleared. One of the factors that has affected my thinking about Yugoslavia is the fact—it is an irony, as we have been celebrating VE day at the weekend—that I am here only by the choice of my electorate and extraordinary good fortune.
On Friday 13 May 1955, a group of us were playing, as 10-year-old schoolboys, on Swanage beach and one of my friends discovered what he thought was a tin of Spam in the sand. I turned away; I was bored. I went down the beach with a friend, Richard Dunstan, now a doctor. There was a blast and I was in the water, and five of my friends were dead as a result of an anti-personnel mine which had not been properly cleared by our side.
That had a pretty profound effect on my political outlook on Europe, but it also taught me that I am very fortunate indeed to be alive. I am especially keen that, whatever else we may do in the former Yugoslavia, we do all we can to ensure the clearance of mine fields, which may wreak so much havoc for so many years for so many people if we do not. Thank goodness that we have organisations such as the Halo trust, with people serving throughout the world.
If the time comes to withdraw from the former Yugoslavia, it will cost an enormous amount. That should not be the main issue, and it will not be. However, I believe that all the estimates that I have heard are underestimates. I do not know what the true figure will be, but I imagine that withdrawal will cost billions of dollars and take months rather than weeks. If we are talking about a mediaeval type of war in which one packs up for a few months when the snow falls, it will be the beginning of next winter before any of the United Nations troops could begin to come out. We need to bear that in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), whose speech I admired enormously, said that of course our troops cannot stop the war, and that is quite right. He said that they had the wrong weapons; that, too, is true. I believe that they also have the wrong rules of engagement to allow them to perform that duty. One of the big problems—and, I believe, mistakes—in the former Yugoslavia has been the fact that the dual key of the United Nations and the North
632
Atlantic Treaty Organisation has not worked. If anything, it has been to the disadvantage of United Nations troops, wherever they may have come from.
If we have to withdraw, I urge that there must be NATO supremacy. If we are having our bluff called by brigands, as my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Sir P. Cormack) said, we must at least be absolutely sure that the chain of command is not too long, and certainly not so tortuous that we have to have a dual key.
The balance continues to be in favour of carrying on the mission for the United Nations in the former Yugoslavia—just. If France withdraws—and it looks as though France will withdraw—I believe that we shall have to do so, too. I believe that we should not withdraw unilaterally, but I think that France may. If we did not have France there as the second biggest force, I suspect that we would have to withdraw anyway. If we have to withdraw, the Government can count on my support. It will be an extremely difficult decision to make. It will be based on factors including a great deal of intelligence that is not available to Members of the House, and I respect that, but it will be a judgment that will stretch my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet, and I shall support them.
A week ago today, I was in Italy with the Commander in Chief Allied Forces Southern Europe and members of the Defence Select Committee. If we are talking about British policy on the former Yugoslavia, we cannot fail to consider the effect on Italy. I strongly believe that Italy has been underestimated as an ally and that we should turn more attention to our relationship with Italy. Considering that the entire United Nations operation in the former Yugoslavia depends on Italy and any withdrawal will depend completely on Italy's participation, it is extraordinary that Italy is not a member of the contact group. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will reconsider that position, considering how crucial it will be in coming weeks.
Italy needs all the support it can get, from the European Union and more especially from NATO. The biggest problem, perhaps, that it has at present is public opinion in Italy concerning military matters. That is undermining the credibility of the Italian forces in the eyes of the Ministry of Defence. It was convenient, under former regimes in Italy and under the influence of the Communist party in Italy, to have a general atmosphere of not caring much about defence in any event. That atmosphere fell in well with the relationship of those regimes with the former Soviet Union. However, it is a dangerous position to be in.
There is a huge budget problem in Italy, but I hope very much that Italy will place orders for the EH101. I toured the Agusta factory and it was extraordinary to me that, although the Italian taxpayer had paid for half the development costs of that magnificent aircraft, the Italian Government had not yet placed a single order.
However, something wider in Italy is disturbing—the issue of conscription, a problem that we put behind us many years ago. When I asked the Italian Minister of Defence why the Ministry of Defence was so worried about conscription, the answer came back: "Because of the cohesion of the country". It is the old problem of a comparatively young nation, about 100 years old, in which the north continues to strain considerably to maintain cohesion with the south. The Italian Ministry of

633
Defence finds it important to place conscripts from both ends of Italy together in a military situation. We cannot ignore the role of Italy in our relations with former Yugoslavia.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 25 September 1992:
"Neither we nor the CSCE nor the UN yet have the aptitude or the powers to sort out problems within central or eastern European countries or the countries of the former Soviet Union, and we must remember that what is happening in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia is being repeated in two or three countries of the former Soviet Union to the east of Europe, where there are no television cameras and only occasional visitors."—[Official Report, 25 September 1992; Vol. 212, c. 126.]
I am sure that he was right. I ask myself how far we have advanced since then. The hon. Member for Livingston alluded to that trend in our thinking in his very interesting speech. It is vital that we consider the former Yugoslavia as part of a wider picture in the Balkans and on the southern front of NATO.
There is a new threat and we need to have new responses to it. Italy is at the centre of an arc of crisis from northern Africa to Chechenya, characterised by political instability, ailing economies, internal disputes and by the instability of north Africa, with its artificial borders and tribal patterns. We should not forget that the Italian economy depends on the important energy resources of northern Africa.
There is also the whole question of Islamic fundamentalism, which we in this country have only begun to consider seriously as part of our foreign and defence policies. Islamic fundamentalism is not just about Islam, which will not inherently threaten us, but Islam tends to permit extremism and anti-western feeling and it can be a source of terrorism in those countries which embrace it. That can lead to enormous tensions, whether between Israel and the Arabs or between the states of Europe.
We cannot ignore the question of migration or illegal immigration. Albania, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria and the former Yugoslavia have seen examples of economic migration and refugees fleeing war. We should think about that issue much more. I was stimulated by a visit last week to the Istituto Affari Internazionali, the international affairs think-tank in Rome, where I heard some very interesting ideas about, for example, the possible establishment of employment and industry in north Africa which would encourage closing the economic gap between north Africa and Europe and discourage economic migration. After all, we are talking about water, food and jobs—resource allocation at its most basic. One of the tragedies of the former Yugoslavia is that such a potentially prosperous part of Europe has seen such sad and rapid decline.
If we are considering our foreign and defence policies in that part of the world, we must maintain, first and foremost, the importance of not decoupling from the United States of America. We should not expand NATO too fast. Above all, we must try to keep Greece and Turkey on side and prevent them from entering into any further disputes. We must also listen to public opinion in this country, and that will be particularly crucial when it comes to a possible withdrawal from or an escalation of our involvement in the former Yugoslavia.
I conclude by referring to an opinion poll which I conduct every spring in my constituency. I shall be totally honest about it: I polled more than 2,000 paid-up
634
members of the Conservative association in my constituency and this year 532 of them responded to quite a long questionnaire. It contained a small section on defence and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence may be interested to know the results. The questionnaire stated:
"Military spending must always be a high priority".
Some 97 per cent. of the respondents agreed with that statement. The survey continued:
"We should maintain our nuclear deterrent".
Some 95 per cent. of those polled agreed with that statement. Of the respondents, 79 per cent. agreed that:
"On Salisbury Plain troops must respect the environment".
However, when the survey said:
"UK should send more troops to Bosnia to help UN,"
only 9 per cent. of the respondents agreed.
8.43 pm
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I am still reflecting on the findings of that very interesting survey of a totally unrandom sample of the British public. Despite the fact that it was a survey of Conservative party members, the Labour party respects their views in the same way as we respect the views of all other minority groups in our society.
Mr. Macdonald: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend so early in his speech, but he may not have seen the recent opinion poll of a wider and more random sample group. It showed that a clear majority of the British public is in favour of the work that the British Army is doing in Bosnia and would support further involvement should that prove necessary. That shows how out of touch Conservative Members are with the feelings of the British public.
Mr. Wicks: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment.
I rise to speak in the debate because, like other hon. Members who have noted it, I too am struck by the coincidence that yesterday our nation celebrated the 50th anniversary of VE day and today we are discussing the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. It is a coincidence of timing that should challenge us all and encourage thoughtful and sombre reflection about where we are in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia. It puts into context all the talk that we have heard recently about 50 years of peace in Europe. In Bosnia, just two hours flying time from London, we find experiences that mock our pretensions about the strengths of collective security in Europe.
I was born a few years after the end of the second world war and, as I grew up in the 1950s and early 1960s, I learned more about the causes and the experiences of that war. I remember when I first saw, as many other hon. Members would have done, the flickering black and white television pictures from the concentration camps. We not only asked how this could have occurred, but we were struck by the conviction that we would never again see or allow genocide on any scale in Europe. We vowed that we would never again tolerate such naked aggression or territorial gain of that kind by military conquest, certainly not in Europe.
Obviously the scale in the former Yugoslavia is different, but the experience has been much the same. Therefore, we should ask very humbly why we have again tolerated such genocide and naked aggression on the edges of Europe. In that post-war period we created the

635
United Nations and we believed that, through the United Nations and by other alliances, we would prevent that kind of genocide in the future. Many of us who believed ultimately in the goal of peace recognised that we needed to expend money and large percentages of our national wealth on the military to prevent the threat of such incidents occurring again.
In our more recent history, many of us to the political left of centre tried to analyse the Falklands war and the Argentine invasion and, more recently, the invasion of Kuwait by the Iraqis. Many found that analysis and the question of whether we could support such a war very difficult indeed. Many of us were persuaded to support the military expedition into Kuwait because we believed our leaders' assurances that higher principles were at stake than mere materialism or oil. We believed that it was a war against naked aggression and that the independence of a sovereign state was worth fighting for. Therefore, we supported the war. Perhaps we were wrong to believe that high principles were at stake; perhaps we were gullible in thinking that ethical and moral considerations were at stake and that the conflict was not just about oil and western profits.
I think that many people feel that, if we adopt only old-fashioned definitions of national interest in the future, we will find ourselves in deep trouble. There may be a strong national interest in defending things for humanitarian reasons. Many of our citizens might support military projects if mere humanity and not just precious resources were at stake. Perhaps when our elders, betters and leaders told us that they wished to create a new world order, we believed them too readily. Perhaps we were foolish to believe that the rhetoric had some ethical meaning that would outlast the mere weeks of convenience when it seemed to wrap the conquest of Iraq in a cloak of virtue.
However, those of us who argued against friends and colleagues that the war against Iraq was worth supporting always realised that one day our beliefs would be tested, that there would come an occasion when western profits were not at stake, and neither were money, cash, oil or other precious resources, but merely people and their nation. That test has come in the former Yugoslavia, especially in Bosnia.
I have listened carefully to hon. Members on both sides of the House who know more than I do about the former Yugoslavia, and certainly more than I know about military adventures, and I have realised the complexity of the situation. Of course one knows that nothing is ever black and white, and that in wars there are always atrocities and evils on all sides. However, one thing is clear: the newly sovereign state of Bosnia has been the victim of territorial aggression. Much more than that, its people have been the victims of ethnic cleansing and mass rape—not the rapes that occur on all sides in any war but, it appears, a policy of the mass rape of Bosnian women, used as a deliberate act of military conquest. I do not recall such a policy being enacted in any other war, and that makes it an act of especial evil.
We have also seen genocide against the Bosnian people—although not, as has already been said, on the scale practised by Nazi Germany. None the less, we are talking about evil, and that is why, with others, I want to remind the House about the challenge that this debate
636
brings us, when yesterday we were celebrating, and not only celebrating but remembering and thinking through the implications half a century after VE day.
What has been the west's response? We have heard clear proclamations from many institutions, most importantly our United Nations, but also from the European Union, NATO and other western bodies. Those declarations have all pointed in the same direction. Two years ago, the Foreign Secretary said:
"Military conquest in Bosnia cannot achieve gains which are accepted. It is not enough to fly flags over ruined towns and villages. Worthwhile gains are not be secured by making a desert and calling it peace. There is no future for Bosnian Serbs down that path".—[Official Report, 29 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 1169.]
I ask the Secretary of State for Defence a simple question: is it still the Government's policy that the Serbs will gain nothing by military conquest? That policy has been articulated so well by the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, by the Prime Minister and by the Foreign Secretary. Is it or is it not still the Government's policy? We need to know the answer.
With others, I applaud all those who have worked for the forces of good in the former Yugoslavia—UNPROFOR, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and many others in the voluntary sector. I applaud the many organisations and ordinary decent human beings who in that hell have worked for a better society for the people of Bosnia and for others in the former Yugoslavia. We applaud all the United Nations troops, but we shall be forgiven for applauding our own in particular, not least on this day when we remember acts of particular heroism by soldiers in those most difficult conditions.
However, in the face of repeated and evil aggression the overall response of our Government and of the west as a whole has consisted essentially of huffing and puffing that has added little or nothing to the policy of trying to combat aggression by the Serbs. At great expense, NATO planes fly over the former Yugoslavia monitoring, patrolling and working out where the Serbian guns are, in order to report to New York.
Similarly, the United Nations monitoring officers often operate in the most hazardous of areas. I pay tribute to them, too, as my colleagues and I met two of them doing their most important work in Pale at the end of 1993. They count the shells out in great detail, and estimate from whence they are coming and where in Sarajevo or anywhere else they are landing. Again, reports are filed with their seniors, notably the United Nations in New York. However, that usually leads to nothing.
That brings me to the reluctance to use air strikes. I believe that the British Government in particular, have placed the brake on the use of air strikes. At different times when the United States Government clearly wished to take a firmer approach to the conflict in Bosnia and to stand up to the aggression by the Serbian regime of Dr. Karadzic, British Ministers said no, and urged caution.
The history books will show that the west's overall response has been poor, but the role of the British Government will stand to be especially condemned. In recent years the Serbs have tested, prodded and then understood the feebleness of the west's response. Sadly, every time Ministers from the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have stood up in the

637
House to comment on the situation, when the speeches have been analysed they have served as a green light for further Serbian aggression.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned the recent tragedy in a suburb of Sarajevo, in which innocent citizens were killed. Despite the pleading of the general who should have been in charge, senior United Nations officials said, "No, not even on this occasion will we use the sanction of air strikes." Even now the House and the Government could show some resolution. Especially when military commanders ask for them, we must allow the use of air strikes, not least for the protection of safe havens. Others have argued with great authority why we should do that, and I add my voice to theirs.
We have heard little on the subject from Ministers recently, but we need a vigorous and rigorous pursuit of the war criminals. One should not have to say that 50 years after 1945, when Britain was soon to see the Nuremberg trials. There are war criminals. We are talking about mass rapes, genocide and ethnic cleansing. Who are the criminals? They are the soldiers on the ground, but who gave them their orders? Are those people being pursued? At long last there are signs of the United Nations pursuing war criminals. Does the pursuit of war crimes have the full support—including financial support—of the British Government?
Will the Secretary of State for Defence say something about war criminals and their pursuit when he replies to the debate? Will he touch on the difficulties faced by some senior British UN officials in their daily contact with Dr. Karadzic, when they know—and we know—that they are dealing with a war criminal who one day may have to appear before the world's court?
That brings us back to our celebration of victory in Europe 50 years ago. There have been celebrations and acts of sad remembrance, but learning the full lessons of 50 years ago involves more than celebration and humming along to well-known old songs. We must relearn the lessons of 1945 in a more complex post-war period.
Bosnia is a proud and democratic cosmopolitan society, particularly Sarajevo, which I visited for three days at the end of 1993. It is a proud and democratic city. The fact that it is still being shelled mocks our pretensions of celebrating VE day and challenges our post-war hopes.
In the face of genocide more than 50 years after the holocaust, our Foreign Office policy has never dared speak its name. British foreign policy has once again been one of appeasement. Once, 55 years ago, appeasement was thrown out by our nation and our House of Commons in favour of action, and hand wringing was eventually rejected to make room for resolution. All these years later, that may he the most valuable lesson to learn from our history—the lesson that appeasement never pays and that firm action must be supported.
9 pm
Mr. Mike Gapes: In 1987, I visited the museum of the young Bosnians in Sarajevo. On the pavement just outside are, allegedly, the footprints showing from where the shots were fired to assassinate Archduke Ferdinand, which started world war one.
I was taken round the museum with a tourist group by a young woman of 19 or 20 who was extolling the great attributes and virtues of the great Serbian patriots. I asked
638
her, "Are you a communist?" and she said that she was. I said, "If you are a communist, I cannot understand why you are extolling an individual act of terrorism. I thought that Lenin was against terrorism of that kind." But she said, "No. They were great Serb nationalists and partisan heroes." I said, "But the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand led to a war in which tens of millions of people were killed, and that in turn led to another world war in which tens of millions of people died." She replied, "What is the death of millions of people compared with the freedom of a nation?" That was 1987, and it was the voice of a young, intelligent, English-speaking Serbian communist woman.
I suspect that, in similar conversations, such statements could have been made by Croats or members of other national groups in the former Yugoslavia. When I hear talk of appeasement and simple solutions, my mind goes back to that conversation. The conflict in the former Yugoslavia is far more complex, difficult and tragic and any simple solution from outside is unlikely to produce a result.
It was noticeable that the VE day celebrations in Britain were attended by the President of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the President of the Republic of Croatia, the President of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the President of the Republic of Slovenia, yet there was no one representing one third of the population of the former Yugoslavia in Krajina, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro or Serbia. That is ironic since the anniversary of the liberation of the Jasenovac concentration camp took place only a few days ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) gave a detailed historical description of the mistakes that have been made, which I shall not repeat, but at the risk of being labelled an appeaser or pro-Serb, which seems to be a term of insult used to describe those of us who say that the situation is complex and that we should consider it in its historical context, I want to say a few more things about what has happened in Croatia and the former Yugoslavia generally.
First, we must recognise that Yugoslavia is a 20th-century state established at the end of world war 1 to bring together Roman Catholic Croats, Muslims in Bosnia and elsewhere in what is now called Kosovo and the Orthodox Serbs who are found in different parts of the former Yugoslavia.
When the Nazis invaded Yugoslavia in April 1941, they completely crushed the Serbs, but they set up an independent state of Croatia, including what is now Bosnia-Herzegovina, under the Ustashi leader, Ante Pavelic. The Ustashi had a clear policy on the 2 million Orthodox Serbs in their state—convert a third, expel a third and kill a third. That was done systematically.
Between April and July 1941, the Ustashi converted, expelled and, above all, murdered hundreds of thousands of people, not just Serbs, but Jews and gipsies as well, cruelly, viciously and systematically.
In the summer of 1941, the Ustashi set up a chain of 20 concentration camps which were later used to expedite Hitler's final solution. The largest of those camps, Jasenovac, had a regular occupancy of between 3,000 and 6,000 inmates from autumn 1941 until May 1945. Few people sent to that concentration camp lived longer than three months. According to camp rules, if they lived that long, they were executed anyway. In that period, it is

639
estimated that some 70,000 people perished in the camp, which is in the area that has just been liberated from the Serb population of Krajina by the Tudjman regime.
Reference has already been made to the former second lieutenant, Dinko Sakic, the final commander of that camp. From April 1945 onwards, the Ustashi guards at Jasenovac toiled day and night to slaughter those still surviving—Serbs, Jews and gipsies. They did so under the control of Dinko Sakic. The killing stopped on 2 May 1945 only when Tito's partisans finally liberated the area.
Anybody who is thinking and talking about events of the past week in Croatia has to understand that context. When we hear talk of appeasement, we must understand that history and that it is a little simple to associate the partisan-led, communist-led, predominantly Serb partisan forces and their successors with the Ustashi fascists of that period in quite such a glib way.
I shall make two more points. The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) made what I thought was a very intelligent speech describing the difficulties of the military situation in the former Yugoslavia. He made a number of pertinent suggestions. I draw attention to the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, "The Expanding Role of the United Nations and its Implications for United Kingdom Policy", published on 23 June 1993. Recommendations 13 and 14 state:
"We consider that calls for military deployment on the ground to enforce in Bosnia a disputed peace plan have been misconceived: troops equipped for peace-keeping or humanitarian protection work cannot be transformed into a UN fighting force simply by passing a new Security Council resolution."
It continued:
"We are not persuaded that it is practicable to try to impose a peace plan in Bosnia from outside. We fear that attempting so to impose a plan for the constitutional structure of part of former Yugoslavia could make things worse rather than better for the civilian population, as well as having serious consequences for the safety of UN personnel there, which includes a large British contingent".
Those words were right then and they remain right.
It is important that we recognise the limitations under which the UN mandate and the UN forces have been operating in recent years. It is regrettable that when the Security Council has met to try to find political fudges to deal with irreconcilable national differences between simplistic positions pushed in Washington and more realistic assessments put forward in Europe, it has made unworkable and unenforceable proposals that have led to great difficulties for the people on the ground who have to try to deal with the situation.
We must learn from the experience of peacekeeping not only in former Yugoslavia but elsewhere. One cannot expect the United Nations forces on the ground, the blue helmets, to solve intractable, religious, ethnic and political conflicts in states or between states. Those problems are deep-seated, complex and require serious, long-term solutions. The quick-fix approach so favoured in Washington and, unfortunately, supported by some hon. Members, will make matters far worse.
The Foreign Secretary seemed to be talking about conditions under which withdrawal might be necessary. He said that if the arms embargo were lifted, we would need to withdraw. He then admitted, as have others, that, in fact, the arms embargo is not really working anyway.
640
He said that if the fighting flared up—it has flared up and it is flaring up—or if there were no signs of an effective peace process, we would need to withdraw. Given the attitude of the Bosnian Government, who clearly are not interested in a peace settlement on available terms and have used the ceasefire to rearm, re-equip and redeploy their forces, the attitude of the Bosnian Serbs, who clearly are not interested in a peace settlement, and the attitude now of the Croatian Government and their supporters in Bosnia, it is realistic to say that there is no sign of an effective peace process.
If we are serious about withdrawal, we must consider how long it would take. If it becomes necessary—and I think it will—we must think about when it will be carried out. This is May, and if withdrawal takes six months, we need to think about the onset of winter. The forces have been there through two winters in difficult conditions. It is a terrible thing to say, but perhaps we have been lucky that casualties have been so low. We should think of what withdrawal would be like in a third winter, when the conflict might be much greater. Perhaps we cannot get the forces out, but what is the point of their staying if they cannot do the job that they are there to do?
I do not normally feel sorry for the Foreign Secretary but I have enormous sympathy for him because of the dilemma in which he finds himself, and I admire the way in which he put it. We are in an impossible situation, and we have to convince the British people of that because talk of appeasement, winning for one side and of the balance of force shifting is not the right approach. We must soon come to the view that we cannot go on any longer. We must recognise that there is a limit to how long we can simply sit ineffectively hoping for something to turn up.
9.16 pm
Dr. David Clark: The debate has been well informed, and a great many hon. Members have taken part. It has been characterised by the deep sincerity of every hon. Member who spoke. They all expressed their views with deep conviction. The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) admitted that he was pessimistic, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) also ended on a pessimistic note.
The views that were expressed in the debate have not followed the traditional Government-Opposition line. The views of some Conservative Members were identical to those of some of my hon. Friends, but the House is none the poorer for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South gave us a telling, chilling reminder of what is happening in that piece of land that is called Croatia in the former Yugoslavia. My hon. Friend has had much experience over the years in international matters, and as he was also the last Back-Bench Member to speak in the debate, what he said makes a deeper impression because it is fresh in our minds.
By contrast, my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) spoke with optimism about some of his experiences in Sarajevo, and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) also had a different view and a different interpretation. The House benefits from such views.
This is one of a series of debates. Over the past three years, I think that I have attended all the debates on Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia. I have heard people

641
hone their arguments, and I have perhaps detected a greater tolerance between hon. Members with different views. I have seen the House wrestle to try to decide the most propitious role for Britain and the United Nations in trying to avert an all-out war in the Balkans. On some occasions hon. Members have described the policy as one of containment, and I do not think that that is bad.
I remember in the early days arguing from the Opposition side of the House that there should be early pre-positioning and deployment of troops in Macedonia. That is something that my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) know a great deal about. That was a wise argument. We were so pleased that the Government, and later the international community, accepted that approach, and we have at least contained the problem in Macedonia.
Vigilance is always necessary. We must always be careful and we can never be complacent, but, so far, all-out war in the Balkans, which was so widely predicted three years ago, has not occurred. Having said that, we are all aware that an unhappy state and society exists in former Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Croatia.
As several hon. Members have mentioned, it is poignant that we are discussing military matters on the day after all of us, I think, have been involved in our own VE day celebrations. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) made a great point of that. Coming from the base and constituency that he represents, that is not a surprise.
I think all 13 hon. Members who have spoken have paid tribute to the professionalism of British troops. It is timely that today we read the official notices in the newspapers that 41 members of our armed forces have been honoured for their services and bravery in former Yugoslavia. Congratulations go to them all from every hon. Member.
Just to make a point, I should like to mention some of the people honoured. It would be singularly appropriate to mention Corporal Wayne Mills, who was awarded the first conspicuous gallantry cross. Members will know that that is the highest award after the Victoria cross. He is a brave individual.
I am prepared to pay great tribute to General Sir Michael Rose. He has served this country well. He served 12 months in his office, and not many of his predecessors were able to stick the post for that period. It is virtually an impossible job, but he stuck to it and I am sure that he was as robust with Salidic, Izetbegovic and Karadzic as he was with my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). General Rose told me about his robust and, I think, two-sided exchange with my hon. Friend. It was right that a debate took place, and it is healthy that politicians and senior military people have such a frank exchange of views.
Time and again, Lieutenant-Colonel David Santa-Olalla of the Duke of Wellington's Regiment showed his bravery and the strength of British officers by leading by example. His citation refers to his work in Gorazde. Having been to that enclave, I pay tribute to him. Those two officers received the distinguished service order.
Military crosses were won by Corporal Andrew Rainey and Sergeant Gary Cryer. It is important to mention non-commissioned officers. The great strength of the British Army and all armed forces lies in their NCOs. They go out with small detachments and, especially in
642
former Yugoslavia, they have immense responsibility. They must take the decisions to interpret the rules of engagement. They are provoked almost beyond their wisdom, yet they manage, because of their training and discipline, to resist the temptation.
Largely through their experiences in Northern Ireland, where similar types of command and control operations exist, the NCOs of our British forces are among the best in the world. Perhaps it is worth while to recall, as other hon. Members have reminded us, that that bravery is not without danger. We have lost 13 of our troops. If we think of it in a more general way, with our troops being part of a larger force, 162 young men have lost their lives, 162 families throughout the world have been bereaved, and 162 families obviously wonder whether the price was worth paying. Those are not easy judgments to reach.
Opposition Members have tried to support the Government's policy in Bosnia. At times we have been ahead of them, but we believe that, by and large, they have followed the correct line. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) suggested, we have been disappointed about the Government's commitment to war crime trials; we consider that very important, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will assure us that the Government are entirely committed to the exercise.
We have concentrated on Bosnia in our debates, but the events of the past week have again highlighted the problems in Croatia as a potential flashpoint in the wider war that may emerge in the Balkans. That may indeed be a danger: we shall have to watch the position carefully. We are all wondering what action to take against the Serbs for the breach of the UN's safe area mandate; meanwhile, I hope that every diplomatic effort is being made to point out to President Tudjman that he flagrantly invaded a UN-protected area of sector west. I do not think that that serious issue has been raised during this debate, or generally.
It is appropriate that both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence are involved in the debate, and highly appropriate for it to have been opened by the Foreign Secretary. That has served to emphasise what I regard as the cardinal point: ultimately, the problems in the Balkans can be resolved only through negotiation and diplomacy. I firmly believe that the country that we are discussing cannot be conquered by military means; we must have a diplomatic solution. That was at the core of the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who made some thoughtful and positive suggestions.
Having said that, let me add that Opposition Members take the view that, if threats are to be made, there will come a time when they must be backed up. It cannot be right for threats against the United Nations to be treated with impunity. We believe that, while air power alone solves little, there are occasions—as we have seen in the past—when its use gets the message across.
I want to probe the Foreign Secretary on that, because I felt that he was not as forthcoming as he might have been. It was reported in today's newspapers that General Rupert Smith had requested air power, but had been overruled. May I ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether that is true? If so, was he overruled by Mr. Akashi or by his superior officer, General Bernard

643
Janvier? It is important for the House to know whether the decision was made for diplomatic, political reasons, or for very good military reasons.
During the debate, it was argued that this was not a peacekeeping mission. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) referred to a document entitled "Wider Peacekeeping", which has just been published by the British Army—a very good document, which the hon. Gentleman has clearly had time to examine. That manual differentiates between peacekeeping, wider peacekeeping and peace enforcement. It has been widely acclaimed, and I know that it is highly regarded in the United Nations. The publication gives interesting definitions for those three terms:
"In peacekeeping the performer carries only a balancing pole and there is a hushed and respectful silence in the crowd as the performer walks the tightrope."
In wider peacekeeping, the performer carries the same balancing pole, and walks the identical tightrope:
"He also has the general consent of the parties to the conflict. However, on this occasion it is apparent that not everyone approves of his performance and the circus audience is restive and noisy. Some individuals are even throwing missiles at the tightrope walker as he makes his journey."
That graphically makes the point that in Bosnia, we are playing a wider peacekeeping role. It is important that we understand that point, and it is clear that British troops already do so. Corporal Mills, whose award of the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross was announced today, said:
"Working for the United Nations in Bosnia is an extremely difficult job. You are not there to fight a war. Your aim is to ensure that the food and other supplies get through to the Bosnian population—the victims of the war.
You never know when one of the warring factions is going to take a dislike to the UN and start taking pot shots. You have to be prepared for it and respond to the situations as they occur."
Corporal Mills puts in clear terms Britain's mandate in Bosnia. It is incumbent on us all to make it clear to our constituents that restricted mandate and the fact that we do not have a peace enforcement role. Our role is to get the humanitarian aid through, and we have been most successful in that. As long as British troops can continue to do that, we ought to support them.
The Secretary-General of the UN requested reinforcements. I was pleased in January to hear the Secretary of State for Defence announce that the Government intended to dispatch another three Chinook, six Lynx and six Gazelle helicopters. Why are we waiting? What have no Chinook or Gazelle helicopters been delivered and only four of the six Lynx helicopters been delivered? There may be good reasons, but the House has a right to know them.
Will the Secretary of State for Defence clarify the Government's position on the arms embargo? On 31 July 1994, the Secretary of State—after stoutly maintaining opposition to any lifting of the embargo because it would put our ground troops at unnecessary risk—announced that Britain no longer opposed the lifting of the embargo. On 21 November, the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) was much more robust:
"We judge that the lifting of the arms embargo would lead to an intensified conflict with severe risks that UNPROFOR would be caught up in the fighting and lose its impartiality in the eyes of the warring factions. In such circumstances, UNPROFOR could no longer carry out the UN mandate and would have to withdraw."
644
I understand that, and I also heard the Foreign Secretary speak only last week about the need to withdraw UNPROFOR if the arms embargo was to be lifted. We know the consequences of lifting the embargo, but what is Government policy on that specific point?
I make one further point about the withdrawal of UN troops. I understand that it is very important to provide confidence in our ability to get the troops out if necessary. If we can get that confidence across, there is every reason to believe that the nations that have troops there will have the confidence to keep them there. It is a vital point.
I know that an international exercise has just finished, and that the Ministry of Defence and NATO are evaluating its results. I do not want press the Minister too hard on Operation Arcade Guard, but I want to press him on a couple of other points.
In the worst case scenario, if we and the rest of UNPROFOR have to withdraw our troops, we know, as has been said in the House today, that it may require up to 50,000 troops. The Americans are, I think, going to provide about half of those.
We are concerned about the different lengths of time that it has been suggested might be needed to withdraw. It has been suggested that withdrawal might take up to six months. Another suggestion is that it could be completed in six weeks. The shorter the period, the better the prospects for getting the troops out, if necessary. Can the Secretary of State for Defence assure us that everything is being done to facilitate the shortest period for extracting the troops?
Other hon. Members have raised this critical point, but I take it that it is absolutely certain that NATO will have the command and control of the troop extraction. I think that the whole House would be happier if that was the case. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Defence could say a word about the attitude of French Government on that point, because we understand that they have slight difficulties—theological difficulties, almost—with that command and control system.
The situation is Bosnia is very complicated. If it had been easy, we all know that the problem would have been solved. But the problem is there, and is not going to go away. The role of the UN has not always been understood, so the role of UNPROFOR and our troops has not always been understood.
We believe that our troops and UNPROFOR have been doing sterling work. We believe that they have kept alive tens of thousands of people, and that they are giving us the breathing space during which we can pursue diplomatic solutions. We equally accept that there may come a time when the risks to our troops are so great that we cannot justify them being there. If we can keep our troops there, and if they can continue doing a worthwhile job, the Government will have our support, as do the troops.
9.37 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): It has been a feature of virtually all the speeches that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House to pay tribute to the courage and great skill with which our troops are carrying out their responsibilities in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia. I do not lightly thank hon. Members for making such remarks because it is of very real importance to the morale of our forces in Bosnia and elsewhere to know that they have the unqualified

645
admiration and support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. That is something for which we can genuinely give thanks.
There has been an understandable and inevitable comparison or juxtaposition of the victory in Europe ceremonies and commemorations over the past few days with the fact that Europe is experiencing one of the most savage and traumatic wars within a state of Europe since the Spanish civil war in the 1930s.
There is a tendency in some quarters to suggest that somehow the responsibility for the sheer savagery and atrocity that we have seen in the former Yugoslavia has to be shared by the west as a whole or by the United Nations or by NATO. I understand the emotions that give rise to such comments, but I believe that it is crucial to emphasise that the responsibility for what happens in former Yugoslavia is to be found overwhelmingly with those within former Yugoslavia who have initiated the conflict. I sometimes hear suggestions that the conflict would have been avoided if only the west had done this or that or NATO had initiated this policy rather than that policy. I do not believe that such views are grounded in a credible explanation or analysis of the problem.
We are all well aware that, for a good number of years, former Yugoslavia was slowly but almost inevitably disintegrating. The forces that might have prevented that could have come only from within former Yugoslavia, not from outside. We know that, once Slovenia had declared its independence and Croatia had broken away, whatever the diplomacy of Germany or the European Union or whatever the views of the UN or NATO, the idea that Bosnia-Herzegovina could have escaped the consequences of the disintegration of Yugoslavia is not a correct analysis. In reaching a judgment about the success or failure of the UN and other forces that have been active there, one must bear that fact in mind.
Let me examine for a moment the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Sir. P. Cormack), that, in a fundamental way, the UN has failed in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Of course I accept that, if one measures success or failure by our aspirations, clearly the UN can be said to have failed. However, compared with all historical precedents by international organisations, a far more powerful case can be made that the UN, while not realising its full aspirations, has achieved more in Bosnia than in almost any previous operation either by the UN or by the League of Nations before it. One has only to go back to the previous great war within Europe, the Spanish civil war, to see that the League of Nations was unable to make even the most minor impact of a humanitarian kind and how the great powers adopted their clients and provided arms and in no way sought to dampen the conflict in that savage period.
That must be compared with what has been achieved over the past three years by British and other forces of the UN. It can be compared with what has happened in Angola, Cambodia or Somalia—other wars which are not dissimilar and where people have slaughtered each other in hundreds of thousands or, in the case of Cambodia, in millions. In those cases the UN could begin to be involved only once a ceasefire had been agreed. Only after a ceasefire was agreed in Cambodia, after many years of senseless slaughter, did the UN send forces for the first time. After 15 years of bloody civil war in Angola, it is
646
only in the past few weeks, again when a political ceasefire has been agreed by the competing armies, that the UN has felt able to intervene.
We can compare all those facts with what has been achieved so far by the UN in Bosnia. In the past three years, as hon. Members have pointed out, many tens of thousands of lives have been saved. Many people would have been slaughtered in the conflict or would have died from starvation or from a lack of medical supplies. In addition, we should remember the not unreasonable forecast of three years ago, that, if we did not take the necessary steps, it would be a conflict not just in Bosnia but would spread to Macedonia, Kosovo and throughout the Balkans. That could still happen, but the fact that it has not happened yet is in no small measure due to the achievements of the United Nations in providing a focus for stability in Bosnia, Croatia and Macedonia.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Nobody—my right hon. and learned Friend has acknowledged this—disputes for a moment the wonderful work of the British and other troops working for UNPROFOR. However, to suggest that this is analogous to civil wars in Africa is not correct. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) have all said, this is not a civil war in the accepted sense of that phrase. It began as a war of aggression, with Serbia determined to create a greater Serbia.
Mr. Rifkind: While I was going to deal with that point later, I shall deal with it now in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South. I hope that we will not get into too much of a terminological debate about whether the phrase "civil war" does or does not describe exactly what is happening within Bosnia. There is not much disagreement between the different points of view. We all acknowledge that President Milosevic and Serbia bear more responsibility than anyone else for the initiation of the conflict.
We also all accept that probably 95 per cent. of those doing the fighting in Bosnia are Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims. There are no foreign armies in Bosnia, and Bosnia has not been invaded by another state. There is much external interference, but that is not a feature unique to this particular conflict. While my hon. Friend was right in saying that the various communities within Bosnia lived in peace and harmony with each other for many years, it is also true—as has been mentioned by a number of speakers—that Yugoslavia in general, and Bosnia in particular, has in the past experienced more bloody civil war, butchery and slaughter from all sides than almost any other part of Europe.
My hon. Friend must only look at the memoirs of that gallant soldier Sir Fitzroy Maclean, who, when he was sent to Yugoslavia during the war, recorded his instructions from Churchill as being to make contact with the various resistance groups and to identify and advise the British Government which of those groups was spending more time trying to kill Nazis than each other. As he concluded that Tito's partisans on balance—it was only on balance—were spending more time attacking the Nazis, the United Kingdom and our allies chose to give support to that group. There is a history which we cannot ignore, and there has been great internecine hatred in Bosnia.

647
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made a number of comments, some of which I agree with. He rightly emphasised the. great importance of the UN and the international community not making threats which they are not prepared to carry out. I freely acknowledge—the British Government have emphasised this point on many occasions—that one of the great factors in this issue is the tendency of international organisations and politicians of all persuasions and from all parts of the world to declare that certain things are unacceptable and that certain matters will not be tolerated when it is clear that none of the Governments concerned, or the international community as a whole, intends doing the minimum necessary to give credence to those threats. I accept that there must be a link between the language we use and the action that we are prepared to take.
With regard to the use of air power within Bosnia, the UN and NATO have shown on several occasions their willingness to use such power in appropriate circumstances. Questions were raised regarding the response of the UN to the mortar attacks on Sarajevo in the past couple of days. I am not at liberty to speculate as to what detailed discussions might have taken place within the UN, but I agree with the hon. Member for Livingston that we must allow the UN's own chain of command to come to a judgment as to whether to ask NATO for military action in the specific case.
I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman's remark that it is highly damaging to the authority and credibility of UN if evidence of internal disagreements within that chain of command become known. The matters should of course be discussed, but we believe that differences of opinion within the UN should be kept as matters to be resolved and presented to NATO and the international community in the manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
I refer to the remarks made about the implications for the NATO alliance of the strains and pressures which have developed between NATO and the UN in the past couple of years. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) pointed to the problems which have arisen as a result of the dual key, and the need for both the UN and NATO to agree before military action is taken.
It is perhaps inappropriate to say that the dual-key arrangements are the cause of the tension. They are the consequence, not the cause, of the phenomenon that, while the UN troop contributors are on the ground, the United States has been solely concerned with the use of air power. The need has arisen, therefore, for as long as that remains the case, for both ground and air commanders to be in agreement before military action is taken, or there will be grave danger to the lives and safety of forces on the ground.
It is precisely because the United States has agreed, in the event of any need to withdraw from Bosnia, to contribute substantial ground forces in addition to those being provided by the present troop contributors, that the problem of dual key will not arise with regard to NATO action that might be needed in the event of a withdrawal—NATO would be invited to supervise such a withdrawal. Clearly, if the United States, as well as western European
648
and other countries, is on the ground with significant forces, it is right and proper that command and control can be concentrated in single hands.
Mr. Macdonald: Will the Secretary of State say something about the suggestion that British forces will be withdrawing from Gorazde, bearing in mind what happened in Bihac when the French forces withdrew and were replaced by a wholly inadequate force? Can he assure us that British forces will not be withdrawn until he is confident that they will be replaced by a force that is at least as competent?
Mr. Rifkind: We are not contemplating the withdrawal of any forces from Bosnia—
Mr. Macdonald: From Gorazde.
Mr. Rifkind: I am answering the hon. Gentleman.
Within Bosnia, how the UN uses the forces supplied by the various countries is primarily a matter for the UN commander. It is right and proper that the principle of rotation should apply, and we have expressed that view publicly as well as privately. One should not expect one country—whether Britain, France or wherever—to carry out one role, in an exposed way, over a prolonged period. Those matters are under discussion and no final decisions have been reached. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs emphasised earlier, the United Nations does not believe in the principle of unilateral action to withdraw troops from Bosnia-Herzegovina, and that will continue to be our policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) made some pertinent remarks about Macedonia, and I pay tribute to the responsible way in which the Government of that country have acted to try to ensure a continuation of stability in that locality. He raised one or two technical matters and there will, perhaps, be a letter on its way to him to deal with those matters for which I do not have direct responsibility.
On the basic question of whether the United Nations should stay in Bosnia-Herzegovina, or whether the case for withdrawal has changed significantly in recent times, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) suggested that perhaps the time had come for those forces to be phased out. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), in a speech to which I listened with great care, emphasised that forces could well be stuck there for up to 10 years before the war came to a conclusion.
We have emphasised that the presence of British forces in Bosnia should be based, first, on whether they can carry out the mandate that they have been given and, secondly, on whether they can do so without undue risk to themselves. When considering the arguments for and against their presence or withdrawal, let us also consider for a moment the advantages of withdrawals.
Clearly, the first would be the ending of risk to the lives and safety of British and other UN forces. Secondly, there is an argument that that presence has become pointless and that they are not achieving anything, or not sufficient to justify their continuing presence in the country. Thirdly, there is an argument—it was not heard much today, but it is raised occasionally—that the presence of the United Nations may prevent the

649
conclusion of the conflicts by creating a rigid situation that prevents either side from enforcing a military solution.
I understand those arguments. Like all such arguments, there is some truth in them all, but I must point out to the House the opposite point of view and the disadvantages that would flow from a premature withdrawal. We must contemplate what would happen if not just the United Kingdom but the United Nations withdrew from Bosnia, and see whether we are prepared to live with those consequences.
We must assume that the immediate impact would be the overrunning of the enclaves, not just of Gorazde, Tuzla or Srebrenica but of Sarajevo itself. Those would be difficult to defend because, even in the immediate aftermath of a withdrawal, the Bosnian Government would not have received any additional military hardware of a substantial kind in a time scale that would be likely to be decisive for that purpose. So enclaves controlled by the Bosnian Government would be immediately snuffed out.
Secondly, one must envisage the implications of the inevitable raising of the arms embargo in the event of a UN withdrawal. Do we wish to encourage that to be brought about, with the flooding of arms into Bosnia? Although arms have been getting to the Bosnian Government forces, they have certainly not included heavy artillery and weaponry which would be a consequence of the lifting of the embargo.
Another factor is whether we are simply contemplating withdrawal from Bosnia-Herzegovina and assuming that, somehow, the United Nations could continue in Macedonia and Croatia. That is a highly improbable scenario. We must accept that, if there were a withdrawal from Bosnia, it would have to be part of a wider withdrawal from the whole of former Yugoslavia, with all the consequences that could flow from that for Macedonia, Croatia and other parts of the region.
Finally, we must consider the implications for Kosovo, an area that has been extremely tense for a number of years, with a 90 per cent. Muslim population within an area controlled from Belgrade, which we know could at any time erupt into serious conflict.
Against that background, the other question that I would ask the House to consider, and which the British Government certainly consider as of great significance, is whether we can say at this stage that we must write off any prospect of a political settlement and that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford predicted, the war will simply drag on month after month, year after year, for the indefinite future. It may be unwise to make that judgment at this stage.
As a number of hon. Members said, the ceasefire progressed during the winter months when one would not expect much military conflict and, as spring approached, so the fighting resumed. It is worth remembering, however, that fighting has not resumed throughout Bosnia and is still extremely limited.
650
Like many hon. Members who have visited Bosnia, each time that I have been in that country over the past three years, I have experienced a further extension of the area that is slowing returning to normality. A year and a half ago, one saw not just conflict between Serbs and Bosnian Government forces but an equally savage civil war between Croats and Muslims in central Bosnia. Now, the area of the country where British troops are most concentrated is overwhelmingly peaceful.
It will not necessarily remain so, but, for the past year, when one has travelled from Croat to Muslim area, one has not even seen military patrols on the borderline between Croat and Muslim communities, as was the feature of the countryside even 12 months ago.
Although British forces in Gorazde are in an area of great tension, the vast majority are carrying out crucial tasks in a large part of Bosnia that has seen no conflict for a year or 18 months but which would have to anticipate a dramatic and devastating return to conflict if the UN pulled out and thereby created or precipitated a very serious vacuum of power.
Obviously, withdrawal may become necessary. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House clearly, we cannot afford to contemplate a situation in which our troops cannot carry out the tasks imposed on them, and in which they are used as a target by any of the competing factions. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South objects to the word "faction", but, whatever word one uses, all the separate groups within Bosnia have seen the United Nations as a legitimate target on certain occasions. That would be intolerable if it developed as some people predict.
The House has acknowledged the great gallantry of British troops in Bosnia. I thank the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for the justified remarks that he made about several of the individual soldiers serving in Bosnia, especially the gallant colonel who has been the first recipient of the conspicuous gallantry cross, a new recognition of a very—[HON. MEMBERS: "Corporal."] I am sorry; I thank the House for that correction. It would no doubt be deserved, but the citation for that gallant soldier fully recognises the dangers confronted by British and other UN troops in the most difficult of circumstances.
The conclusion of the Government—and I suspect of the whole House—at this moment is that the United Nations presence in Bosnia continues to be justified. Although the work being done is difficult and often receives precious little thanks—including from those who benefit from it—we can nevertheless take great pride in it. I pay tribute to those who have made it possible.

Former Yugoslavia

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Monday 15th May, the Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. John M. Taylor relating to the draft Conditional Fee Agreements Order and Regulations 1995 not later than one and a half hours after the first such Motion has been made; and the said Motions may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Punjab (Treatment of Sikhs)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
10 pm
Mr. Terry Dicks: I wish to bring to the attention of the House the continuing persecution of the Sikhs living in their homeland, the Punjab—an issue that I have brought before the House on three previous occasions in the 12 years that I have been a Member of Parliament.
I noticed that nearly 30 hon. and right hon. Members were in the Chamber to listen to a debate about Bosnia, in which British people are not really interested because it is not of direct concern. We now have a debate—at least, a statement—about the position in a Commonwealth country, and the 30 people who were in the Chamber at 10 o'clock have almost all left. I find that surprising and disappointing.
Sikhs in my constituency and throughout the world are worried for relatives and friends who continue to live in that part of India. The rape of young women, the beating of old men and the murder of young boys, together with the imprisonment without trial of thousands of innocent people, have been taking place for more than a decade and continue to this day.
Living in fear is part of everyday existence in Punjab. The freedom that we take for granted in Britain does not exist in that part of India.
Recent evidence obtained from police files shows that bodies of police suspects murdered in police custody have been cremated as "unclaimed" and that that practice has continued since 1984. The documents that I have with me were given by or bought from police authorities in the Punjab. They list names of people relating to the bodies that have been cremated; yet the Indian authorities denied the existence of such records.
The Indian Express carried a front-page story in its edition of 3 February 1995, in which it said that, during the three years 1991–93, the Punjab police dumped about 426 bodies for cremation as "unclaimed" on the Patti Municipal Committee. In many cases, the relatives had not been informed even though the bodies had been identified.
In the same region last year, another 17 "unclaimed" bodies were sent by the police for cremation. Why cremation? Because burnt bodies cannot be examined later for evidence of torture or other abuse.
Police sources have disclosed that, although some of those so-called "missing persons" may have died as a result of torture while in police custody, others may have been eliminated because they had some evidence of police brutality—in other words, they had witnessed what was going on, and they had to be put away together with those who were murdered as suspects.
A local human rights group brought that position to the attention of the Indian high court, but its action was dismissed on the grounds that only relatives of murdered individuals could be party to any litigation. That approach is a bit like telling the relatives of Kuwaitis who disappeared during the occupation of Kuwait to apply to the Iraqi high court in Baghdad for an inquiry to be held into their disappearance.
652
Investigations into allegations of police torture are rare and, even when such allegations have been established, prosecutions have not taken place. According to recent reports by Amnesty International, there is no evidence of a police officer having been convicted of human rights violations in Punjab. That says it all about the so-called free and democratic nature of that place and the police reaction to law and order.
The British Parliament has refused to condemn the behaviour of the Indian Government, no matter how well documented the facts are. The Government refuse, supposedly because India is a powerful Commonwealth country. Indeed, India refers to itself as the "largest democracy in the world". Perhaps the phrase the "largest hypocrisy" is more appropriate; it is one that I use frequently to describe that Government and that country. The Labour party, with its close links with the Congress party and the Gandhi family, prefers to say nothing at all—I suppose that that is par for the course for that party.
Abuses elsewhere, such as in Bosnia and in parts of the Soviet Union, have led to condemnation by our Government. Why have the Indian Government escaped Britain's wrath? If the Indian Government have nothing to hide, what are they attempting to cover up? Why will they not grant me a visa to enter the country? I reiterate my offer to the Indian Government; if my Sikh friends are telling me lies, I will condemn them outright upon my return from Punjab; on the other hand, if the Indian Government have been misleading the rest of the world, I will shout the facts from the rooftops upon my return to Britain.
With such a reasonable offer available, perhaps the Government and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will seek to persuade the Indian Government to grant me a visa. I sincerely hope that they will. As the elected representative of some 8,000 Sikhs, I believe that it is important that I see the position for myself. I hope that, with the help of the Foreign Office, I shall gain access to that country.
Recognition of the rights of Sikhs who are living in Punjab is all that Sikhs elsewhere want. That means the right to press for self-determination and to strengthen the call for an independent Kalistan. Sikhs cannot understand how Britain, which is their mother country in some ways, can take such determined action against the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and yet stand by and do nothing about human rights abuses in India. They wonder why they are treated differently, but they are also aware that Punjab is not an oil-rich region. Our Government give the impression that they are being selective in their opposition to human rights abuses. If that impression is to change, our Government must condemn outright the behaviour of the Indian Government.
There should be no aid programme to India, particularly because aid is now tied to good human rights practices. If that is the case, how can we give a penny to the Indian Government which use and abuse the Punjabi people in their own country? If that has no effect, I believe that our Government should break off all diplomatic ties with India. Perhaps the "curry club" lunches between hon. Members in the House and the people who represent the Indian Government should also come to an end. There can be no appeasement of a Government who treat one of their ethnic minority groups in that way.

653
We are now celebrating the end of the second world war—a war that was fought to preserve freedom of expression, freedom from tyranny and freedom of self-determination. In Punjab there is no freedom of expression, only its restriction. In Punjab there is no freedom from tyranny, only the fear of tyranny. In Punjab there is no freedom of self-determination, only the ability to whisper the word "Kalistan", because to do otherwise would put lives at risk.
For Sikhs in Punjab, we should read Muslims in Kashmir. Who is causing their suffering? It is none other than the Indian Government. The Sikhs in Punjab and the Muslims in Kashmir turn to us for help. They believe in the democratic principles upon which our Parliament is based. How much longer must they suffer and how many more excuses will be found to justify ignoring their pleas?
As I said earlier, this is the fourth time that I have raised the issue on the Floor of the House of Commons. I suspect that, for the fourth time, my hon. Friend will read a Foreign Office brief and that no further action will be taken. I suspect that there will be no effort to help me to secure a visa to visit India. I suspect that the Government will not raise the issue of human rights with the Indian Government and that they will not consider doing away with the aid programme because of the abuse of human rights in India. I shall probably hear—with great respect to my hon. Friend—platitudes and no firm decisions.
There are about 300,000 Sikhs in this country. The 8,000 Sikhs in my constituency will want to know how Parliament can spend hours talking about Bosnia—which is of no concern to this country in any shape or form; the Balkans were never part of the Commonwealth—yet can debate this very important issue for half an hour four times in 12 years. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has many Sikhs in his constituency, so I now give way to him to say whatever he wants to say.
10.8 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) for raising this very important subject. As he said, many thousands of Sikhs live in Gravesend and Northfleet in my constituency. They are very concerned about their families and friends who remain in Punjab and many hundreds of my Sikh constituents travel to Punjab every year to visit them. They find the situation there to be extremely insecure.
In this country we take it for granted that human rights will always be preserved, and that if difficulties arise for ourselves and our families, in extremis we can turn to the police for help. Those are freedoms and rights not easily available to residents in Punjab. Not only are their families vulnerable to the depredations of the police but, if things go wrong and they are the victims of extortion or violence of any sort, they cannot have recourse to the police authorities, as should be their right.
What remains in Punjab is an extreme uneasiness for the individual, especially as there has been no proper investigation of the considerable number of cases of people who have disappeared over the years. Families throughout Punjab—and therefore, by extension, families in this country—have seen their members disappear. Justice does not ensue.
654
I know of a case of a constituent who—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. As I understand it, this is an intervention.
Mr. Arnold: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I thought my hon. Friend had finished: now I am not sure whether he has.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) say that he would give way.
Mr. Dicks: I am quite willing to allow my hon. Friend to finish what he has to say before I resume, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us have a little order here. First, I hope that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has the Minister's permission too. This is not something that can just be done off the cuff, on the spur of the moment. Does the hon. Member have the Minister's permission?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): I am perfectly content for my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham to intervene, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Has the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington finished his speech?
Mr. Dicks: If it helps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, yes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, the hon. Member for Gravesham may speak.
Mr. Arnold: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for clarifying the situation, because I thought that I was making a speech supporting my hon. Friend's admirable speech in his Adjournment debate.
I was saying that many of my constituents are concerned about the lack of follow-up to the disappearances that have occurred in Punjab, especially when young men from their extended families have disappeared. For instance, there was a ghastly case of a young man disappearing and all the stories were that he was being held in prison in a police station. The family was eventually advised that the young man had died in custody, yet only a few weeks later he was clearly seen at the window of the prison. When the case was pursued with the prison authorities and the place was eventually checked out, the young man had disappeared yet again.
With my Latin American experience, I know about the concerns about those who have disappeared in Argentina. In the last decade of the 20th century such dreadful things are still happening.
It is especially relevant to raise the matter in the House of Commons, because until 1947 the House was responsible for the conduct of affairs in India. In some ways the agreement made by Mountbatten with the successor authorities, especially Nehru and the Congress party, for the creation of India led to the current position. The great Sikh leaders of the day took at his word and at face value the promises that Mr. Nehru made them concerning the autonomy and the governance of greater Punjab, as it then was—promises that he subsequently broke.

655
As a result of the haste with which we left India and of the lack of care taken at the time to ensure that the legitimate rights of the Sikhs were sustained, we have a responsibility.
The debate is especially relevant this week, because over the past weekend we have celebrated Victory in Europe day. While I was doing so in my borough of Gravesham, I met an elderly Sikh visiting from India, who told me how he had served as a sergeant-major with the British forces in Italy as part of the imperial Indian army under the Raj.
We owe a debt of gratitude to those people. We owe it to them to speak up for human rights in Punjab, so that they can live in peace in the land of their forefathers.
10.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is and has been a robust champion of those of his Sikh constituents and others who have continuing concerns about the welfare of Sikhs in Punjab. I sincerely hope that the Indian authorities grant him a visa to travel to India. I cannot see that they have anything to lose by ensuring that everyone has access to see for themselves the situation in Punjab and elsewhere.
It is clearly an issue that raises broad concern in the House, as has been evidenced by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and the presence with me on the Front Bench of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), both of whom take a close interest in the welfare of the Sikh community here in the United Kingdom and overseas.
One reason why a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister is standing at the Dispatch Box answering on matters which are clearly the internal interest of another sovereign state is that large numbers of our fellow countrymen and women are Sikhs, who understandably take a close personal interest in the welfare and well-being of Sikhs throughout the world. The second reason for Ministers to become involved in the matter is human rights. Concern for human rights knows no national borders.
We take human rights issues extremely seriously. Serious abuses of human rights, wherever they may occur, such as summary execution, arbitrary imprisonment and torture, all deserve and will attract the condemnation of the House and the British Government. Hon. Members can rest assured that we shall continue to press for the strongest support for human rights throughout the world. Whenever we meet Ministers from countries where there are concerns about human rights violations, we draw attention to those concerns.
We should, however, be wary of absolutes, and of seeing things entirely in black and white. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is a long-standing critic of the Government of India over many years. As he made clear, he has introduced a number of Adjournment debates on the matter, and his criticism of the Government of India has been sustained. That is matter for him. Clearly, my hon. Friend has not sought to temper his criticism in light of the guidance of "Erskine May" that
"opprobrious reflections must not be cast in debate on sovereigns and rulers over, or governments of, independent Commonwealth territories or countries in amity with Her Majesty.".
656
I am sure that it is understood by all who have taken a close interest in the matter over many years that, given his strong views on the matter, my hon. Friend has only "opprobrious reflections" for the Government of India. I appreciate that nothing is likely to deter him from his personal views on the matter.
Just as I promised to reflect carefully on everything that my hon. Friend said, so I ask my hon. Friend and the House to reflect whether the issues are quite as stark as he set out.
Until two years ago, the situation in the Punjab was unsatisfactory and unstable. There was widespread violence, with several thousand people being killed every year. We were concerned about the nature and level of human rights abuses there. Ministers, including my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, discussed those concerns with the Indian Government on numerous occasions.
We emphasised to the Indian Government the need to respect human rights and the rule of law in confronting terrorism, and the importance of bringing those responsible for any wrongdoing to justice. We continue to make those points, not just in relation to Punjab. Concerns for human rights are a regular element in our discussions with the Indian Government at all levels.
At the same time, we have consistently condemned terrorism, which can offer no solution to the problems of Punjab or anywhere else. Atrocities committed by terrorists are as unacceptable as human rights abuses committed by security forces. It must be remembered that the Indian Government faced a serious challenge from terrorist violence in Punjab. In 1991 alone, it resulted in more than 5,000 deaths, including terrorist attacks on trains and buses, which were held up and innocent passengers gunned down and murdered.
We have always acknowledged and supported the right of the Indian Government to defend India against terrorist activities, and their responsibility to protect their citizens from terrorism.
Mr. Dicks: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the figures he quoted came from Indian Government sources?
Mr. Baldry: We have a high commission in India, which closely monitors reports of deaths in papers and from contacts and sources throughout India. I do not think that there is any doubt about the range and scale of the number of deaths that took place in 1991.
It is important to see developments in Punjab in perspective. There has been considerable progress since earlier Adjournment debates initiated by my hon. Friend. The situation now bears little resemblance to that of two years ago. The security situation has been transformed. There have been virtually no terrorist incidents this year, and terrorist activity has been severely curtailed, even if the potential for it has not been completely removed.
A key element in that new climate has been the creation of the Indian National Human Rights Commission. The Indian Government deserve credit for that. Although still a comparatively fledgling organisation, it has made an encouraging start in terms of casework and policy. The commission visited Punjab in April last year. Its report stated that there was
"near unanimity that terrorism has been contained"
and a
"widespread feeling that life in urban and rural areas has largely returned to normal".

657
The report concluded that changes in the situation on the ground should pave the way to normalising the role and function of the police, and re-establishing district magistrates' authority over them. That has since proved to be the case.
The newly established National Human Rights Commission has also challenged the constitutional validity of the controversial Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act—TADA. That was first introduced in 1985 to deal with the exceptional situation in Punjab, but it is in force throughout India. The central Government have recognised the need to prevent the abuse of that legislation. The Indian Home Minister told Parliament last year that he had asked all Chief Ministers to review TADA cases and to ensure that there was no suggestion of innocent people being harassed by the local authorities.
The Home Ministry has also reminded state governments that TADA was enacted to deal with terrorism, and was not to be used for political purposes. TADA cases are now kept under review by a high-level committee chaired by the Home Minister. He has said that he intends to visit the capital of every state in the union where people are detained under TADA, to ensure that those powers are not being abused.
Of course, it must be in the interests of India and all those concerned for India that all possible objective mechanisms are available to investigate and deal with any complaints of human rights abuses. That is why we have to continue to urge the Government of India to allow greater access by the International Committee of the Red Cross and Amnesty International to areas such as Punjab.
We have consistently encouraged the Indian authorities to allow international human rights groups and other international observers to visit areas where human rights abuses have taken place. Amnesty International visited Bombay last year. I understand that it is discussing further visits with the Indian Government. I hope that those will include a visit to Punjab.
Just as important as the improvements in promoting human rights is the fact that the democratic process is now fully operational, right down to grass roots level. Participation in elections has risen steadily during the past three years. State elections were held on 19 February 1992. The Congress (I) party won 12 of the 13 seats, but the turnout was only 28 per cent., reflecting a boycott by the Akali Dal parties. The first municipal elections in 13 years were held on 6 September 1992, just seven months later, and there voter turn-out increased dramatically, to 71 per cent. The largest number of seats went to independent candidates.
The move towards the restoration of political normality was further confirmed by the rural elections in 1993. Just under a year after the state elections, voter turnout was an emphatic 82 per cent. Since January 1993, there has been a further parliamentary by-election in May 1993; and again in September 1994, block and district level elections were held for the first time in 19 years. That is impressive evidence both of the Indian Government's determination to restore the democratic process to Punjab at all levels, and the desire of the people of Punjab fully to participate in their own governance, as evidenced by the involvement of the Akali Dal parties.
Those figures provide a clear indication that the majority in Punjab have rejected violence. Other figures confirm it. The number of monthly deaths has shown a
658
clear and steady decline. Violence has reduced significantly and consistently since 1993. From several thousand deaths in 1992, there were only 394 in 1993, and less than 100 last year. That improving trend is continuing into 1995. So far this year, I am glad to say that there have been no deaths as a result of militant activity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned Khalistan. We are aware of calls by some Sikh groups for a separate state of Khalistan, but it has to be remembered that not all Sikhs want to see the break-up of India. India is a democracy. To be credible, calls for a separate state should be debated within the constitutional and democratic means available for that purpose. The Indian Government have the right to seek to uphold the territorial integrity of India.
There is other evidence of Punjab's return to stability. The process of law is reasserting itself after years of acquiescence in the face of intimidation, and the courts have intervened on behalf of a number of detainees via habeas corpus proceedings. Economic life has also largely returned to normal. Punjab is traditionally India's most prosperous state. Once again, industrial and agricultural endeavour is flourishing, factories are resuming production, and people are going about their business without hindrance.
Mr. Dicks: If all those things are happening, as my hon. Friend says, because terrorism has reduced, why is police brutality still in the ascendancy? As I understand it, there are no signs whatever of such brutality easing. If terrorism is easing—I am delighted that it is, because I share my hon. Friend's view that it has no part to play—why is police brutality not following the same pattern?
Mr. Baldry: I am not quite sure on what basis my hon. Friend makes his allegations. Clearly, if there are allegations of police brutality, such matters would need to be progressed through the courts in India. It is quite clear that the courts are not slow to take action where they think that it is appropriate. Action may also be taken through the mechanism of the new National Human Rights Commission.
As I shall make clear in a moment, the state of Punjab is also contemplating introducing its own local human rights commission. So there is no lack of willingness on the part of India in general, or Punjab in particular, to ensure that any violations of human rights are examined fully and in detail.
The media also have a part to play. The attention of the press and the wider media is no longer monopolised by terrorism, and they are returning to their usual functions, and subjecting the Government's conduct to close scrutiny. Coverage of issues such as corruption, unemployment, price rises, power shortages, and, indeed, human rights issues, has resumed.
Of course much still needs to be done in Punjab, but the clear trend is towards the re-establishment of the rule of law and respect for human rights. The Chief Minister of Punjab has agreed to give favourable consideration to establishing a state human rights commission under the terms of the Indian Human Rights Act 1993.
The national context is also important. The treatment of detainees by law enforcement authorities remains a problem in India, but there has been a definitive change in the Indian Government's attitude towards human rights.

659
They are taking seriously the international concerns expressed—by ourselves among others—over India's human rights record. They have done more than take note: they have taken action.
As I said earlier, much remains to be done in Punjab, but the trend is encouraging. India is a democratic state. Its people are subject to the rule of law—a principle to which this country contributed significantly. Remedies against abuse of human rights or personal liberties are available within the Indian legal system. The new National Human Rights Commission shows signs of acting as a watchdog against unchecked abuse.
The Indian authorities will need to remain vigilant, as will the friends of India, for the sake of the people of Punjab and India's reputation abroad. The first helpful steps have been taken, however, and we must jointly ensure that we continue along the right road.
I referred to the Sikh community in this country. I should like to end with an important consideration. Of 800,000 people of Indian origin who have made their home in Great Britain, the Sikhs are the largest group, totaling more than
660
300,000 people. They have made a valued contribution to many areas of our national life. They are inventive, industrious and energetic. It is entirely fitting that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington should express their concerns—as have other hon. Members—and seek to promote their legitimate interests.
There is a wider perspective. The Sikhs are part of the larger community of Indian origin in Britain. That community as a whole, as we can say from experience in so many of our constituencies, makes a significant and increasingly important contribution, not only to the life of this country, but to our broader relationship with India. They are one of the foundations on which that relationship so solidly rests.
We must press the case of any individual part of this edifice in a way which does not damage the whole. It is vital, therefore, to maintain this twin perspective. The need to argue—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Pensions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what steps are being taken to maintain the value of pensions to the clergy.

  Mr. Alison
  Clergy pensions are increased in line with the previous year's national minimum stipend. The most recent increase, which took effect on 1 April 1995, was 3.3 per cent.

  On the wider issue of the funding of clergy pensions, a joint paper produced by the Central Board of Finance, the Church Commissioners and the Church of England Pensions Board was recently discussed at a national conference with the chairmen and secretaries of diocesan boards of finance. The draft paper will, after further discussion and refinement, be presented to the General Synod in July. It contains proposals for the establishment of a separate funded pension scheme. It is intended that the proposed arrangements will create a firm basis on which to provide continued security for the clergy in their retirement, as well as leaving sufficient funds to support the national ministry, particularly in poorer dioceses and parishes.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Directory of Westminster and Whitehall
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the costs of producing and advertising the 1995 Directory of Westminster and Whitehall; and how much revenue the Government estimate will be recouped from sales. [22900]

  Mr. Horam
  HMSO has not produced a 1995 Directory of Westminster and Whitehall, although a commercial publication bearing that title is believed to be imminent.

  Historical Documents
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what special training is given to persons who have responsibility for assessing the historical significance of documents held by his Department. [23290]

  Mr. Horam
  Training in assessing the historical significance of departmental records is carried out under the guidance of the Keeper of Public Records. It is provided in a number of different ways, including courses on the appraisal of records and through conferences and seminars arranged by the Public Records Office.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Statute of Westminister
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 3 May, column 208, if it is his intention to consult other countries under section 2 of the Statute of Westminster Act 1931 in respect of those aspects of the Regency Act 1937 that are to be varied by the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill[Lords] currently before Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [23167]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is not my intention, being advised that no such consultation is necessary or appropriate.

  Public Records
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what occasions in the last 30 years he or his predecessors have authorised the deposit of public records in the Churchill archives; and under what provision of the Public Records Act this was done. [22914]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Under section 4(1) of the Public Records Act 1958, the Lord Chancellor has the power, now delegated to the Keeper of Public Records, to appoint places of deposit for public records to be kept outside the public Record Office itself. The Churchill archives centre, Cambridge has not been appointed a place of deposit for public records under the Act; it follows that there has been no authorisation under the Act for public records to be deposited there nor are any of the Churchill papers at the Churchill archive centre public records within the meaning of the Act.

TRANSPORT

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in discussions between his Department and the Home Office on extending the powers and jurisdiction of the British Transport police. [21565]

  Mr. Watts
  Discussions are continuing.

  Acoustic Fencing (Motorways)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new sections of Britain's motorway network will be covered by acoustic fencing in the next year. [22123]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 9 May 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, what new sections of Britain's motorway network will be covered by acoustic fencing in the next year.
  Only schemes which had a start of works prior to April 1995 and are still under construction are included. It is dependent on the contractor's programme and progress.

  345
  The total length of Acoustic Barrier programmed to be erected this year on motorway construction schemes is approximately 10.3 miles

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total expenditure by his Department in each year since 1990 on acoustic fencing on motorways. [22126]

  Mr. Watts
  This detailed information is not held centrally. It could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the exact locations of the sections of Britain's motorway network that are currently covered by acoustic fencing and the date that each section of acoustic fencing was implemented. [22129]

  Mr. Watts
  The detailed information is not held centrally. It could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his Department's criteria for the implementation of acoustic fencing on(a) motorways and (b) other highways. [22130]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 9 May 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State, what are his Department's criteria for the implementation of acoustic fencing on (a) motorways and (b) other highways.
  The criteria for the implementation of acoustic fencing on construction schemes for motorways and trunk roads are the same. Acoustic fences are provided where it is demonstrated that noise levels at a number of adjacent residential properties would otherwise be unreasonably high and that other measures would be less cost effective.

  Compensation (New Roads)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people have submitted a claim in each year since 1990 for compensation for the decrease in property value as a result of the use of a new road from noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, artificial lighting or other causes under part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973. [22124]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 8 May 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport how many people have submitted a claim in each year since 1990 for compensation for decrease in property value as a result of the use of a new road from noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, artificial lighting or other causes under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973.
  This information is not held centrally for Highways Agency schemes and not held at all by the Agency for new road schemes which are the responsibility of other highways authorities. Therefore, I am sorry that this information cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what has been the total amount paid by his Department in each year since 1990 for compensation for 346
  the decrease in property values as a result of noise from the use of a new road under part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973; [22127]

  (2) what has been the total amount paid by his Department in each year since 1990 for compensation for the decrease in property values as a result of noise, vibration, smell, fumes smoke, artificial lighting or other causes under part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973. [22128]

  Mr. Watts
  These are operational matters for the Highways Agency. I have asked its chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 9 May 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions asking the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been paid in each year since 1990 in compensation for decrease in property values under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973.
  Compensation for loss in value is not separately identified from expenditure on acquisition of property in central budgets or expenditure returns. Therefore, I am sorry that this information cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Accounting Officers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times in the last 10 years, and on which dates, his departmental accounting officer has issued a minute in that role; and what was the issue in each case.

  Mr. Norris
  In my reply of 1 March 1994,Official Report, column 659 to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), I stated that Department records showed that since 1979 there had been no cases where such an instruction had been issued. This is still the case.

  Concessionary Fares (Pensioners)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of old-age pensioners in Great Britain(a) who are not provided with full free travel concessions and (b) not provided with partial travel concessionary travel passes; and if he will estimate the cost of providing free concessionary fares to all those presently not provided for. [22570]

  Mr. Norris
  It is not possible to give a precise figure for the cost of providing free concessionary fares for all old-age pensioners.

  Minicab Firms
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many unlicensed private hire or minicab firms are known to the Metropolitan police in the London boroughs; and if he will make a statement. [21225]

  Mr. Norris
  I am advised that the Metropolitan police do not keep lists of unlicensed private hire or minicab firms in London; all these firms in the Metropolitan police district are unlicensed.

  In February this year, the Government announced their agreement with the Transport Select Committee that minicabs in London should be regulated, Cm 2715, as part of their response to the Committee's recommendations.

  Rail Franchises
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the French National rail company, SociÉtÉ Nationale des Chemins de Fers, is allowed to submit bids to operate rail franchises in Great Britain. [22913]

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

  Ferry Evacuation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which are the four British-registered ferries which do not have 100 per cent. dry-shod evacuation; which routes they sail on, and what are the evacuation arrangements on these ferries. [22907]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked its chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 9 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about four ferries which do not have 100 per cent dry-shod evacuation.
  There are four UK registered vessels, which ply on the following routes and have evacuation arrangements as described:
  PRIDE OF BRUGES—Dover to Calais.
  Lifeboats and Marine Evacuation Systems are provided for 1158 persons and inflatable liferafts with overside ladders for 300 persons. The maximum permitted number of persons on board is 1400.
  PRIDE OF CHERBOURG—Portsmouth to Cherbourg.
  Lifeboats are provided for 798 persons and inflatable liferafts with overside ladders for 610 persons. The maximum permitted number of persons on board is 1297.
  PRIDE OF HAMPSHIRE—Portsmouth to Cherbourg.
  Lifeboats are provided for 798 persons and inflatable liferafts with overside ladders for 600 persons. The maximum permitted number of persons on board is 1302.
  PIONEER—Plies between ports on the West Coast of Scotland, Western Isles and Northern Ireland. Lifeboats are provided for 80 persons and inflatable liferafts with overside ladders for 275 persons. The maximum permitted number of persons on board is 294.

  Lyme Bay Activity Centre
  Sir James Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he has taken in respect of the papers on the Lyme bay rescue operation forwarded to him in December 1994 on the direction of the trial judge. [23163]

  Mr. Norris
  HM Coastguard conducted its own internal investigation into the rescue operation. This was made available to the court during the trial of the company owning the activity centre, the managing director and the manager. HM Coastguard took action to discipline certain officers and to improve procedures and performance at the local rescue centre. In the light of the remarks of the trial judge I have asked John Reeder QC to conduct a review with the following terms of reference:In the light of Coastguard internal inquiry, the evidence presented to the Lyme Bay trial and the judge's comments in his summing up—

  (i) to review all the actions, both internal and external taken by Coastguard during and subsequent to the tragedy.

  (ii) to consider how far this action was appropriate and whether any further action was necessary, and

  (iii) to make recommendations.

  348
  Consideration under item (ii) should cover the suggestion by the hon. Member for Dorset, West that harbourmasters should be given a more formal role in Coastguard's emergency procedures.

  The findings will be published.

  Liverpool Vehicle Registration Office
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representation he has had from employees in the Liverpool vehicle registration office about the closure of the Liverpool office; and if he will make a statement. [23161]

  Mr. Norris
  Four hon. Members in the Liverpool area have drawn my attention to a letter dated 28 March which they received from two representatives of the Civil and Public Services Association on behalf of the staff about the closure of the Liverpool vehicle registration office. I have replied to these and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has replied to another. The lease of the accommodation for this office has expired and it formed part of a review of DVLA's local office structure last year, which concluded that vehicle registration offices should close progressively over the next three years, dependent on other arrangements being made for the work of the offices. No firm date has yet been fixed for the closure of the office and the staff will be kept fully informed of any plans to do so, with a minimum of six months' notice.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's policies for reducing death and injury on the roads. [1236531

  Mr. Norris
  We have today published the "Road Safety Report 1995", which describes measures being taken to reduce road accident casualties. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase the level of funding made available to Cumbria county council for the implementation of road safety schemes; and if he will make a statement. [22737]

  Mr. Norris
  We are making available £50 million to local authorities for local safety schemes in 1995–96. This is planned to rise to £55 million in 1996–97 and to £60 million in 1997–98. The allocation of funds depends on the relative merits of the bid plans put forward by local authorities.

  Historical Documents
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what special training is given to persons who have responsibility for assessing the historical significance of documents held by his Department. [23277]

  Mr. Norris
  Training is provided under the guidance of the Keeper of Public Records. It includes courses on the appraisal of records arranged by the Public Record Office.

  Commercial Vehicle Operators
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines his Department issues to commercial road vehicle operators to effect the reduction of accidents. [22696]

  Mr. Norris
  Advice is given in the Department's "Guide to maintaining roadworthiness", which was produced in conjunction with the operator trade associations. The guide gives operators detailed information on how to set up and run a system for maintaining vehicles in a roadworthy condition.

  Vehicle examiners from the Department's Vehicle Inspectorate also give advice to operators, both on an ad hoc basis, and when they visit operators premises in connection with corroborating compliance with the requirements of operator licensing.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to encourage commercial road vehicle operators to undertake specialist driver training. [22690]

  Mr. Norris
  We have no such plans, but specialist training is a statutory requirement for drivers of vehicles carrying dangerous goods.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of his Department's budget is allocated to initiatives which have been undertaken to secure private finance for his Department's projects. [22792]

  Mr. Norris
  Attracting private finance for infrastructure investment affects policy work throughout the Department and the related expenditure cannot meaningfully be estimated in isolation.

  Road Accident Statistics
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to include causal factors in his Department's road accident statistics. [22689]

  Mr. Norris
  There are no plans to include causal factors in the Department's national road accident statistics. The Department is conducting research to evaluate the provision of causation factors in local area road accident statistics.

  Passenger Coaches
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 28 April,Official Report, column 771, what percentage of passenger coaches checked at the roadside or on operators' premises were found to be defective in each of the last two years. [22802]

  Mr. Norris
  Ten per cent. of coaches at the roadside in 1993–94 and 9.2 per cent. in 1992–93 were found to have prohibitable defects.

  Of coaches checked at operators' premises as part of a maintenance assessment, 8.7 per cent. were found to have prohibitable defects in 1993–94 as opposed to 8.5 per cent. in the previous year.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to make heavy goods vehicles safer. [22703]

  Mr. Norris
  There are already stringent controls regulating both the construction and use requirements of vehicles, which are continually being upgraded in line with technological improvements. Compliance with these requirements is checked at annual roadworthiness tests and enforcement spot checks both at the roadside and at operators' premises.

  We also regulate vehicle maintenance through the operator licensing system and have a continuing programme of research directed at the development of new standards to help reduce the number and severity of accidents.

  Air Traffic Control
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what basis air traffic control facilities for commercial flights are shared with the military airspace. [22394]

  Mr. Norris
  Military air traffic services are currently provided primarily at the West Drayton and Prestwick ATC centres. Military controllers are responsible for providing the greater part of air traffic services to aircraft outside controlled airspace—be they military or civil, including general aviation.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement in respect of the future of the national air traffic services, and if he will make a statement. [22396]

  Mr. Norris
  The Secretary of State announced in November 1994 that the Government continued to favour privatisation of the national air traffic services in principle, but that further work was needed on a number of important issues before any final decision could be made on whether to proceed with the privatisation. In addition, the Secretary of State is considering the report of the Transport Select Committee on this subject and will be making a formal response in the near future.

  Joint Aviation Authority
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what parliamentary approval will be required prior to the introduction of the JAA proposals on European regulations for flight and duty times;
  [21879]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the representations he has received from the British Airline Pilots Association relating to the JAA proposals on flight and duty times; [21881]

  (3) when he last met the head of the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss the JAA proposals for European regulations on flight and duty times; what assessment he has made of the stringency of the proposals; and if the JAA proposals are equivalent to the current CAA regulations; 21880]

  (4) to what extent the JAA proposals for regulations on flight and duty times will be extended to airports outside London; and how these proposals will be financed. [21882]
  351
  Mr. Norris
  The Air Navigation Order sets annual and monthly limits on flight times for flight crews. Within those limits, the order requires operators to establish a flight time limitation scheme which has to be approved by the Civil Aviation Authority subject to such conditions as they think fit. The CAA's advice on how to formulate an acceptable flight time limitation scheme is contained in civil aviation publication 371. The JAA's present proposals do not affect the provisions of the Air Navigation Order and could be implemented in the United Kingdom by amending the advice in CAP 371. In the longer term, the proposals should come before the European Council for adoption as an EC regulation.

  Specific responsibility for, and expertise in, flight and duty time limitation schemes rests with the CAA's flight operations policy section. My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation last met the head of this section to discuss the JAA proposals on 28 February 1995. The British Air Line Pilots Association has expressed concern about certain aspects of the JAA proposals which differ from the advice contained in CAP 371, but the CAA stresses that flight time limitation schemes have to be seen as an overall "package" of measures. The CAA is satisfied that the JAA proposals would achieve a comparable level of protection against the onset of fatigue to the current UK requirements.

  The cost of crew scheduling in accordance with any flight and duty time limitation scheme is borne by individual operators.

  Stockport Bypass
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his new revised timetable for the building and completion of the A6(M) Stockport north-south bypass. [21993]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Sir Thomas Arnold, dated 9 May 1995:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, what is his revised timetable for the building and completion of the A6(M) Stockport North-South Bypass.
  The next stage for this scheme will be the publication of Orders followed by a public inquiry. It will take us some time to prepare for this and at this stage I cannot give you an indication of the dates. Progress of the scheme will be dependent on detailed investigations, design work, statutory procedures and availability of resources. I hope you will understand that these uncertainties preclude me from making any worthwhile predictions about the programme in the longer term.

  Noise Pollution
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration his Department gives to minimising noise pollution when selecting the type of surfacing for a motorway under construction or repair. [22125]

  Mr. Watts
  This is a operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked its chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  352
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 9 May 1995:
  As you know, the Minister of Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, what consideration his Department gives to minimising noise pollution when selecting the type of surfacing for a motorway under construction or repair.
  The permitted alternatives for the surfacing of motorway construction schemes are constrained where noise is a matter of concern. Concrete surfaces are not currently used where traffic is expected to exceed 75,000 vehicles per day, although quieter concrete surfaces are undergoing trials. In particular sensitive situations, porous asphalt may be specified as a noise mitigation measure when the additional cost of construction and maintenance are considered to be justified. But porous asphalt is not technically suitable for use in all cases.
  It is not the Agency's policy to apply mitigation to existing roads.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 1 May,Official Report, column 61, if he will make a statement on the possible conflicts of interest involving special advisers, listing the names of the individuals, the nature of the conflicts concerned and how the matters were resolved. [22906]

  Mr. Norris
  It is not my practice to comment on information about the private interests of staff.

  Baggage Checks
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of hold baggage passing through Heathrow airport is now subject to regular checking; and what was the percentage immediately before the Lockerbie bombing. [23184]

  Mr. Norris
  All hold baggage passing through Heathrow airport for international flights is subjected to a range of security controls. All such baggage must be accounted for and authorised, passengers are questioned about their baggage and, in addition, an increasing proportion of baggage is screened by X-ray or other technology.

  Good progress is being made towards the Department's objective of screening 100 per cent. of international hold baggage. The percentage of hold baggage currently being subjected to screening by X-ray or other technology is approximately 26 per cent., although 100 per cent. of hold baggage on those flights considered to be at greater risk is screened. It is estimated that about 4 to 5 per cent. of hold baggage was being screened prior to the Lockerbie bombing.

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what use his Department makes of hand-held and car-based mobile telephones; what were the costs for each financial year of these services since mobile telephones were first introduced to his Department; and how many mobile telephones are currently in use. [23447]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has 351 hand-held mobile telephones and 25 car telephones. The equipment is issued on the basis of operational need, especially where staff have to work away from the office. The main users of the equipment are staff in the Coastguard agency, the Highways Agency, the Vehicle Inspectorate, the aircraft
  353
  accidents investigation branch and ministerial offices. Figures are not available centrally for annual operating costs.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many mobile telephones being utilised by his Department have been cloned during the last 12 months. [23429]

  Mr. Norris
  Four hand-held telephones were cloned during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations his Department has made to the Department of Trade and Industry concerning the need for legislation to prevent the cloning of mobile telephones. [23468]

  Mr. Norris
  No representations have been made to the DTI concerning the need for legislation to prevent the cloning of mobile telephones.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what costs his Department has incurred during the last 12 months as a result of cloning of mobile telephones being utilised by his Department, with particular reference to the making of unauthorised calls. [23487]

  Mr. Norris
  The cost of unauthorised calls made due to cloning is estimated at £500. However, this is not a cost to the Department as all mobile telephone airtime suppliers accept that the costs of unauthorised calls on cloned telephones are not charged to users.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department has taken to prevent the cloning of telephones being utilised by his Department; and if his Department has discussed this matter with any official agencies. [23453]

  Mr. Norris
  Cloning of existing analogue phones is impossible to prevent. However, mobile telephone airtime suppliers have mechanisms in place to detect suspicious activity and the majority of clonings are detected early enough to stop serious misuse. No discussions have been held with official agencies. My Department has a policy of migration from the old analogue telephones, which are susceptible to cloning, to the new digital networks on which cloning is technically impossible.

  Track Access Charges
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the track access charge per mile charged in April 1994; and if he will list each change in the charge per mile since that date, and the date when each change was made. [23400]

  Mr. Watts
  Initial access charges were entered into between the British Railways Board and Railtrack and came into effect on 1 April 1994. These charges, contained in unregulated access agreements comprised of a variable charge for track usage and traction current and fixed element and cannot be expressed as charges per mile.

  Since that time, new access agreements have been entered between Railtrack and the train operating companies subject to the approval of the rail regulator. The regulator's approach to the approval of track access charges was set out in policy statements published in November 1994, January and February 1995 copies of which are in the House of Commons Library.

TREASURY

  Barings Bank
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Governor of the Bank of England about the latter's allegation of criminal offences committed by Barings executives. [21129]

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. and learned Friend has regular meetings with the Governor, at which a wide range of issues is discussed.

  Banking Supervision
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he will take to regulate the speculation in derivatives by United Kingdom based banks and their offices overseas. [21177]

  Mr. Nelson
  Responsibility for supervising all activities of United Kingdom authorised banks, including their overseas' operations, rests with the Banks of England, where appropriate in collaboration with other regulators in the UK or overseas.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) which activities of the Inland Revenue are currently outsourced to overseas countries; and to which countries this work is sent; [22137]

  (2) what plans he has to outsource further activities of the Inland Revenue to overseas countries; which activities these plans cover; and to which countries this work will go. [22136]

  Sir George Young
  No Inland Revenue activities have been outsourced to overseas countries and there are no plans to do so in the future.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many short-term contracts at each Inland Revenue office in the United Kingdom are due to expire in the next 12 months. [22141]

  Sir George Young
  The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants, including those on short-term contracts, he expects to be employed by the Inland Revenue in(a) one year, (b) two years and (c) five years. [22135]

  Sir George Young
  The Inland Revenue expects to employ mostly permanent staff for the foreseeable future. Some staff are expected to be employed on a short-term or casual basis, but the pattern of need for the next five years cannot be predicted with any accuracy at this stage.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many civil servants, including those on short-term contracts, are currently employed at each Inland Revenue offices in the United Kingdom; [22166]

  (2) how many civil servants are currently employed on short-term contracts at each Inland Revenue office in the United Kingdom. [22142]

  Sir George Young
  The information requested has today been placed in the Library.
  355
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will define short-term contract in the context of a contract of employment with the Inland Revenue. [22140]

  Sir George Young
  There is no specific definition of a short-term contract with the Inland Revenue. In essence, a short-term contract could be any form of contract which does not result in the employee becoming a permanent civil servant.

  Tax Regime
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what programme of research he proposes to introduce to assess the impact of macro-economic, taxation and other policies on family wellbeing and inequalities and poverty, with particular reference to women, as agreed in the programme of action resolved at the world summit for social development, article 27a. [22271]

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. and learned Friend keeps the tax regime and its impact on the economy and particular groups under continual review. As a result of our policies the average income of all economic groups and family types has risen since we came into office in 1979.

  PRODCOM Statistics
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which organisations have purchased the collected PRODCOM statistics in electronic form and may market the data to the public; and if he will make a statement. [22615]

  Mr. Nelson
  Taylor Nelson AGB plc is currently the only organisation to have purchased the PRODCOM statistics. It is permitted to market the data in hard copy, CD-ROM and facsimile formats only.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which organisations were invited to tender for marketing the PRODCOM statistics. [22613]

  Mr. Nelson
  Five organisations submitted marketing proposals to the Central Statistical Office for PRODCOM data. These proposals were submitted on a commercial-in-confidence basis.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that when PRODCOM statistics are located in libraries, the public will be enabled to photocopy them. [22611]

  Mr. Nelson
  In accordance with the normal conventions on copyright, photocopying of PRODCOM data will be permitted for non-commercial use.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he takes to ensure that there is minimum delay in public access to PRODCOM statistics. [22614]

  Mr. Nelson
  PRODCOM statistics are released for publication as soon as the CSO is satisfied with their quality. They are published by Taylor Nelson AGB as soon as practicable thereafter.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the PRODCOM statistics were first collected; how much of the first year's data in the series has been published; and when the first year's total data will be published. [22612]
  356
  Mr. Nelson
  The first PRODCOM data were collected on a quarterly basis from April 1993 and on an annual basis from January 1994 onwards. In all, publishable PRODCOM data spans 90 annual and 34 quarterly reports. Of these, 84 annual and 28 quarterly have been published to date; the remaining 12 are due to be published by the end of May 1995.

  Bretton Woods Institutions
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with whom and with what organisations he is consulting in regard to Govnerment policy on the work and structures of the International Monetary Fund and World bank prior to the 50th anniversary conferences of the Bretton Woods institutions. [22436]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The 50th anniversary conference of the Bretton Woods institutions took place in September 1994 prior to 1994 annual meetings of the World bank and IMF. I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 19 October to the hon. member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith)Official Report, column 272–74.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effects on(a) inflation, (b) interest rates and (c) the balance of payments according to the Treasury model for the years 1996 to 2000, consequent upon a 2p reduction in the basic rate of income tax in April 1996, assuming no changes in other given exogenous factors. [22443]

  Mr Nelson
  [holding answer 4 May 1995]: Since 1978, it has not been the practice to provide results from the Treasury model in response to parliamentary questions, but the hon. Member will be aware that the model is available for Members' use through the Library of the House.

  Accounting Officers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times in the last 10 years, and on which dates, his departmental accounting officer has issued a minute in that role; and what was the issue in each case. [22558]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Where a Minster overrules an accounting officer's advice on an issue of propriety or regularity or one of value for money, the accounting officer should request a written instruction from the Minister to take the action in question. No such instructions have been issued during the last 10 years.

  All such instructions are now reported to the Comptroller and Auditor General who, after making whatever investigations he considers appropriate, will report his finding to the Public Accounts Committee.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 May 1995. [21898]
  357
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 9 May. [21899]

  Mr. Newton
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently on an official visit to Moscow as part of the VE day commemorations.

  Bank Holidays
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Prime Minister which of his Ministers has responsibility for designation of bank holidays in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland. [22820]

  The Prime Minister
  Bank holidays are designated in the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971. Power to vary the specified dates or to designate additional dates is exercisable by Her Majesty by royal proclamation or in the case of Northern Ireland by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. By virtue of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's overall responsibility for the 1971 Act, the Treasury currently co-ordinates advice on any designations for royal proclamation in consultation with other Departments as necessary.

  St. Paul's Angels' Nursery
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister if he expects to make a further visit to St. Paul's Angels' nursery before September. [23132]

  The Prime Minister
  I currently have no plans to do so.

  Public Records
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to prohibit individuals, acting in a private capacity, from charging for the reproduction of any document or other material produced directly or indirectly in the service of the Crown. [23069]

  The Prime Minister
  No. Such legislation is not necessary. It is already the law, under section 163 of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988, that Crown copyright subsists in any work made by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his or her duties.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish the whole of the correspondence with the Churchill family and their advisers relating to the expenditure of £13.5 million on the purchase of public and other records created during Sir Winston Churchill's periods of office as well as the records of all meetings of the commission with the Churchill Trust to discuss the matter. [23070]

  The Prime Minister
  No, it is not my normal practice to publish private correspondence.

  Contrary to the impression given in the question, no public records were purchased. The national lottery memorial fund funded the purchase of non-state papers; the Government have transferred the state papers so that the whole archive is preserved, intact, at Churchill college.

  Historical Documents
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what special training is given to persons who have responsibility for assessing the historical significance of documents held by his Department. [23280]
  358
  The Prime Minister
  Training and assessing the historical significance of departmental records is carried out under guidance of the Keeper of Public Records. It is provided in a number of different ways, including courses on the appraisal of records and through conferences and seminars arranged by the Public Record Office.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Offshore Oil and Gas Structures
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he intends to publish guidelines relating to the abandonment of offshore oil and gas structures. [23517]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department issued detailed guidelines on Thursday 4 May. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Executive Salaries
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to introduce statutory controls over the salaries of senior executives. [21632]

  Mr. John Owen Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to introduce statutory controls over the salaries of senior executives. [21634]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Sir Richard Greenbury's committee is considering the structure within which remuneration for directors of public companies is determined and disclosed. Once it has made its recommendations, the Government will consider whether any of these should be reinforced by legislative change. But executive salary levels and details of remuneration packages are matters for individual companies and their shareholders. It is not for the Government to intervene in these decisions or to limit companies' ability to pay competitive salaries.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about his Department's policy towards promoting employment in small businesses. [21644]

  Mr. Page
  The Government fully recognise and appreciate the importance of small businesses to the economy and the vital contribution they make to job creation.

  The Government encourage the role played by small businesses in job creation by creating an economic environment in which they can flourish and grow. This includes stabilising interest rates and inflation and reducing legislative and administrative burdens.

  My Department is developing a network of business links based on partnerships between local authorities, TECs, chambers of commerce, and enterprise agencies, to develop a wide range of high-quality business support services, particularly to businesses with the potential for growth.

  It is my intention that the wide range of services delivered by my Department will be available through the business link network.

  British Beef Co. Ltd.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the outstanding liabilities of British Beef when it went into receivership. [22606]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  British Beef Co. Ltd. went into administrative receivership on 23 March 1995. The joint receivers have informed my officials that the directors estimated the realisable value of the company's assets at that date to be £14 million and that secured creditors were owed £8.5 million, preferential creditors £0.75 million and unsecured creditors £6 million.

  Copyright and Rights of Performers Regulations 1995
  Mr. Key
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from representatives of the performing arts about the draft Copyright and Rights of Performers Regulations 1995; and if he will make a statement. [21567]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  About 500 representations have been received in response to the consultative draft of these regulations issued by my Department with a request for comments by 28 April. Some 460 of these were from representatives of the performing arts, the great majority being from individual performers belonging to the Musicians Union or other performers' organisations and expressed in near identical terms. The remainder of the submissions were from other interested parties, most in the form of responses by national organisations replying on behalf of all their members. I am considering all the representations received and will in due course lay a statutory instrument before Parliament under the affirmative resolution procedure.

  Accounting Officers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many times in the last 10 years, and on which dates, his departmental accounting officer has issued a minute in that role; and what was the issue in each case. [22557]

  Mr. Heseltine
  Where a Minister overrules an accounting officer's advice on an issue of propriety or regularity or one of value for money the accounting officer should request a written instruction from the Minister to take the action in question.

  The cases where such an instruction has been Issued were set out in the reply given to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on 8 March 1994, Official Report, column 211. No new cases have arisen since then.

  All such instructions are reported to the Comptroller and Auditor General who, after making whatever investigations he considers appropriate, will report his findings to the Public Accounts Committee.

  Public Records
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 2 May, column 131, to what extent(a) professional historians and (b) qualified archivists are involved at any stage in the 10-year and 25-year sifts. [22939]

  Mr. Heseltine
  (a) When the Department needs the advice of a professional historian, it obtains this via the
  360
  Public Record Office, which maintains close links with the academic community.

  (b) Those staff at the Public Record Office whose role is to guide and inspect the work of my Department's records review section include one qualified archivist who carries out checks on 10-year sifts and two to three qualified archivists who are involved with the 25-year reviews.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 2 May, column 131, what special training is given to persons who have responsibility for assessing the historical significance of documents held by his Department. [22940]

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Department provides internal, on-the-job training for records review staff, who are also supported by on-the-job coaching from qualified archivist staff from the Public Record Office. The Department also avails itself of formal training courses, annual conferences and special seminars provided by the Public Records Office.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what percentage of his Department's budget is allocated to initiatives which have been undertaken to secure private finance for his Department's projects. [22793]

  Mr. Heseltine
  The private finance initiative within the DTI is one of the responsibilities of the MINIS—management information system for Ministers—unit within the finance and resource management division of my Department. This unit is expected to cost £249,000 in 1995–96 against a total gross running costs provision of £318,883,000.

  Brent Spar Oil Platform
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations have been received by Her Majesty's Government in regard to the permission given to Shell to scuttle the Brent Spar oil platform in the Atlantic. [22928]

  Mr. Eggar
  Under the terms of section 1(3) of the Petroleum Act 1987, Shell UK Exploration and Production was required to consult a number of interested parties about its abandonment programme for the Brent Spar installation. Replies were received from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and British Telecom International.

  Since I approved the programme, Greenpeace has made representations to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what surveys and investigations he has conducted into the acceptability of the use of synthetic BST in milk among(a) farmers and (b) consumers.
  361
  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: A formal consultation of over 200 organisations and individuals, including farmers and consumer groups was conducted last year seeking views on the future availability of BST products. A copy of the responses received is available from the main Ministry library in Whitehall place. We have also received a number of representations on the subject via hon. Members and direct from both farmers and consumers. In addition, the subject has been raised at farmers and consumer meetings which my ministerial colleagues, have Attended around the country.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department are under a statutory requirement to(a) publish their advice to (b) publish an annual report and (c) lay an annual report before Parliament; and if he will list those with a statutory base. [21598]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 28 April 1995]: The information is as follows:

  (a) None, but in practice a number do.

  (b) Only the Veterinary Products Committee is required to publish an annual report, but the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and the Food Advisory Committee also do so.

  (c) None.

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

  The Advisory Committee on Pesticides

  The Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committees

  The Consumers' Committee for Great Britain

  The Committee of Investigation for Great Britain

  The Committee on Agricultural Valuation

  The Hill Farming Advisory Committee

  The Veterinary Products Committee.

  Fish Farming, Wiltshire
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the business name and address of each site at which fish are farmed in the country of Wiltshire. [21566]

  Mr. Jack
  All fish farming businesses are required to register with MAFF for disease control purposes under the Registration of Fish and Shellfish Farming Businesses Order 1985 made under the Diseases of Fish Act 1983. There are currently 25 fish farm sites registered in the country of Wiltshire.

  Under the terms of the Act, information obtained for disease control purposes relating to the particulars of any one person or business may be disclosed only in certain specified circumstances. I regret that I am therefore unable to provide details of the business name and address of each site at which fish are farmed.

  Coastal Erosion
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will institute a comprehensive technical survey of the coastline between Flimby and Silloth with a view to establishing the scale 362
  of coastal erosion arising from tidal action in poor weather conditions. [22537]

  Mr. Jack
  This Department commissioned a survey of coast protection works and eroding coastlines in England in 1993 and the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard), announced it publication by written answer on 30 March 1994,Official Report, column 774. A copy of the report on the survey was placed in the Library of the House.

  More detailed studies of coastal erosion in local areas are the responsibility of the relevant coast protection authority, which for the coastline between Flimby and Silloth is the borough of Allerdale council. I understand that the council intends to prepare a plan for the future management of the shoreline in its area, taking account of coastal erosion patterns. This Department may provide grant aid for studies leading to the preparation of such shoreline management plans or to proposals for improved coastal defences.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours:
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from Crosscanonby parish council as to coastal erosion on the west Cumbrian coast. [22538]

  Mr. Jack
  We have no record of any such representations from Crosscanonby parish council having been received by this Department.

  Accounting Officers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times in the last 10 years, and on which dates, his departmental accounting officer has issued a minute in that role; and what was the issue in each case. [22559]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Where a Minister overrules an accounting officer's advice on an issue of propriety or regularity or one of value for money, the accounting officer should request a written instruction from the Minister to take the action in question.

  The cases in which such an instruction has been issued between 1979 and February 1994 were set out in my reply to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on 25 February 1994, Official Report, column 496.

  No such minutes have been subsequently issued by the accounting officer,

  All such instructions are now reported to the Comptroller and Auditor General who, after making whatever investigations he considers appropriate, will report his findings to the Committee of Public Accounts.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of his Department's budget is allocated to initiatives which have been undertaken to secure private finance for his Department's projects. [22797]

  Mr. Jack
  At present, a modest proportion of the resources of my financial policy division, my building and estate management division and some other divisions with significant capital budgets are devoted to this initiative.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many, and what proportion of, vacancies advertised by his Department, and by each of his Department's agencies, in the last three years have listed the attainment of national vocational qualifications as an acceptable entry requirement; and, of those, how many have required (i) level 1 NVQs, (ii) level 2 NVQs, (iii) level 3 NVQs and (iv) other level NVQs. [22973]

  Mr. Goodlad
  My Department and its agencies have not listed the attainment of NVQs in advertised vacancies as an acceptable entry requirement in the last three years.

  For those vacancies where academic qualifications are an entry requirement, the Department accepts GCSEs and equivalent qualifications including NVQs.

  Military Training Assistance Scheme
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the annual cost to his Department of UK military training assistance scheme in each of the last five financial years. [23242]

  Mr. David Davis
  The annual cost of the United Kingdom military training assistance scheme for the last five financial years was:

  1990–91: £18.1 million

  1991–92: £15.2 million

  1992–93: £12.5 million

  1993–94: £11.9 million

  1994–95: £12.1 million (forecast outturn)

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries which have benefited from the United Kingdom military training assistance scheme since 1 June 1990. [23247]

  Mr. David Davis
  The countries which have benefited from United Kingdom military training assistance since 1 June 1990 are Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua, Argentina, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Czech Republic, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Montserrat, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal,

  £

  1992–95 (actual)

  1993–94 (actual)

  1994–95 (estimated)

  1995–96 (estimated)

  1996–97 (estimated)

  Dhaka

  1,787,816

  1,561,703

  1,592,937

  1,644,708

  1,685,825

  Bombay

  1,322,867

  1,558,321

  1,589,487

  1,641,146

  1,682,174

  Calcutta

  142,081

  171,963

  175,402

  181,103

  185,630

  Madras

  185,274

  139,985

  142,785

  147,425

  151,111

  New Delhi

  1,978,335

  2,029,036

  2,069,617

  2,136,879

  2,190,301

  Karachi

  766,278

  897,589

  915,541

  945,296

  968,928

  Islamabad

  2,771,472

  3,196,424

  3,260,352

  3,366,314

  3,450,472

  Colombo

  467,302

  502,117

  512,159

  528,805

  542,025

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the costs
  364
  Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, St. Kitts, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad, Turkey, Turks and Caicos, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Zaire, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

  Entry Clearance
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, how many entry clearance officers were in post in(a) New York, (b) Moscow, (c) St. Petersburg, (d) Accra, (e) Lagos, (f) Abuja, (g) New Delhi, (i) Bombay, (j) Calcutta, (k) Madras, (l) Dhaka, (m) Islamabad, (n) Karachi and (o) Colombo in the financial years (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94 and (iii) 1994–95 to the latest convenient date. [22646]

  Mr. Baldry
  The number of entry clearance officers at the posts listed, for the calender years 1992, 1993 and 1994, is given in man years as follows:

  1992

  1993

  1994

  (a) New York

  2.9

  1.42

  3.00

  (b) Moscow

  5.13

  3.81

  4.90

  (c) St. Petersburg

  —

  1.75

  1.80

  (d) Accra

  5.64

  4.83

  4.96

  (e) Lagos

  19

  17.67

  14.33

  (f) Abuja

  —

  —

  1.58

  (g) New Delhi

  15.41

  14.95

  14.42

  (h) Bombay

  14.21

  11.9

  11.54

  (j) Calcutta

  1.45

  1.4

  1.17

  (k) Madras

  1.8

  1.6

  1.4

  (l) Dhaka

  17.5

  12.3

  12.08

  (m) Islamabad

  28.34

  27.25

  25.77

  (n) Karachi

  6.63

  6.5

  6.15

  (o) Colombo

  3.72

  3.64

  3.56

  It should be noted that St. Petersburg and Abuja only started entry clearance work in November 1993 and February 1994 respectively.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the costs of the entry clearance work at each post in the Indian subcontinent in(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95; what they are forecast to be in (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97; and how they are calculated. [22644]

  Mr. Baldry
  The costs of entry clearance work at each post are shown on the table.

  These reflect the numbers and grades of staff, both UK-based and locally engaged, employed on entry clearance as a proportion of total staff at post.

  of the entry clearance work at the British posts in (a) New York, (b) Moscow, (c) St. Petersburg, (d) Accra,

  365
  (e) Lagos and (f) Abuja, in the financial years (i) 199293, (ii) 1993–94 and (iii) 1994–95; what are they forecast to be in (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97; and how they are calculated. [22645]

  £

  1992–93 (actual)

  1993–94 (actual)

  1994–95 (estimated)

  1995–96 (estimated)

  1996–97 (estimated)

  New York

  551,923

  699,399

  713,387

  736,572

  754,986

  Moscow

  742,955

  770,194

  785,598

  811,130

  831,408

  St. Petersburg

  83,195

  212,582

  216,834

  223,881

  229,478

  Accra

  357,376

  519,756

  530,151

  547,381

  561,066

  Lagos

  2 873,715

  2 798 959

  2 854 938

  2 947 724

  3 021 417

  Abuja

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many entry clearance officers in(a) New York, (b) Moscow, (c) St. Petersburg, (d) Accra, (e) Lagos, (f) Abuja, (g) New Delhi, (i) Bombay, (j) Calcutta, (k) Madras, (1) Dhaka, (m) Islamabad, (n) Karachi and (o) Colombo have other duties; and what proportion of their time, respectively, is spent on these. [22639]

  Mr. Baldry
  The number of entry clearance officers in the following posts with other duties; and the percentage of their time spent on them is as follows:

  Number

  ECO per cent.

  Other per cent.

  St. Petersburg

  1

  90

  10

  Abuja

  1

  50

  50

  Calcutta

  1

  75

  25

  Madras

  2

  70

  30

  Colombo

  2

  80

  20

  Colombo

  2

  98

  2

  All other Entry Clearance Officers are 100 per cent. engaged on entry clearance work.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for visit entry clearance were(a) made, (b) granted and (c) refused at the British post in Kingston, Jamaica in (i) January to June 1993, (ii) July to December 1993, (iii) January to June 1994 and (iv) July to December or the latest convenient date in 1994. [22640]

  Mr. Baldry
  We do not have a half-yearly breakdown of the details requested.

  The number of UK applications for entry clearance—both settlement and non-settlement—made, granted and refused in 1993 and 1994 at Kingston was as follows:

  Number

  1993

  Applied

  2,835

  Granted

  2,044

  Refused

  804

  1994

  Applied

  4,026

  Granted

  2,978

  Refused

  1,034

  366
  Mr. Baldry
  The cost of entry clearance work at each post are shown on the table.

  These reflect the numbers and grades of staff, both UK-based and locally engaged, employed on entry clearance as a proportion of total staff at post.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for visit entry clearance were(a) made, (b) granted, and (c) refused at the British posts in (i) Ottawa, (ii) Moscow, (iii) Wellington and (iv) Canberra in (1) January to June 1993, (2) July to December 1993, (3) January to June 1994 and (4) July to December or the latest convenient date in 1994. [22642]

  Mr. Baldry
  We do not have a half-yearly breakdown of the number of the details requested.

  The number of applications for visit entry clearance—both settlement and non-settlement—made, granted and refused in 1993 and 1994 at the posts listed was as follows:

  1993

  1994

  A

  G

  R

  A

  G

  R

  1) Ottawa

  8,808

  8,241

  19

  10,019

  9,937

  51

  2) Moscow

  61,184

  59,591

  1,593

  86,520

  84,664

  1,856

  3) Wellington

  —

  —

  —

  1,995

  2,720

  28

  4) Canberra

  11,593

  11,076

  16

  17,317

  16,065

  12

  It should be noted that Wellington started entry clearance work in February 1994.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for visit entry clearance were(a) made, (b) granted and (c) refused at the British posts in (i) Manila, (ii) Tokyo, (iii) Sana'a and (iv) Addis Ababa in (1) January to June 1993, (2) July to December 1993, (3) January to June 1994 and (4) July to December or the latest convenient date in 1994. [22643]

  Mr. Baldry
  We do not have a half-yearly breakdown of the details requested.

  The number of UK applications for visit entry clearance made, granted and refused in 1993 and 1994 at the posts listed was as follows:

  1994

  1993

  A

  G

  R

  A

  G

  R

  (1) Manila

  12,633

  11,388

  911

  13,292

  12,384

  772

  (2)Tokyo

  4,080

  3,865

  36

  4,548

  4,294

  176

  (3) Sana'a

  4,210

  3,802

  158

  3,217

  2,824

  169

  (4) Addis Ababa

  4,642

  3,572

  551

  4,491

  2,893

  898

  Antarctic Treaty
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his
  367
  letter of 26 April to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what action was taken by Her Majesty's Government's delegation to the Antarctic treaty consultative meeting in Seoul about the condition of the Amundson-Scott base at the south pole. [22661]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Antarctic treaty consultative meeting in Seoul does not finish until Friday 19 May. I will write to the hon. Gentleman giving a substantive reply after that date.

  Former Soviet Union (Visas)
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what basis certain citizens of the countries of the former Soviet Union are not charged for visas to travel to the United Kingdom; when this policy was started; and what plans there are to extend it to other countries. [22649]

  Mr. Baldry
  The exchange of notes between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concerning the mutual abolition of consular fees on visas, Moscow, 13 April 1964, provides for entry clearance application fees to be waived for nationals of the former Soviet Union.

  There are no plans to introduce similar arrangements for nationals of other countries.

  Belgium (Passport Control)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the stamping of United Kingdom passports at the Belgian frontier; and if it is his intention that Belgian passports should be stamped at the United Kingdom frontier. [22773]

  Mr. David Davis
  We are aware of a number of cases recently where the passports of UK nationals have been date-stamped by Belgian immigration officials at the Belgian frontier. We have no reason to believe that this practice amounts to immigration control on UK nationals, which would be illegal. Nevertheless, we have brought it to the attention of the Belgian authorities. The UK has no intention of date-stamping the passports of Belgian or any other EU nationals.

EDUCATION

  Accounting Officers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many times in the last 10 years, and on which dates, her departmental accounting officer has issued a minute in that role; and what was the issue in each case. [22556]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Where a Minister overrules an accounting officer's advice on an issue of propriety or regularity or one of value for money the accounting officer should request a written instruction from the Minister to take the action in question.

  In a reply to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) of 3 March 1994 Official Report, column 808, it was reported that the Secretary of State had not since 1979 issued any formal instructions to
  368
  override the advice of his accounting officer on a matter of propriety or regularity or one relating to economy, efficiency and effectiveness. No direction has been issued since the date of that reply.

  All such instructions are reported to the Comptroller and Auditor General who, after making whatever investigations he considers appropriate, will report his findings to the Public Accounts Committee.

  Special Needs
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on progress of the special educational needs code of practice; to what extent teachers are reporting increased work load as a result; and what plans there are to revise it. [22634]

  Mr. Forth
  The code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs came into effect in September 1994. It has been widely welcomed as reflecting and supporting good practice in schools. Some schools have expressed concern at the increased work load as they change their procedures in the light of the guidance in the code. The Department is monitoring the implementation of the code and will in due course evaluate its effectiveness. There are no plans to revise the code at this stage.

  Nursery Places
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the current average cost of providing a full-time nursery place in each local education authority in England and Wales. [22822]

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not held centrally for local education authorities in England. Local education authorities in Wales are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the grant-maintained schools which have sought a change in their planned admission level or their standard number; and in each case(a) if the application has been successful, (b) how many objections were submitted and (c) if an objection was submitted by the local education authority. [23127]

  Mr. Forth
  Schools set published admission levels above their approved admission numbers in any particular year without applying to my right hon. Friend for approval.

  Details of applications from grant-maintained schools to vary their approved admission numbers are shown in the table. Applications from grant-maintained schools in stage 2 and 3 areas are the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked its chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  School

  Successful (a)

  Number of objections (b)

  LEA objection (c)

  All Saints CE Primary, Sutton

  No

  Nil

  No

  Beaconsfield High, Buckinghamshire

  Yes

  Nil

  No

  Beechen Cliff, Avon

  Yes

  Two

  No

  369

  School

  Successful (a)

  Number of objections (b)

  LEA objection (c)

  Deacon's School, Cambridgshire

  Yes

  Nil

  No

  Homewood School, Kent

  Yes

  None

  No

  Queensmead School, Harrow

  Yes

  None

  No

  St. Bartholomews School, Berkshire

  No

  None

  No

  Tiffin Boys' School, Kingston

  Yes

  1One

  Yes

  1 LEA objection.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the total numbers of schools new to the grant-maintained sector since the previous year for each financial year from 1990–91 to 1995–96(a) from which bids for capital grants for named projects were received and (b) to which allocations were approved.

  Mr. Forth
  These matters are now the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked its chairman to write to the hon. Member with this information.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the grant-maintained schools which have sought approval for changes in their admissions policy to introduce the selection of pupils by reference to their aptitude or ability which do not constitute a significant change of character; and in each case(a) if their application has been successful, (b) how many objections were submitted and (c) if an objection was submitted by the local education authority. [23126]

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which grant-maintained schools have applied for a change of character; and what was her decision in each case. [23128]

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the Acts of Parliament, and the statutory instruments in force arising therefrom, relating to(a) standards for premises for nursery education, (b) qualifications of nursery school teachers, (c) training and qualifications of nursery assistants and (d) ratios of (i) qualified teachers and (ii) assistants to pupils in nursery education. [23101]

  Mr. Forth
  The standards for premises at maintained schools attended by nursery pupils are set out in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981 made under the Education Act 1944.

  The qualifications required of teachers employed at maintained nursery schools are governed by the Education (Teachers) Regulations 1993 made under the Education Reform Act 1988.

  There are no statutory requirements for staff-pupil ratios and nursery assistant qualifications in maintained nursery schools and classes. Guidance on such matters is given in the Children Act 1989 guidance.

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps her Department has taken to prevent the cloning of telephones being utilised by her Department; and if her Department has discussed this matter with any official agencies. [23458]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has a code of good practice for all users of analogue mobile phones, which includes advice received from British Telecom about security and password protection. The Department has started to purchase the latest digital technology mobile phones, which British Telecom states cannot be cloned.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what costs her Department has incurred during the last 12 months as a result of cloning of mobile telephones being utilised by her Department, with particular reference to the making of unauthorised calls. [23494]

  Mr. Forth
  No costs have been incurred during the last 12 months as a result of cloning of mobile telephones.

  Mr. Donhoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what use her Department makes of hand-held and car-based mobile telephones; what were the costs for each financial year of these services since mobile telephones were first introduced to her Department; and how many mobile telephones are currently in use. [23437]

  Mr. Forth
  Mobile telephones have been in use in the Department since 1990. Currently, 115 mobiles are held at annual rental of £31,050 plus calls charges. No central record of call charges is available. Last year, 100 mobiles were held at an annual rental of £27,000 plus. Minimal use is made of car-based mobile telephones.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many mobile telephones being utilised by her Department have been cloned during the last 12 months. [23502]

  Mr. Forth
  No mobile telephones have been cloned during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations her Department has made to the Department of Trade and Industry concerning the need for legislation to prevent the cloning of mobile phones. [23397]

  Mr. Forth
  Cloning of mobile phones has not been a problem for the Department. No representations have been made to the Department of Trade and Industry.

WALES

  Psychiatry Beds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a table showing the number of elderly mental illness beds in each of the district general hospital areas of Wales. [21587]

  Mr. Richards
  The following table lists those NHS trusts and directly managed units which had, at 31 March 1994, a district general hospital and beds allocated to old-age psychiatry.
  371

  NHS Trust/Management Unit

  Beds allocated to old age psychiatry at 31 March 1994

  Bridgend and District NHS Trust

  158

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS Trust

  5

  Llandough Hospital NHS Trust

  37

  Merthyr Cynon Health Unit

  61

  University Hospital of Wales/Cardiff Royal Infirmary Group of Hospitals

  58

  Administration Costs
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the numbers of staff and the administrative costs of each education authority in Wales and the number of school pupils for which each education authority was responsible in the year ended 31 March. [21790]

  Mr. Richards
  The latest available information on administrative costs and pupil numbers for each local education authority are given in the table. Administration costs refer to all education services administered by local authorities, including continuing education and the youth service. Pupil numbers refer only to pupils of maintained primary, secondary and special schools. Information on administrative staff numbers, for individual local authorities, is not held centrally.

  Local Education Authority gross expenditure on Administration and Inspection 1993–941

  Staff costs2 £000

  Total3 £000

  Pupil numbers4

  Clwyd

  2,189

  8,413

  62,107

  Dyfed

  3,879

  7,945

  56,525

  Gwent

  2,105

  7,252

  72,947

  Gwynedd

  1,849

  4,781

  35,059

  Mid Glamorgan

  4,930

  11,321

  97,187

  Powys

  990

  2,072

  18,725

  South Glamorgan

  2,376

  3,722

  65,468

  West Glamorgan

  2,022

  4,918

  58,482

  Total Wales

  20,340

  50,424

  466,500

  1 Provisional outturn.

  2 Includes teaching, education support, premises related, administrative, clerical and other staff within the education management and support services sector.

  3 Includes expenditure on service strategy and regulation, management and administration and the inspection and advisory services within the education management and support services sector.

  4 Full-time equivalents at January 1994. Excludes grant-maintained schools.

  Brucellosis
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of brucellosis have occurred in each year since 1985. [21820]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The only years since 1985 in which there were confirmed brucellosis cattle herd breakdowns are as follows: 1985 four; 1986 eight; 1987 one; and 1993 one.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total compensation paid to farmers for loss of earnings and clean-up of radioactive contamination on Welsh farms arising from the fallout from the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986. [22026]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The sheep compensation scheme was introduced in July 1986 to compensate farmers whose enterprises had been disrupted as a result of movement and slaughter restrictions and other effects of the Chernobyl accident. The total paid out under the scheme in Wales up to the end of March 1995 is £7,524,272. Most of this sum has been compensation for costs associated with monitoring and marking animals before movement under consent.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farms in Wales are still affected by restriction notices imposed due to radioactive contamination following the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986; and what land area these farms constitute as a percentage of available farmland in Wales. [22017]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A review of the number of holdings now affected by post-Chernobyl restrictions, and of the extent to which those holdings are affected, was recently undertaken to assess the effects of recent derestrictions and the numerous changes in land ownership and tenure which have occurred during the past nine years.

  The outcome of the review shows that 196 holdings now remain wholly affected by restrictions. A further 247 holdings are partially affected by virtue of their having access to some land inside the restricted area; this includes those holdings which have grazing rights within the area whether they are taken up or not, and those holdings which have some land, whether leased, owned or rented, within the restricted area. These figures will be subjected to future variation because of the frequent and often significant changes which will inevitably continue to occur in land ownership, tenure and occupation, including factors such as amalgamations and fragmentation of holdings.

  Restrictions now cover about 160,000 acres which represents about 4 per cent. of agricultural land in Wales.

  Farmers and Farm Workers
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of(a) farmers and (b) farm workers for each year since 1988, giving the figures as a percentage of the Welsh population. [21859]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Farmers and farm workers in Wales, 1988 to 1994:

  Farmers1

  Farm workers2

  Total percentage

  As a percentage of total

  Total population3

  As a population of total

  1988

  34,854

  1.22

  30,992

  1.09

  1989

  35,309

  1.23

  30,273

  1.06

  1990

  35,046

  1.22

  29,992

  1.04

  1991

  34,248

  1.18

  30,341

  1.05

  1992

  35,115

  1.21

  29,819

  1.03

  373

  Farmers1

  Farm workers2

  Total population3

  As a percentage of total

  Total population3

  As a percentage of total

  1993

  35,977

  1.24

  29,149

  1.00

  1994

  35,278

  1.21

  28,484

  0.98

  Source:

  June Agricultural Census, OPCS and Government Actuary's Department.

  Notes:

  1 Whole-time and part-time farmers, partners and directors working on the farm holding at the time of the Agricultural Census.

  2 All other persons working on the farm holding, including spouses of farmers, of partners and of directors, but excluding trainees on Government scheme.

  3 From 1988 to 1993, the Registrar General's mid-year estimate of usually resident population. The 1994 figure is the Government Actuary's Department's 1992-based projection of usually resident population.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with health trusts concerning the matter of finance; and if he will make a statement. [22114]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the chairmen of NHS trusts periodically to discuss a range of issues, including finance.

  Nursery Education
  Mr Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning nursery education and if he will make a statement. [22116]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear last October that the Government are committed to making available a nursery place for every four-year-old whose parents want to take it up. We are considering carefully how to deliver that commitment in Wales and will consult widely on proposals.

  Livestock Diseases
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many cases of foot and mouth disease occurred in each year since 1978; [22178]

  (2) how many cases of epizootic lymphangitis occurred in each year since 1985; [22182]

  (3) how many cases of pleuro-pneumonia occurred in each year since 1985. [22168]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of(a) men and (b) women aged 40 and over who are out of work. [22810]

  Mr. Redwood
  In January 1995, the numbers of males and females aged 40 and over, who were in the unemployment claimant count in Wales were 27,076 and 7,925 respectively.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the total extra money required to be allocated to local education 374
  authorities in Wales to ensure class sizes throughout of 30. [22807]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend has made no such assessment. Class sizes are a matter for individual schools to determine.

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number and species of birds of prey poisoned in each year since 1987. [22364]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information held by the Department on the number and species of birds of prey poisoned in Wales since 1987 is as follows:

  Red Kite

  Buzzard

  Peregrin Falcon

  1987

  —

  1

  1

  1988

  —

  1

  —

  1989

  7

  5

  1

  1990

  —

  1

  —

  1991

  1

  1

  —

  1992

  6

  1

  —

  1993

  3

  4

  —

  1994

  2

  1

  2

  Accounting Officers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times in the last 10 years, and on which dates, his departmental accounting officer has issued a minute in that role; and what was the issue in each case. [22561]

  Mr. Redwood
  Where a Minister overrules an accounting officer's advice on an issue of propriety or regularity of expenditure or one of value for money, the accounting officer should request a written instruction from the Minister to take the action in question.

  Details of the two cases where such an instruction was given to my Department's accounting officer were set out in my reply of 23 March 1994 to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) Official Report, column 317. There have been no subsequent cases.

  All such instructions are now reported to the Comptroller and Auditor General, who after making whatever investigations he considers appropriate will report his findings to the Public Accounts Committee.

  S4C
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what information he has received from(a) departmental surveys and (b) S4C on the proportion of Welsh speakers that watches Welsh language television; and if he will make a statement. [22828]

  Mr. Richards
  The Welsh social survey, which was conducted in 1992, showed that 81.5 per cent. of Welsh speakers watched S4C regularly or sometimes. S4C's annual report for 1993 indicated that independent audience measurement carried out by the Broadcasters Audience Research Board showed that, on average, 84 per cent. of Welsh speakers watched S4C at some point in any given week.

  Medium Secure Units
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will list by regional health authority and by district health authority the current number of beds in medium secure units run by health authorities; what were the figures for each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [23513]

  Mr. Richards
  There are 19 medium secure beds available in the Caswell clinic, Glanrhyd hospital, Bridgend, which is the only such NHS facility operational within Wales. An extension to the facility is to be officially opened in June of this year and will subsequently increase the provision to 33 beds.

  In north Wales, planning approval to develop a purpose-built, 25-bed medium secure unit at Llanfairfechan was obtained on 9 November 1994. The facility is expected to open in the first half of 1997.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Private Finance
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage of his Department's budget is allocated to initiatives which have been undertaken to secure private finance for his Department's projects. [22795]

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Departments operates mainly through its many sponsored bodies and agencies and undertakes little capital expenditure on its own account. Its effort is therefore largely devoted to encouraging those whom it sponsors to exploit to the full in their own capital programmes the opportunities of the private finance initiative. I estimate that the cost of the promotional effort across my Department is about £65,000.

  Accounting Officers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many times, and on which date, his departmental accounting officer has issued a minute in that role; and what was the issue in each case. [22554]

  Mr. Dorrell
  There have been no occasions on which such action has been taken since the establishment of my Department in April 1992.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage for what reasons a sculpture by Antonio Canova and a painting by Albrecht Altdorfer, were omitted from the list given in his written answer to the hon. Member for Warley, East on 8 March,Official Report, columns 177–78, on the progress of cases relating to the export of works of art; and if he will make a statement on the status of these items. [23168]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The answer given on 8 March included only those items where the decision to withhold the issue of an export licence had been taken during the half year ended 31 December 1994.

  The sculpture "The Three Graces" by Antonio Canova was referred to in a reply to the hon. Member on 18 January 1994, Official Report, columns 497–98. The subsequent decision, taken in the half year ended 30 June 1994, was detailed in Parliamentary Command paper
  376
  2710, the fortieth report of the Reviewing Committee. The sculpture has been acquired jointly by the Victoria and Albert museum and the National Galleries of Scotland.

  A decision on the painting "The Adoration of the Magi" by Albrecht Altdorfer was taken during January 1995. An export licence has been issued for this painting.

  A Departmental press release of 30 March 1995 included these two cases as it is the practice to publicise details of all cases where decisions on export licence applications have been deferred.

  S4C
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what criteria he uses in considering whether S4C is proving a satisfactory service to the people of Wales and whether S4C is being managed effectively and in a satisfactory manner. [22827]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Welsh Fourth Channel Authority has the duty under the Broadcasting Act 1990 to ensure that S4C provides a satisfactory service. My Department needs to be satisfied that S4C has suitable arrangements in place to ensure that its financial systems are sufficient to safeguard public funds and that voted expenditure is being used for the purposes set out in the Act.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will place in the Library copies of the S4C's corporate strategy and its most recent operational plan. [22823]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am arranging for copies of S4C's 1995 business plan to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list all discussions or correspondence with S4C, at ministerial or official level, since 31 March 1994, concerning staffing levels, remuneration and staff grading. [22824]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Staffing levels, remuneration and staff grading are matters for S4C which reports to Parliament each year through its annual report and accounts. I have had no discussions or correspondence on these topics.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with S4C on the implications for S4C of the recent Welsh Office social survey on television viewing habits; and if he will make a statement. [22826]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have had no such discussions with S4C. It is for S4C, if it wishes, to draw any lessons for the Welsh Office social survey to inform their programming decisions.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will inquire into the relationship between S4C and Teledwyr Annibynnol Cymru to assess whether the arrangements for funding TAC and its training and sponsorship affiliates are an appropriate use of S4C's programme funds. [22817]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The financial and other relationships between S4C and Teledwyr Annibynnol Cymru form part of the terms of reference of the study my Department has commissioned from Mr. John Beastall.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on how many occasions in the last year he has formally met the chairman of S4C to discuss the affairs of the authority. [22637]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have formally met the chairman of S4C once in the last year.
  377
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list all meetings between his Department and officials of S4C since January 1994. [22635]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Since January 1994, my Department has held formal meetings with S4C on three occasions: 16 March 1994, 1 July 1994 and 8 March 1995. My officials responsible for broadcasting matters are, of course, in regular contact with S4C.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list by grade those of his officials whose duties are related solely to S4C. [22638]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have no officials whose duties are related solely to S4C.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list by grade the staff in his Department whose duties involve S4C who are able to conduct their responsibilities through the medium of Welsh. [22636]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have no staff whose duties involve S4C who are able to conduct their responsibilities through the medium of Welsh.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultation(a) his Department and (b) the Welsh Language Board had with the S4C Authority before S4C's service provision was split; and what was the statutory basis of the decision. [22650]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Welsh Fourth Channel Authority was established under the Broadcasting Act 1980, and now operates as S4C under the Broadcasting Act 1990. The Government undertook wide consultation prior to the introduction of legislation on both occasions. One of the S4C's statutory duties is to ensure that a substantial proportion of the programmes that it broadcasts are in Welsh and the programmes broadcast between 6.30pm and 1 Opm each day consist mainly of programmes in Welsh. How it carries out this remit is an editorial matter for S4C.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what were the staffing levels of S4C at 31 March in each year since 1991 and on 31 December 1994. [22825]

  Mr. Dorrell
  S4C publishes figures for the average number of employees in each calender year in its annual report and accounts, copies of which are laid before Parliament and are in the Library of the House. Figures for the last four years are as follows

  1991: 116

  1992: 108

  1993: 199

  1994: 127

  The 1994 annual report and accounts have not yet been published.

  Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what were the costs of the investigations instigated by his Department into the alleged misuse of the BS1S for matching private and public funds for the support of the arts. [23014]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The investigation was carried out by Mr. John Beastall, who is a Treasury civil servant. My Department is responsible for travel costs arising from his study. The cost of these is expected to amount to £320.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on investigations 378
  (a) instigated and (b) evaluated by his Department into the alleged misuse of the BSIS for matching private and public funds for the support of the arts. [23015]

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department has received the report which I announced on 27 February had been commissioned from Mr. John Beastall,Official Report, column 680. Once the findings have been evaluated, I shall make his report available to the House.

  Mr. Beastall was asked in his review to take account of reports received by my Department from the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts and from the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority, S4C. He has also drawn on an examination of the relevant records and a series of interviews with staff of S4C and the companies and organisations involved in the applications, conducted, at S4C's request, by Grant Thornton, S4C's auditors.

  Churchill Papers
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the names of foreign organisations or individuals who have been(a) negotiating with the trustees or (b) bidding for the Churchill Trust Papers over the past five years. [22945]

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is a matter for the Churchill family trustees.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) if he will publish the legal advice he has received on the ownership of copyright of the Churchill papers; [22120]

  (2) when his Department began inquiries into the ownership of copyright of the Churchill papers; and at what cost in legal advice and action; [22121]

  (3) what advice he has taken on the ownership of copyright of the Churchill papers. [22122]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 2 May 1995]: The Government have received advice that copyright in state papers belongs to the Crown. It has also been advised that it does not own the copyright in the non-state papers in the Churchill archive.

  The Government took advice on these subjects in July 1991 and again in May 1994. The advice cost £3,100 exclusive of VAT.

  Cinema Ownership
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy to promote diversity in the ownership of cinemas in the United Kingdom. [21990]

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is not the government's policy to interfere in the ownership of private companies, except in circumstances defined in legislation.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the target, expressed in percentage terms, for female membership of the boards of his Department's sponsored bodies. [20994]

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department hopes to achieve its goal of 35 per cent. representation of women on its public bodies by September 1996.

  European Football Championship
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 28 April,Official Report, column 738, on the European football championship, by whom supporting programmes of cultural events are being drawn up. [22532]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Supporting events are being planned by, among others, host local authorities and regional arts boards—in liaison with the Football Association, regional tourist boards and the British Tourist Authority, and the English tourist board.

  Television Licence Reminder Forms
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions he has had with the BBC licence fee unit regarding the possible changes in the television licence reminder forms; and if he will make a statement. [22924]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Under the Broadcasting Act 1990, responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the television licensing system passed to the BBC with effect from 1 April 1991. It is therefore for the BBC to determine the content and presentation of the television licence reminder forms it uses.

  National Lottery
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which a small regional charity designed to assist children to take up dancing courses past the age of 16, may be eligible for assistance from the national lottery; and if he will make a statement about dance. [22633]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Any dance organisation which meets the criteria set out in the guidance for applicants for national lottery proceeds issued by the four national Arts Councils can apply to one of those bodies for financial assistance.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Court Escort Service
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list escapes from the court escort service in(a) London and (b) England and Wales in (i) 1979, (ii) 1985, (iii) 1990 and (iv) the last year for which figures are available. [21895]

  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 Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 9 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for a list of escapes from the Court Escort Service in (a) London and (b) England and Wales in (i) 1979, (ii) 1985, (iii) 1990 and (iv) the last year for which figures are available.
  The Court Escort Service started escorting prisoners in England and Wales (Area 7—East Midlands and Humberside) from 5 April 1993 and in London (Metropolitan) from 27 June 1994. The Metropolitan Court Escort Service is being phased in and is not yet fully implemented.
  380
  The information for the last year available (5 April 1994–31 March 1995) is given below:

  Period

  Escort Service Area

  Number of Escapes

  5 April 1994–31 March 1995

  Area 7

  13

  27 June 1994–31 March 1995

  Metropolitan

  2

  Figures exclude prisoners recaptured within 15 minutes provided no further offences has been committed.

  Information about escapes from police forces in earlier years is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Training
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the content of training provided to officials in the admission and asylum procedure with respect to(a) knowledge of international legal instruments, (b) asylum law, (c) humanitarian law, with particular reference to the Geneva convention and protocols, (d) language skills, (e) interview techniques, (f) inter-cultural training and (g) other matters. [22743]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 5 May 1995]: The power to grant or refuse passengers leave to enter the United Kingdom is exercised by immigration officers. However, the determination of asylum claims is entirely a matter for officers in the asylum division of the Home Office who receive training based on the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 protocol. Training regularly addresses most of the issues listed. Language skills are not required as interpreters are used when necessary.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what types of personnel are recruited to train officials in admission and asylum procedure; how they are recruited; and if he will make a statement on the training methods and materials used. [22744]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 5 May 1995]: Trainers are recruited internally by competitive selection. Essential qualities include well developed inter-personal and communication skills coupled with detailed knowledge and experience of the appropriate subject matter. The methodology and materials used vary according to circumstances, and include role play, classroom presentations and video.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent training of officials in the admission and asylum procedures is carried out by a training institution; and how training is organised. [22745]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 5 May 1995]: Training is delivered by immigration and nationality department staff trainers experienced in asylum related work. There is a continuing programme of courses and specialist seminars, with contributions from outside organisations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the objectives set for the training of border officials in dealing with asylum-seekers and refugees as set out in(a) legislative tests, (b) regulations, (c) guidelines and (d) other documents. [22746]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 5 May 1995]: The objectives of immigration officer training in asylum work are to:

  381

  (a) familiarise officers with the general principles of the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 Protocol.

  (b) instruct them in the relevant immigration rules and legislation.

  (c) inform them of the procedures to adopt when interviewing applicants, referring applications to the asylum division and implementing asylum decisions.

  (d) ensure that consistently high standards of professionalism and courtesy are maintained when dealing with asylum applicants, as with any other category of passenger.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the category of officials who may come into contact with asylum seekers arriving in the United Kingdom; [22747]

  (2) if he will list the categories of officials who have been assigned a specific role in the admission and asylum procedure. [22749]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answers 5 May 1995]: Passengers arriving in the United Kingdom are examined by an immigration officer in accordance with the Immigration Act 1971. Passengers who apply for asylum will be interviewed initially by an immigration officer. All such cases will then be referred to the asylum division of the Home Office for determination of the asylum claim.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial resources were devoted to the training of officials in admission and asylum procedures in the current and previous financial years; and what is the percentage change. [22752]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 5 May 1995]: The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In any event, asylum training is an integral part of the immigration and nationality department training programme and to separate the costs from the overall training expenditure would be misleading.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how officials who have been assigned a specific role in the admission and asylum procedure are recruited; and what is the minimum level of education required. [22748]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 5 May 1995]: For external recruitment of executive and immigration officers, advertisements are placed in the national press, and selection is by fair and open competition on merit.

  Applications for entry clearance made by visitors, students and others for temporary purposes received, granted and refused, by post, 1993–94

  1993

  1994

  Post where application was made

  January-June

  July-December

  Year

  January-June

  July-December

  Year

  New Delhi

  Applications received

  19,360

  16,190

  35,540

  23,140

  18,500

  41,640

  Granted (total)2

  16,860

  13,630

  30,500

  19,480

  15,190

  34,670

  Initially refused

  1,180

  2,050

  3,230

  3,440

  3,300

  6,740

  Bombay

  Applications received

  20,500

  15,420

  35,930

  24,140

  17,210

  41,360

  Granted (total)2

  18,470

  13,890

  32,360

  22,180

  15,970

  38,150

  Initially refused

  1,910

  1,350

  3,250

  1,760

  1,020

  2,780

  382
  Minimum educational qualifications are five GCSE/GCE passes at grade C and above, including English Language, of which two must be at A-level.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names, qualifications and the relevant background of members of the Commission for Racial Equality, with their dates of appointment and tenure. [22575]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The posts of commissioner at the Commission for Racial Equality are the personal appointment of the Home Secretary. They are initially appointed for a two-year period with the possibility of further extensions up to a total of five years. The current commissioners are:

  Name

  Appointed

  Until

  Mr. Herman Ouseley

  19.04.93

  18.04.98

  Mr. Aubrey Rose

  01.11.90

  31.10.95

  Dr. Michael Chan

  01.11.90

  31.10.95

  Mr. Ranjit Sondhi

  15.11.90

  14.11.95

  Dr. Raj Chandran

  01.01.93

  31.12.96

  Mr. Michael Hastings

  01.05.93

  30.04.97

  Mr. Bob Purkiss

  01.05.93

  30.04.97

  Dr. Dwain Neil

  01.05.93

  30.04.97

  Mrs. Marie Cunningham

  01.05.03

  30.04.97

  Dr. Zaka Khan

  01.05.93

  30.04.97

  Mrs. Zahida Manzoor

  22.11.93

  31.03.97

  Mr. Moussa Jogee

  01.09.94

  31.08.95

  Mr. Hugh Harris

  01.01.95

  31.12.96

  Mrs. Jaslien Singh

  01.01.95

  31.12.96

  Detail of commissioners' backgrounds are set out in the Commission for Racial Equality's annual reports, the most recent of which will be published on 6 June; a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Entry Clearance
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for visit entry clearance were(a) made, (b) granted and (c) refused at the British post in (i) New Delhi, (ii) Bombay, (iii) Dhaka, (iv) Islamabad, (v) Colombo, (vi) Calcutta, (vii) Madras and (viii) Karachi in (1) January to June 1993, (2) July to December 1993, (3) January to June 1994 and (4) July to December or the latest convenient date in 1994. [22641]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information is given in the table.
  383

  Applications for entry clearance made by visitors, students and others for temporary purposes received, granted and refused, by post, 1993–94

  1993

  1994

  Post where application was made

  January-June

  July-December

  Year

  January-June

  July-December

  Year

  Calcutta

  Applications received

  3,610

  3,090

  6,700

  4,210

  3,230

  7,430

  Granted (total)2

  3,430

  2,930

  6,360

  4,090

  3,110

  7,200

  Initially refused

  150

  90

  240

  50

  80

  130

  Madras

  Applications received

  5,510

  4,600

  10,110

  6,750

  5,880

  12,630

  Granted (total)2

  5,390

  4,460

  9,860

  6,660

  5,790

  12,450

  Initially refused

  90

  120

  210

  80

  70

  150

  Islamabad

  Applications received

  16,800

  17,400

  34,210

  15,270

  20,100

  35,360

  Granted (total)2

  12,370

  12,890

  25,260

  11,480

  13,630

  25,110

  Initially refused

  3,030

  3,550

  6,580

  2,830

  4,330

  7,170

  Karachi

  Applications received

  12,460

  11,490

  23,940

  14,290

  14,170

  28,460

  Granted (total)2

  10,640

  9,680

  20,330

  11,770

  11,380

  23,150

  Initially refused

  980

  1,130

  2,100

  1,050

  1,350

  2,400

  Dhaka

  Applications received

  6,890

  7,700

  14,590

  7,220

  8,560

  15,780

  Granted (total)2

  5,470

  5,890

  11,360

  5,160

  6,180

  11,350

  Initially refused

  1,410

  1,730

  3,140

  1,890

  2,250

  4,140

  Colombo

  Applications received

  5,050

  4,860

  9,910

  5,160

  5,840

  11,000

  Granted (total)2

  n/a

  n/a

  7,940

  n/a

  n/a

  7,610

  Initially refused

  470

  410

  870

  300

  520

  820

  1 Includes applications subsequently withdrawn.

  2 Granted initially or on appeal.

  3 Only partial information is available for Colombo.

  n/a Not available.

  Police Cells
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoner nights were spent in police cells in(a) 1979, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) the last year for which figures are available; and on what date he expects to eliminate the use of police cells. [21268]

  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 9 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many prisoner nights were spent in police cells in (a) 1979, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) the last year for which figures are available; and the date on which it is expected that the use of police cells will be eliminated.
  Figures for the number of prisoners held in police cells have been collected centrally since 1980. The information available on how many prisoner nights were spent in police cells for 1980, 1985, 1990 and 1994 is given in the following table:

  Year

  Number of prisoner nights spent in police cells

  1980

  235,425

  1985

  16,425

  1990

  241,835

  1994

  54,277

  384
  The use of police cells is currently confined to the north west of England. The provision of 260 new places at Buckley Hall prison on 1 May and the return to use, following refurbishment, of a further 217 places at Manchester by 28 May, should end the use of police cells this summer.

  Ethnic Minority Prisoners
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what special health and medical arrangements the Prison Service has in relation to ethnic minority prisoners. [23090]

  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 Mr. Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 9 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about special health and medical arrangements in relation to ethnic minority prisoners.
  The Prison Service is committed to eliminating racial discrimination in all aspects of its work. Medical officers are required under the race relations policy to ensure equality of access to all health care facilities for all inmates.
  more than 50 per cent. of prison medical officers are from ethnic minorities.
  If there are language differences which make communication difficult, prison medical officers are able to make use of the translation service which is available to governors. In establishments

  385
  with large numbers of foreign detainees, multi-lingual picture card materials are available which provide symptoms, signs, medical conditions and medical symptoms to facilitate understanding.

  European Economic Area Nationals
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 23 November,Official Report, column 158, if he will account for the differences in the numbers of EEA nationals required to leave given in that answer and in the answer of 22 June 1994 to the hon. Member -for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), Official Report, column 173. [23025]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The written answer given to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), on 22 June 1994 at columns 172–73 contained a mis-print. The figure of "108" in column 173 should have read "280". The error was not noted in time for the Official Report to be corrected, but I wrote to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North on 24 November 1994 informing him of the printing error. A copy of my letter was placed in the Library. The figures contained in my reply of 23 November were correct for the period April to December 1993.

  Prevention of Terrorism (Exclusion Orders)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many exclusion orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts have been in existence in each month of the past year; and when the most recent one was approved by him. [23040]

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is as follows:

  Exclusion orders made under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989: the number in force at the end of each month

  Month

  Orders made by Home Secretary

  Orders made by Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  1994

  May

  72

  9

  June

  72

  9

  July

  70

  10

  August

  67

  10

  September

  64

  10

  October

  62

  10

  November

  61

  10

  December

  58

  10

  1995

  January

  57

  10

  February

  54

  0

  March

  40

  0

  April

  40

  0

  The most recent order was made on 16 January 1995 on the expiry of an order which was already in force.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of his Department's budget is allocated to initiatives which have been undertaken to secure private finance for his Department's projects. [22716]

  Mr. Howard
  Work associated with the private finance initiative is undertaken by Home Office staff as part of their normal duties. Separate information on this aspect of 386
  their work is not available. Resources allocated specifically to overseeing and developing the initiative amount to 0.002 per cent. of my Department's budget.

  Liquor Licences, Durham
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the number of late licences issued by Durham magistrates over the last three years, (b) the organisations granted the licences, (c) the length of time of the extension, (d) the special occasion for which the licences were issued and (e) the number of applications which have been refused. [22581]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We understand from the clerk of the justices at Durham magistrates court that the numbers of special orders for exemption granted by the court in the last three years are:

  1992: 543

  1993: 218

  1994: 284

  The clerk also informs us that the other information requested, which is not available centrally, could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, but that most special orders of exemption granted by Durham magistrates court to extend evening licensing hours run until 11.30 pm.

  Rape
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many rape cases were heard in courts in England and Wales during each of the last three years. [22376]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the number of defendants prosecuted for rape offences is published annually in "Criminal statistics England and Wales Supplementary tables, Volume 1, Proceedings in magistrates' courts". Table S 1.1(A) refers to it. The most recent edition is for 1993. The 1994 data will be available in the autumn.

  Deportation
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement as to who has the responsibility for(a) men and (b) women who have served their prison sentence and are detained by the immigration services in prison awaiting deportation orders. [22378]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Prison Service is responsible for the day-to-day care of such detainees and the immigration service is responsible for reviewing the continued need for detention, the handling of the caseworkassociated with the making of a deportation order and making arrangements for removal from the United Kingdom, but the overall responsibility rests with the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Hunger Strikes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) men and (b) women who had been on hunger strike in prisons in England and Wales for more than 14 days on 17 April. [22205]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison
  387
  Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 9 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of men and women who had been on hunger strike in prisons in England and Wales for more than 14 days on 17 April.
  There was only one male prisoner who had been on hunger strike for over 14 days on that date.

  Action Against Crime
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent producing his Department's recent Action Against Crime packs; and how many were produced. [22266]

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) on 24 April,Official Report, column 385.

  Smoking
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities are provided and arrangements made for the well-being and comfort of staff who(a) smoke and (b) do not wish to be affected by smoking at (i) the work-station and (ii) rest, recreation and refreshment facilities at 50 Queen Anne's gate, London. [21911]

  Mr. Howard
  At 50 Queen Anne's gate smoking is not allowed in lifts, toilets and conference rooms. There is a small smoking area in the staff restaurant. The extent to which smoking is allowed in offices is a matter for heads of divisions, taking into account the individual preferences of their staff.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made within his Department on equal opportunities matters. [21527]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department is committed to ensuring that all staff are treated fairly and have an equal opportunity to contribute to the office's work. This stems not only from considerations of equity, but from the need to ensure that the Department makes the best use of the qualities that its staff possess.

  To this end, the Department works towards implementing the three programmes for action produced by the Cabinet Office—Office of Public Service and Science—which cover issues of race, gender and disability and provide a framework for departmental policy on equal opportunities.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [21529]

  Mr. Howard
  The Government are committed to the principles set out in the regional platform for action 388
  agreed at the preparatory conference in Vienna for the fourth UN conference on women. We have taken these forward through a wide range of programmes and initiatives and will continue to do so.

  Material on equal opportunities is incorporated in the Home Office annual report each year.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the gender assessment being prepared by his Department. [21528]

  Mr. Howard
  The Department'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, older people or ex-offenders. This scrutiny is part of a continuous process, as part of policy advice to Ministers.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Minister in his Department has responsibility for equal opportunities issues. [21526]

  Mr. Howard
  I have overall responsibility for personnel matters in the Department, including equal opportunities for staff. Other Ministers deal with equal opportunities issues as they arise within the subject areas for which they are responsible.

  Fazakerley and Bridgend Prisons
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what financial penalties he proposes to build into the contracts for Fazakerley and Bridgend prisons which could be invoked if, by a decision of Government, the contracts were terminated; [21221]

  (2) if he will place copies of the tender documents and proposed contract documents from Fazakerley and Bridgend prisons in the Library; [21219]

  (3) if he will list the types of circumstances in which the successful tendering for the operation of Fazakerley and Bridgend prisons under the terms of the proposed contracts can be held to be in breach of contract; [21223]

  (4) what review periods and at what frequency he proposes to build into the proposed contracts for Bridgend and Fazakerley prisons; [21218]

  (5) what duration he proposes to put on the contracts for Fazakerley and Bridgend prisons; [21222]

  (6) what financial or other kinds of penalties he proposes to build into the contracts for operating Bridgend and Fazakerley prisons; penalties could be invoked. [21220]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. George Howarth, dated 9 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the contracts for the prisons to be built at Fazakerley and Bridgend.
  Evaluation of the bids to design, construct, manage and finance the prisons at Fazakerley and Bridgend has not yet been completed and, therefore, it is not yet possible to set out the exact terms and

  389
  conditions relating to performance and termination that will be included in the final contract.
  However, the Prison Service has proposed that the contracts should be for the provision of a custodial service for 25 years. Also, the Authority will retain the right to terminate the contracts both voluntarily and in the event of default by the contractor. A system of performance measurement will be included in the final contracts, providing the ability to penalise the contractor for sub-standard performance. The financial settlement due in respect of any of the
  390
  above events is still a matter included in the above negotiations, but the invitation to tender described the amount to be paid on termination for default as whichever is the lesser sum of the value of the project to the contractor or the contractor's loan liabilities at the time.
  I have arranged for a copy of the invitation to tender to be placed in the library, and shall arrange for a copy of the final unpriced version of the contracts to be placed in the library when the have been signed.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance Recording System
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security who will own the data following the letting of the contract for the national insurance recording system number 2; and if he will make a statement. [22577]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Secretary of State for Social Security will remain the owner of all data held within the national insurance recording system—NIRS2. Custodianship and management of the data are delegated to the Contributions Agency, which directs the service provider in all matters connected to content and use of NIRS2 data.

  Income Support
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the savings to the Exchequer from the lowest rate of income support benefit payable to those aged between 18 and 25 years. [22407]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The current annual cost of raising the income support rate for 18 to 24-year-olds to that payable for single people aged 25 and above would be about £240 million.

  Notes:

  1. The figure is based on the 1990, 1991, 1992 family expenditure surveys, uprated to 1995–96 prices and benefit levels.

  2. The figure includes the additional cost of linked increases in housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  Social Security Benefits
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on departmental policy, or performance targets relating to benefit payments made to claimants who are patients detained under the Mental Health Acts and on leave of absence from hospital with particular reference to whether they are entitled to receive full entitlement to state benefits as soon as they leave hospital; what reassessment they undergo on leaving hospital; who is responsible for informing his Department that a patient so detained is on leave of absence from hospital; what reductions are made to the level of state benefits of patients so detained; and whether detained patients allowed leave of absence from hospital for rehabilitation receive lower benefits than the level to which they had been entitled before they were detained. [22131]

  Mr. Hague
  With the exception of people transferred to hospital from prison while still under sentence, people detained in hospitals under the Mental Health Acts are treated in the same way as any other person in hospital. The effect of a period in hospital on the main benefits likely to be in payment to a patient are detailed in the table. Provided that the person still satisfies the conditions of entitlement, benefits are normally restored in full when a person leaves hospital—whether on leave or permanently. No other re-assessment is needed unless the person's general circumstances have changed.
  392
  It is the responsibility of the individual to tell the Department when he leaves hospital.

  Weeks

  4

  Attendance allowance and disability living allowance (care component) withdrawn.

  Severe disability premium in income support withdrawn.

  6

  Retirement pension, widow's benefit, incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance reduced by £11.75 for a person with a dependant, or £23.50 for a person without a department.

  Income support reduced to £14.70 for a single person and by £11.75 where the patient is one of a couple.

  52

  Retirement pension, widow's benefit, incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance reduced by £11.75 for a person with a dependant and reduced to £11.75 for a person without a dependant.

  Income support reduced to £11.75. Members of a couple must make separate claims.

  Note:

  Periods in hospital punctuated by periods of leave of four weeks or less are aggregated.

  Accounting Officers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many times in the last 10 years, and on which dates, his Departmental accounting officer has issued a minute in that role; and what was the issue in each case. [22565]

  Mr. Hague
  Where a Minister overrules an accounting officer's advice on an issue of propriety or regularity or one of value for money, the accounting officer should request a written instruction from the Minister to take the action in question.

  All such instructions are reported to the Comptroller and Auditor General who, after making whatever investigations he considers appropriate, will report his findings to the Committee of Public Accounts.

  No such directions have been issued as stated by the Secretary of State in his reply to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, (Mr. Rowlands) on 24 February 1994, Official Report, column 372.

  Mortgage Interest
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money his Department expects to save as the result of the new regulations relating to assistance for mortgage interest payments; and what they estimate is the average saving per claimant. [23026]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Social Security Advisory Committee has consulted widely on the proposals for changes to assistance with mortgage interest payments, and I expect to receive its report shortly. The financial effects will depend on the final details of the scheme, which will not be decided until I have studied its report.

  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people received assistance with
  393
  mortgage interest payments in each year since 1990; and what is the current average level of assistance, by standard economic region. [23028]

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

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the likely effect of his proposed changes to housing benefit rules, which take effect from October, on those living in housing association-owned special needs hostels and sheltered housing for the elderly. [23079]

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

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding his proposed changes to housing benefit rules, which take effect from October; and if he will make a statement. [23080]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We await the report from the Social Security Advisory Committee following its public consultation exercise on our proposals for housing benefit changes from October 1995. We have also formally consulted the local authority associations, from which we have received representations. In addition, we have received representations from other interested parties, including the National Federation of Housing Associations, the Chartered Institute of Housing and the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, as well as individuals.

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations his Department has made to the Department of Trade and Industry concerning the need for legislation to prevent the cloning of mobile telephones. [23478]

  Mr. Hague
  None

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what steps his Department has taken to prevent the cloning of telephones being utilised by his Department; and if his Department has discussed this matter with any official agencies; [23463]

  (2) what costs his Department has incurred during the last 12 Months as a result of cloning of mobile telephones being utilised by his Department, with particular reference to the making of unauthorised calls; [23497]

  (3) what use his Department makes of hand-held and car-based mobile telephones; what were the costs for each financial year of these services since mobile telephones were first introduced to his Department; and how many mobile telephones are currently in use. [23454]

  Mr. Hague
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly on these matters.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many mobile telephones being utilised by 394
  his Department have been cloned during the last 12 months. [23500]

  Mr. Hague
  Ten.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the effect on Treasury revenue in a full year of raising the upper earnings limit for national insurance by(a) £5, (b) £10 and (c) £15. [23346]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It is estimated that, for 1995–96, the additional income from class 1 employee contributions and class 4 self-employed contributions would be:

  (a) £55 million

  (b) £115 million

  (c) £165 million

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the effect on Treasury revenue in a full year of raising the lower earnings limit for national insurance to the level of the personal tax allowance; and how many people would be taken out of national insurance by this measure. [23347]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It is estimated that there would be a reduction in national insurance contributions of about £500 million in a full year and that about 500,000 people would be removed from the coverage of the national insurance scheme.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, what is his estimate of the cost, in each of the years 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99, of reinstating contributory jobseeker's allowance for a period of 312 days in respect of(a) people who are registered disabled, (b) people who move from incapacity benefit to sign on as unemployed and (c) people who place restrictions on their availability for work because of their physical or mental condition. [21601]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer Friday 28 April]: Extending the period of contribution-based jobseeker's allowance to 312 days, in respect of people who move from incapacity benefit as a result of the new medical test, would bring costs of £10 million in 1996–97, £15 million in 1997–98, and from £10 million in 1998–99.

  No information is available relating to the proportion of unemployed claimants who are registered disabled. It is not possible to estimate the number of claimants likely to agree restrictions on their availability for work because of their physical or mental condition under jobseeker's allowance.

  Notes:

  1. Assumes 2.4 million unemployed and an unemployment benefit caseload of 500,000 in 1997–98 if jobseeker's allowance had not been introduced.

  2. Figures rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  3. Figures make no allowance for any possible claims deterrent effect of the new medical test in incapacity benefit.

  4. Estimates made using data from the 1990–91–92 family expenditure surveys uprated to 1994–95 and benefit rates.

  Social Fund
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has received the Social Security Advisory Committee's report on his proposals for changes to the social fund funeral payments scheme; and if he will make a statement. [19209]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 April 1995, c. 1231]: I can confirm that the Social Security Advisory Committee's report, and the Secretary of State for Social Security's response to it, have been laid before Parliament today along with amending regulations for a new social fund funeral payment scheme which take effect from 5 June.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many absent parents have received an interim assessment from the Child Support Agency since its inception; [21793]

  (2) how many absent parents who have received an interim assessment from the Child Support Agency since its inception have subsequently become (a) unemployed and (b) recipients of income support; [21794]

  (3) what steps the Government are taking to monitor the relationship between Child Support Agency interim assessment orders and subsequent unemployment. [21795]

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Mike Gapes, dated 5 May 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Interim Maintenance Assessments (IMA) issued by the Child Support Agency.
  Since launch to the end of February 1995 the Agency completed and issued a total of 133,167 IMAs. From April this year there have been changes in the use of IMAs; a new higher rate IMA may be imposed on high earners; a non-punitive IMA has been introduced for self-employed earners; a protected earnings rate has been introduced in cases where an IMA is being collected via a deductions from earnings order, and once the absent parent (AP) has provided all required information, their liability under the preceding IMA will revert to that of the Full Maintenance Assessment.

  Appointments made to administrative assistant and administrative officer posts by the Scottish Office: September 1993-April 1995

  September 1993-November 1993

  December 1993-February 1994

  March 1994-May 1994

  June 1994-August 1994

  September 1994-November 1995

  December 1994-February 1995

  March 1995-April 1995

  Administrative Assistant

  65

  17

  5

  10

  6

  8

  20

  Administrative Officer

  1

  1

  0

  6

  3

  2

  0

  Total

  66

  18

  5

  16

  9

  10

  20

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [22079]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 May 1995]: Compensation payments for early retirement on grounds
  396
  The Agency cannot monitor the relationship between the imposition of IMAs and any subsequent unemployment of APs. IMAs are imposed either because an AP fails to provide the Agency with the necessary information required to carry out a maintenance assessment, or, as in the majority of such cases, the AP fails to return a maintenance enquiry form at all. An analysis of the number of APs who become unemployed following the imposition of an IMA is not possible, as the Agency often has no personal details of the AP other than their name and address.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance Unit, Blackpool
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the arrests of four members of staff at the DLA unit, Blackpool; what were their duties; and what plans there are to review the cases with which they had dealt. [22630]

  Mr. Hague
  This is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Robert N. Wareing, dated 4 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Disability Living Allowance Unit.
  As the matter to which you refer is sub judice, I regret that I am unable to comment at this time.

SCOTLAND

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many civil service appointments were made to administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in his Department and the agencies for which he is accountable in each quarter from September 1993 until April 1995. [21760]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: The number of Scottish Office employees appointed at administrative assistant and administrative officer levels is shown in the table. The figures comprise appointments to associated Departments and agencies. They include both fixed-term and permanent appointments, but exclude casual appointments, promotions and regradings.

  of limited efficiency are age, salary and service related. Over the period in question, no officers who left the Department on limited efficiency grounds received compulsory early retirement terms. Seven left under the flexible early retirement package:

  1 in 1990–91

  1 in 1991–92

  1 in 1992–93

  397

  3 in 1993–94

  l1 in 1994–95

  The payments received by these officers are listed in descending order of magnitude. Year dates are not shown to avoid individuals being identified.

  Annual compensation payment to age 60 (rate pa) £

  Superannuation lump sum (Approx.) £

  Lump sum compensation payment

  Compensation in lieu of notice

  17,968

  53,906

  none

  none

  16,601

  49,803

  none

  none

  9,369

  28,918

  none

  none

  8,837

  26,513

  none

  none

  7,244

  21,732

  none

  none

  7,164

  21,494

  none

  none

  5,710

  17,131

  none

  none

  Bank Holidays
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to protect traditional Scottish bank holidays in the event of the Scottish clearing banks harmonising bank holidays with their English counterparts. [22157]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The statutory bank holidays in Scotland remain those set out in schedule 1 to the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 or proclaimed each year under that Act. Their purpose is to safeguard the banks if they choose to close on these days. The days on which banks decide to close or open however, is a matter for them. Statutory bank holidays have always had less general significance in Scotland than in other parts of the UK. Public, or local, holidays, determined by each local authority for its own area, tend to be observed rather than the statutory bank holidays. This is part of the Scottish tradition.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to amend the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 to impose a statutory obligation that Scottish clearing banks must close on Scottish bank holidays. [22159]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government believe that it would not be right to make bank holidays prescriptive. That would be over-regulatory and would deny freedom of choice.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance his Department will give to the Scottish clearing banks on the issue of harmonisation of bank holidays; and what guidance has been given in past discussion. [22158]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is not a matter in which the Government have any role. The Scottish clearing banks took the decision to adjust their bank holidays for business reasons, after taking their own legal advice. They did not consult the Government, nor were they required to do so.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the banking unions to discuss harmonisation of bank holidays throughout the United Kingdom. [22156]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The days on which banks open and close is a matter for the banks to discuss 398
  with their employees. There are therefore no plans for any such meeting.

  Shell Petroleum (Brent Spar Terminal)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what permissions have been given to Shell Petroleum to dispose of the terminal Brent Spar in deep water; and what assessment has been made of the ultimate destination of arsenic, cadmium and other dangerous substances. [22658]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The Scottish Office has issued a licence under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and an authorisation under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 to allow disposal of the Brent Spar buoy, stripped of detachable equipment, at sea in accordance with the abandonment programme approved by the President of the Board of Trade. In line with our obligations under international conventions, a thorough survey was undertaken to identify the deep-sea disposal site in the north Atlantic to deposit the Spar at a depth in excess of 2,000 m and beyond the reach of fishing activity. Detailed assessments have been made of the likely impact on the environment of this disposal method, including what contaminants remain in the Brent Spar. It has been concluded that any effects of these contaminants on the marine environment will be negligible.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many neurologists, neuropsychiatrists and neurosurgeons specialising in epilepsy there are in Scotland; how this relates to the recommended level in each case; and if he will make a statement. [22432]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on staff specialising in epilepsy is not collected centrally. Neuropsychiatry is not recognised as a separate specialty.

  The whole-time equivalent numbers of consultants in neurology and neurosurgery at 30 September 1994 were:

  Neurology: 21.0

  Neurosurgery: 16.5

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many epilepsy clinics there are in Scotland; how this relates to the recommended level; and if he will make a statement; [22433]

  (2) what is the mean waiting time for out-patient treatment for epilepsy in each health board area in Scotland; how this relates to the patient's charter waiting times; what plans he has to improve the position; and if he will make a statement. [22434]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of dental practitioners in Caithness and Sutherland working within the national health service. [21781]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 May 1995]: Dentists who wish to provide NHS general dental services must join a health board's dental list. At present, there are 86 general dental practitioners on Highland health board's dental list, of whom 15 have practice addresses within Caithness and Sutherland.
  399
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about the number of dental practitioners working in the highlands who have left the national health service over the past two years giving their reasons for so doing. [21782]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A dentist must join a health board dental list in order to provide NHS dental services. A dentist can withdraw from a health board dental list at any time, subject to giving the required notice, and need not give a reason for withdrawing. The information requested is not therefore available.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the dental practices in Banff and Macduff that are still registering patients and that are not exempt from dental charges, under the national health service; and if he will make a statement; [22716]

  (2) if he will list the dental practices in the town of Turriff that are still registering and treating patients under the national health service; and if he will make a statement. [22717]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends taking to improve the provision of national health service dental facilities in the town of Turriff, Banff and Macduff; and if he will make a statement. [22718]

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Buzzard

  9

  11

  11

  12

  11

  11

  18

  13

  Eagle

  2

  4

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Hen Harrier

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Peregrine

  Falcon

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Red Kite

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Sparrowhawk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Tawny Owl

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  11

  18

  16

  16

  12

  14

  20

  16

  Ravenspark Hospital
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current position in respect of conclusion of the contract between Irvine Care Ltd. and Ayrshire and Arran health board for the replacement facility for Ravenspark hospital. [23492]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The contract has not yet been signed. Irvine Health Care Ltd. is still awaiting planning permission for the project. That will be considered by Cunninghame district council later this month.

  Medium Secure Units
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by regional health authority and by district health authority the current number of beds in medium secure units run by health authorities; what were the figures for each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [23508]
  400
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Grampian health board is responsible for NHS dental services within its area. If necessary, a health board may seek approval from the Secretary of State to appoint a salaried dentist to ensure access to NHS services.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State if he will list the distances a resident of(a) Turriff, (b) Banff and (c) Macduff would have to travel to attend a dental practice registering patients, not exempt from dental charges, under the national health service; and if he will make a statement. [22719]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the NHS hospitals built by the private sector and operated by the private sector; and if he will make a statement. [22666]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no NHS hospitals in Scotland built and operated by the private sector.

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number and species of birds of prey poisoned in each year since 1987. [22363]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The numbers and species of birds of prey recorded as having been poisoned in Scotland are:

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Medium and high security beds for Scotland are provided solely at the state hospital, Carstairs.

  The state hospital has a maximum capacity of 340 beds. This level of provision has not varied in the last four years.

DEFENCE

  Phosgene Gas
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantity of phosgene gas cannisters has been dumped by his Department in Lune Deeps, near Fleetwood, since 1965. [22143]

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment his Department has made of the command structure required for any possible pull-out of UN forces from the former Yugoslavia; [23019]
  401
  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the role that NATO's allied reaction corps would play in any possible UN withdrawal from the former Yugoslavia; [23020]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the number of troops required to enable a withdrawal of UN forces from the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement; [23021]

  (4) what assessment his Department has made of the time scale required for any withdrawal of UN troops from the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement. [23023]

  Mr. Soames
  At the request of the UN Secretary-General, NATO is continuing with contingency planning for a NATO commanded operation to withdraw UN forces from the former Yugoslavia, should that become necessary. The UK is co-operating closely with NATO and good progress has been made. It would not, however, be appropriate for me to comment on the details of the plan, which are a matter for NATO.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has taken part in Exercise Arcade Guard relating to a possible UN withdrawal from the former Yugoslavia; what lessons were learnt as a consequence of this exercise; and if he will make a statement. [23022]

  Mr. Soames
  Some 400 UK Army personnel took part in NATO's Exercise Arcade Guard. NATO is currently evaluating the results of the exercise, which concluded on 28 April.

  Mr. MacDonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what body made the initial recommendation to withdraw the British contingent from Gorazde; if he will make it his policy that the British contingent will not be withdrawn until a replacement contingent is in place together with all necessary equipment; and if he will make a statement. [22145]

  Mr. Soames
  The Government do not intend to replace British troops in Gorazde when their tour ends in September 1995. The UN was informed of this decision in April to allow it sufficient time to identify suitable replacements.

  Mr. MacDonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will end the practice of describing Bosnian

  DRA Malvern

  1 April 1992

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1994

  31 March 1995

  Scientists

  690

  768

  842

  966

  Administrators

  185

  180

  160

  168

  Other technical staff (PTO's, Engineers etc)

  404

  382

  281

  237

  Other support staff (industrials etc)

  369

  408

  404

  342

  Total

  1,648

  1,738

  1,687

  1,713

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Perry Miller
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 May,Official Report, column 84, if he will specify the reasons for the departure in February 1993 of Mr. Perry Miller, his former special adviser; and what payments were made to Mr. Perry Miller. [23046]

  Mr. Rifkind
  Mr. Perry Miller informed me that he wished to end his appointment as my special adviser in
  402
  Government forces as Moslem forces on the weekly situation maps produced for public circulation by British forces Headquarters in Bosnia.

  Mr. Soames
  I have asked for the map to be amended.

  Bevin Boys
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recognition is being given during the commemorations to mark the 50th anniversary of the end of the second world war for the role of Bevin boys who served in British coal mines. [23024]

  Mr. Soames
  Events to mark the 50th anniversaries of VE day and VJ day offer a welcome opportunity to pay tribute not only to the military but to the civilian contribution to the war effort. The Government are well aware of the vital role played by many who were not in uniform during the second world war. The Bevin boys have been invited, through the Bevin Boys Association, to be represented at this year's commemorative events.

  Defence Establishment, Malvern
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel at his Department's Defence Establishment at Malvern were(a) administrators and (b) scientists in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [23045]

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. David Clark, dated 9 May 1995:
  In today's written answer the Secretary of State for Defence informed you that I would be replying to your question concerning the number of administrators and scientists employed at DRA Malvern over the last 10 years.
  I am only able to provide you with figures showing staff numbers since 1 April 1992. Although the DRA was formed in April 1991 our staff database was not created until later in the year. I do not, therefore, have a breakdown of the 1991 staff numbers nor do I have figures for the earlier years. I have, however, shown in the table below the overall numbers working at Malvern. This separately identifies scientific and other technical staff who make an important contribution to our work. On the specific point about scientists, you will see that their numbers have grown significantly under the agency.

  order to take up a position in the private sector. Mr. Miller gave notice of his resignation as required under his terms and conditions of employment and received no payment on giving up his appointment.

  Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the relationship between the Defence Export Services Organisation and the Defence Sales Agency. [22578]
  403
  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 20 December 1994,Official Report, column 1197, about the function of the Disposal Sales Agency.

  Accounting Officers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times in the last 10 years, and on which dates, his departmental accounting officer has issued a minute in that role; and what was the issue in each case. [22567]

  Mr. Soames
  Where a Minister overrules an accounting officer's advice on an issue of propriety or regularity or one of value for money, the accounting officer should request a written instruction from the Minister to take the action in question.

  Cases in which such an instruction has been issued were set out in my answers to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on 10 March 1994, Official Report, column 401, and to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 22 March 1994, Official Report, column 174, and in the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 9 March 1995, Official Report, columns 459–60.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the reduction by relevant category in the number of his Department's posts resulting from the competing for quality programme. [22571]

  Mr. Freeman
  Under my Department's delegated financial structure, budget holders operate within financial allocations which cover a range of operating costs, including staff. Between April 1992 and September 1994, some 14,700 service and civilian posts were reviewed under the CFQ programme. As a result, reductions of 11,167 posts have been proposed. Details of the categories of the posts reduced are not held centrally.

  Army Base Repair Organisation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the possible sale of ABRO Old Dalby, Leicestershire. [22775]

  Mr. Freeman
  As announced on 31 January,Official Report, column 556, we are proceeding with the withdrawal of MOD activity away from the workshop as my Department is no longer able to make effective use of the modern high technology facilities at the site for their existing purpose. We are considering possible alternative defence uses for the site, but in the interim every effort will be made to encourage the private sector to put forward innovative proposals for alternative uses. My Department is working closely with the local authorities on this. Marketing consultants have been appointed and we will shortly be mounting an expressions of interest marketing campaign to determine what demand there might be for commercial uses for the site.

  Portland Naval Base
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the meetings held in the last 12 months between(a) Ministers and (b) officials of his
  404
  Department and prospective bidders for the purchase of the Portland naval base. [23129]

  Mr Soames
  No Ministers have had meetings in the last 12 months to discuss with prospective purchasers the sale of the Portland naval base. Officials have met prospective purchasers on 11 occasions during that period.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) representations received from officials of the National Audit Office and (b) the meetings with officials of the NAO held to discuss the role of the Portland naval base. [23131]

  Mr. Soames
  A meeting about the sale of the Portland naval base was held between my officials and those of the National Audit Office on 25 April. No representations have been received from officials of the National Audit Office about the sale of the site.

  A1 Yamamah Offset Programme
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the progress and the value of offset projects arising from the A1 Yamamah I and II agreement. [23130.]

  Mr. Freeman
  Six projects have been implemented since the A1 Yamamah offset programme was launched in 1989. They are as follows:

  1. Saudi development and training—providing a wide range of vocational training packages and performing training assessment tasks. The company is fully operational.

  2. Aircraft accessories and components co-servicing of vital aircraft components. Commenced full operations in mid 1993.

  3. Glaxo Saudi Arabia—a facility manufacturing ethical pharmaceutical products. Trial production commenced in March 1995.

  4. United Sugar Co—Tate and Lyle are shareholders in a world scale sugar refinery project. Construction will start in Julie 1995.

  5. Middle East Propulsion Co—the repair and maintenance of civil and military gas turbines. Rolls-Royce are partners in this project. Factory construction to start in mid 1995.

  6. Cyclar—a licensing venture to produce aromatics from Liquefied Petroleum Gas using a process jointly developed by UOP and BP. The project is still at the pre-engineering stage.

  The total value of the projects is approximately £460 million.

  Defence Equipment Gifts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 May,Official Report, columns 87–88, if he will list the overseas Governments receiving gifts of defence equipment since April 1992, the date of the gift, the nature of the defence equipment and its estimated value. [22915]

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is as follows:

  Country

  Date

  Item

  Value £

  Canada

  15/10/92

  Armoured vehicles

  1,600

  Nepal

  16/02/93

  70 light machine guns

  7,000

  Lebanon

  08/10/93

  500 self-loading rifles

  40,000

  Albania

  21/12/93

  ACR430 system

  10,000

  France

  31/03/94

  AR martel missiles

  30,000

  Belize

  11/03/94

  Harrier GR3

  1,200

  Nepal

  01/08/94

  SLRs LMGs

  10,000

  Jordan

  15/12/94

  Single Sea Hunter andspares

  22,000

  Australia

  09/01/95

  Gannet MKT5

  5,000

  Auxiliary Air Force
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what redundancy or other compensation payments are available to members of the Auxiliary Air Force whose contracts were terminated as part of "Options for Change" in April 1994. [22768]

  Mr. Menzies-Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what redundancy or other payments will be made to members of the Auxiliary Air Force whose contracts were terminated as part of "Options for Change" in April 1994. [23332]

  Mr. Soames
  There is no provision in the regulations for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force to make redundancy or other compensation payments to those who are discharged on the disbandment of their unit.

  Mr. Menzies-Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the employment status of members of the Auxiliary Air Force who were employed on various bases up until April 1994, and whose contracts were terminated as part of "Options for Change". [22767]

  Mr. Soames
  All those who served with the two Royal Auxiliary Air Force units which disbanded on 18 April last year were volunteer members of that force.

  Magherafelt Base (Fire)
  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when he intends to publish the results of the inquiry into the fire at the Royal Irish Regiment base in Magherafelt. [22916]

  Mr. Soames
  The board of inquiry into the fire at the Royal Irish Regiment's base at Magherafelt has not yet been completed. The results of the inquiry will be made available as soon as possible after completion.

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what use his Department makes of hand-held and car-based mobile telephones; what were the costs for each financial year of these services since mobile telephones were first introduced to his Department; and how many mobile telephones are currently in use. [23438]

  Mr. Soames
  Some use is made within my Department of hand-held and car-based mobile telephones for routine administrative purposes. No central record is maintained, however, either of the numbers of mobile telephones in use at present or of the aggregate cost to the Department. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  HMS Victorious
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many missiles HMS Victorious will collect from the United States facility at Kings bay prior to her deployment; and if he will make a statement. [23521]

  Mr. Rifkind
  HMS Victorious will collect 12 Trident D5 missiles from the US Navy's strategic weapon facility Atlantic at Kings Bay, Georgia, prior to her deployment at around the turn of the year.

HEALTH

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the percentage change in nurses' pay in the last six years; what data source were used in calculating it; if she will give details of the calculation; and if the figure applies to nurses across the United Kingdom. [23294]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department of Employment's new earnings survey data show that nurses' average earnings in Great Britain increased by 78 per cent. between April 1988 and April 1994.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account the Government have taken of the change in clinical grading in calculating the change in nurses' pay in the past six years. [23295]

  Mr. Malone
  The 78 per cent. increase in nurses' average earnings takes account of all the factors which have led to increases in earnings.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts have agreed the terms of local pay schemes for nurses and midwives. [21678]

  Mr. Malone
  It is understood that, by 2 May, at least 195 trusts in England had made their offers known, of which 147 are of around 3 per cent.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of medical negligence involving the national health service have been settled in the last three years; and how many have remained outstanding. [22204]

  Mr. Malone
  Information about outstanding cases is not available centrally. For information about numbers of cases settled, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 6 March at columns 41–42.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment her Department has made of the procedures for dealing with claims for medical negligence in the national health service; and what proposals she has to improve the system; [22199]

  (2) what plans she has to speed up the process of dealing with claims for medical negligence involving the national health service. [22200]

  Mr. Malone
  The clinical negligence scheme for trusts, which I announced on 29 March, will contribute to improved claims handling in those national health service trusts which decide to become members. Guidance will also be made available to all trusts on claims handling procedures. In addition, we are introducing a pilot mediation scheme in two English regions which will enable the parties to agree a satisfactory outcome without going to court.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures for the length of time taken to resolve cases of medical negligence involving the national health service. [22202]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information she has on medical surveys in the United Kingdom linking high levels of serious illness with dust from opencast mining, with particular reference to areas covered and number of cases; [22616]

  (2) if she will commission monitoring of levels of serious illness in areas where there is opencast mining generating significant levels of dust. [22617]

  Mr. Sackville
  Research on the effects on health of air pollution, including that of dust from opencast mining, has been referred to the independent advisory Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants. COMEAP has considered the suggestion that opencast coal mining might have a deleterious effect on the health of those living close to the workings. A study by Temple in 1992 was considered and COMEAP agreed that the results reported were consistent with an association between the opening of an opencast mine and an increase in asthma consultations. However, the committee considered that local awareness of the opening of the mine and concern about its possible effects on health were plausible explanations for the association and that further work would be needed to sustain a causal hypothesis.

  In 1994, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Health and the Medical Research Council issued a joint call for proposals for work on air pollution and respiratory disease. The Department is currently considering the proposals that were put forward, including studies on the health effects of opencast mining.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will commission research to ascertain whether local authorities are using the personal expenses allowance to support married people whose spouse is in a local authority provided residential or nursing home care; and if she will make a statement. [22592]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have invited, but not as yet received, hard evidence to suggest that local authorities are not sensibly using their discretion to help spouses at home. However, the residential accommodation charging rules are kept under constant review, including whether any action in this area is necessary.

  Cervical Cancer
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports she has received of women suffering from cervical cancer whose condition has worsened as a result of experimental treatment carried out by health trusts and health authorities. [22605]

  Mr. Sackville
  We are aware that several women who received radiotherapy treatment for cervical cancer in the 1980s have experienced significant adverse effects which they believe to have been caused by the treatment that they received as part of a research project.

  Medical (Professional Performance) Bill
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her oral statement of 25 April in response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East, (Mr. Congdon),Official Report, column 700, in what circumstances the provisions of the
  408
  Medical (Professional Performance) Bill would apply in the case of a single act committed by a doctor falling short of serious professional misconduct. [22408]

  Mr. Malone
  A single incident would come within the performance procedures if the action of the doctor suggested that his general standard of professional performance could be seriously deficient. In those circumstances, the single incident would trigger an assessment to establish whether there was a pattern of serious deficiency.

  NHS Trust Hospitals
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the NHS trust hospitals built by the private sector and operated by the private sector; and if she will make a statement. [22665]

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no national health service trust hospitals built by the private sector and operated by the private sector.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the provision for transplant patients in respect of their specific dental care needs; and what are the particular treatments and financial assistance available for the dental care needs of transplant patients. [22670]

  Mr. Malone
  The range of treatments available to transplant patients is not different from that available to other dental patients. The general dental service, hospital dental service and community dental service are able to provide a range of treatments which deal comprehensively with any complication which may arise as a result of immunosuppression treatment in transplant patients. Transplant patients are subject to the same eligibility requirements for exemption from, or financial assistance towards, dental costs as other dental patients.

  Yellow Card System
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of general practitioners are making use of yellow card systems for reporting adverse side-effects of drugs. [22926]

  Mr. Sackville
  The survey by the department of clinical pharmacology at the university of Newcastle upon Tyne and the Medicines Control Agency published in March 1995 found that 77 per cent. of general practitioners had reported one or more suspected adverse reactions through the yellow card scheme.

  NHS Trust Meetings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will include in the new code on openness in the NHS a requirement for NHS trusts to hold their meetings in public and for health authorities to stop the practice of routinely closing their meetings to the public for significant parts of their agendas for items which are not confidential. [22731]
  409
  Mr. Malone
  It is already a requirement that national health service trusts must hold an annual public meeting. The code of practice on openness in the NHS, published in April 1995, points to holding more public meetings as good practice, in line with the steps already being taken by an increasing number of trusts.

  Health authorities must hold all their board meetings in public, though there is a provision for certain issues to be taken in a private part of the meeting. Whether and when to exclude the press and public is a matter for authorities themselves to decide.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many, and what proportion of, vacancies advertised by her Department, and by each of her Department's agencies, in the last three years have listed the attainment of NVQs as an acceptable entry requirement; and, of those, how many have required(a) level 1 NVQs, (b) level 2 NVQs, (c) level 3 NVQs and (d) other level NVQs. [22955]

  Mr. Sackville
  No advertisements placed by the Department or its agencies listed the attainment of national vocational qualifications as an entry requirement.

  Respite Care
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure that the respite care needs of disabled people are fulfilled. [22694]

  Mr. Bowis
  The improvement in provision of respite care for disabled people has been a key objective of the community care reforms from the outset. Local authorities and health authorities must make provision for all local needs, including those for respite care. In the 1994–95 community care monitoring round, local authorities reported that they had been able to increase the number of respite care admissions above those made in the same period in the previous year. An extra £30 million is available this year, in the special transitional grant, for developing home and respite care.

  Accounting Officers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times in the last 10 years, and on which dates, her departmental accounting officer has issued a minute in that role; and what was the issue in each case. [22555]

  Mr. Sackville
  Available records show no cases in the last 10 years in which the accounting officer has requested a written instruction from a Minister because the Minister has overruled the accounting officer's advice on an issue of propriety, regularity or value for money.

  Treatment Costs
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the percentage change in the average cost of treating an acute patient between 1982–83 and 1992–93. [22776]

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures for 1992–93 are shown in the table. It is not possible to compare average costs between 1982–83 and 1992–93 because of changes in accounting practices. Since 1991–92, figures have included overheads and capital charges.
  410

  Acute Specialties: Average Costs1

  In-patients including day cases(cost per finished consultant episode) £

  Out-patients cost per attendance £

  1992–93

  1,009.27

  56.37

  1 Source:

  Annual financial returns of regional, district and special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals and national health service trusts.

  Heatherwood Hospital
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what has been the change in the provision of paediatric, maternity and accident and emergency services at Heatherwood hospital over the past year: and what change is planned in the next year; [22830]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the consultations on the future of Heatherwood and Wexham Park NHS trust; [22831]

  (3) if she will make it her policy that existing paediatric, maternity and accident and emergency services be maintained at Heatherwood hospital before the outcome of the consultation on the future of Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals trust. [22829]

  Mr. Sackville
  There has been no significant change in the provision of paediatric, maternity and accident and emergency services at Heatherwood hospital over the past year. The future pattern of these services is currently the subject of public consultation and this has been extended to 6 June. There will be no change to the provision of these services prior to the outcome of the consultation exercise.

  Camden and Islington Health Authority
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from which budget the legal fees and moneys to settle the case of Dr. Chris Johnstone v. Camden and Islington health authority will come from; and to what extent her Department has underwritten the costs incurred by Camden and Islington health authority. [22901]

  Mr. Malone
  Any legal costs incurred by Camden and Islington health authority as a result of compensation claims made by former staff who were employed in the 10 trusts located within the boundaries of Camden and Islington before trust status was granted are paid out of a legal costs reserve created by the authority. If any claims were to exceed that reserve, the authority could seek access to the North Thames region's legal reserve.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on Dr. Johnstone's case against Camden and Islington health authority and its settlement with particular reference to her Department's involvement; and if she will indicate how much Camden and Islington health authority has spent in the last six years in legal fees on this case. [22902]

  Mr. Malone
  Dr. Johnstone's legal action began in March 1989 and he withdrew his claim on 24 April 1995. In order to minimise costs, Camden and Islington health authority paid £5,600 into court with the offer to meet his
  411
  expenses; there was no admission of liability. The decision to reach this settlement was a matter for the authority and the Department of Health was not involved.

  To date, the authority has spent £69,327 in legal fees.

  Mental Health
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the percentage of patient episodes that were mental health related in the last available year; [22754]

  (2) what was the total number of mental health related patients episodes in the last available year. [22753]

  Mr. Bowis
  The number and percentage of finished consultant episodes in England for 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available, for the mental illness and mental handicap specialities are 292,000 and 2.9 per cent.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total sum given to mental health related voluntary organisations in the last available year. [22756]

  Mr. Bowis
  Awards under the Department's section 64 general scheme of grants to voluntary organisations in the field of mental illness totalled £2.46 million in 1994–95.

  Housing and Health
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the relationship between housing and health. [22758]

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the level of NHS expenditure undertaken each year to treat ill health caused by poor housing conditions. [23186]

  Mr. Sackville
  Due to the complex interaction of a number of factors, it is difficult to quantify the effects of any one factor and to establish causal links between housing conditions and health.

  No estimates have been made of national health service expenditure on ill health related to housing conditions.

  Royal Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of the inquiry set up in December 1994 by Bruce Martin QC on behalf of the Royal Hospitals NHS trust into the leaking of confidential documents relating to Sir Colin Berry; what were the conclusions of the inquiry; when the findings will be made public; who will bear the cost of the inquiry; and which individual or individuals initiated the inquiry. [22821]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the Royal Hospitals NHS trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact the trust chairman, Sir Derek Boorman, for details.

  Junior Doctors
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many junior doctors are currently working more than an average of 72 hours per week. [22903]

  Mr. Malone
  At 30 September 1994, the latest date for which firm figures are available, there were 3,870 junior doctors contracted for more than an average of 72 hours a week in hard-pressed on-call posts. There were a further 412
  2,196 junior doctors contracted for more than 72 hours a week in non-hard-pressed on-calls posts which are not subject to the current targets for reducing hours.

  Our task forces conducted a further monitoring round on 8 February this year and I expect to be able to announce the results of that exercise very shortly.

  Upper Limb Disorders
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been conducted into work-related upper limb disorders and repetitive strain injury; and if she will make a statement. [22910]

  Mr. Sackville
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Medical Research Council is not currently supporting any research specifically into work-related upper limb disorders or repetitive strain injury, but is willing to consider scientifically based sound proposals for research. I understand that the Health and Safety Executive, which is responsible for policy on prevention of upper limb disorders caused by work, has sponsored a number of studies with particular emphasis on finding practical means of intervention to prevent and control risks. The Health and Safety Executive is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Voluntary Organisations (Funding)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total sum given by her Department to voluntary organisations in the last available year. [22755]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) on 5 April,Official Report, column 1212.

  Death Rates
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the death rate in socio-economic group(a) 1 and (b) 5 in each year since 1979. [22757]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mortality of men in the longitudinal study 1976 cohort, by Registrar General's social class, for the periods 1979–81, 1982–85 and 1986–89 will be published with commentary in "Population Trends 80" in June 1995. Infant mortality by Registrar General's social class is published annually in the DH3 mortality series, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Tobacco
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has that(a) banning tobacco advertising and (b) increasing the price of cigarettes will decrease the consumption of tobacco. [22759]

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1992, the Department reviewed all the available evidence on the effect of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption. The evidence is listed in the discussion document, "Effect of Tobacco Advertising on Tobacco Consumption", copies of which are available in the Library. The Government concluded on the basis of
  413
  the evidence reviewed that a ban on tobacco advertising in the United Kingdom would not have a major impact on reducing levels of smoking.

  The Department recently published its view of the effect of price on tobacco consumption in the pamphlet, "The Importance of Price in Reducing Tobacco Consumption", copies of which are available in the Library. Studies show that an increase of 10 per cent. in the price of tobacco products can be expected to lead to a drop of between 3 per cent. and 6 per cent. in tobacco consumption. The studies are cited in the pamphlet.

  Registration of Doctors
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to seek amendments to the Medical Acts in relation to limited registration of doctors and the standardisation of registration. [22766]

  Mr. Malone
  None at present.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will require the London ambulance service to postpone further action for changing the distribution of staff and reorganisation of rotas, as recommended by its operational research in health report, until after the publication of the report on the London ambulance service by the Health Committee. [23102]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the London ambulance service.

  Unemployment (Health Costs)
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the level of NHS expenditure undertaken each year to treat ill health caused by unemployment. [23185]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  East London and City Health Authority (Land Sales)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is responsible for the sale of any building and land within the area of the East London and City health authority found surplus to requirements; what public body has the duty of monitoring or auditing such sales; to what accounts and for what purposes the proceeds of any sale are devoted; and which authorities makes decisions related to the proceeds of such sales. [23612]

  Mr. Sackville
  Property which has not been transferred to a national health service trust is retained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That property will be managed by the local regional health authority, which in this instance is the North Thames regional health authority. The regional health authority will dispose of the property. The proceeds will show in its accounts, and it will decide how those proceeds will 'be used within its capital development programme. Those sale proceeds will be reinvested in the provision of health care.

  Land and property transactions in the NHS are subject to policy, procedures and guidance issued by the NHS executive as part of Estatecode.

  The accounts of health authorities and NHS trusts are subject to annual examination by auditors appointed by the Audit Commission.

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to receive the report of the body she has established to examine the report on the use of premises at St. Bartholomew's hospital not to be used by the Royal Hospital trust; and what criteria she has asked it to apply in making such recommendations other than to reduce the call on public funds. [23611]

  Mr. Malone
  Sir Ronald Grierson has agreed to lead a project team which is being established to advise the Royal Hospital trust on future use of the Smithfield site. Terms of reference for the project team have yet to be finalised.

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what use her Department makes of hand-held and car-based mobile telephones; what were the costs for each financial year of these services since mobile telephones were first introduced to her Department; and how many mobile telephones are currently in use. [23436]

  Mr. Sackville
  Mobile telephones are issued to mainly medical, scientific, professional and managerial staff who are required to maintain contact with the Department and the national health service when travelling or while out of normal working hours. Some 500 mobile telephones were in use in 1993–94 at an annual running cost of £302,000. For 1994–95, the corresponding figures are 477 mobile telephones at a cost of £288,000. Figures are not available prior to 1993–94.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mobile telephones used by her Department have been cloned during the last 12 months. [23503]

  Mr. Sackville
  Four.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations her Department has made to the Department of Trade and Industry concerning the need for legislation to prevent the cloning of mobile telephones. [23479]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what costs her Department has incurred during the last 12 months as a result of cloning of mobile telephones being used by her Department, with particular reference to the making of unauthorised calls. [23495]

  Mr. Sackville
  None. The mobile telephone air time providers have not charged the Department for calls made by cloned telephones.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps her Department has taken to prevent the cloning of telephones being used by her Department; and if her Department has discussed this matter with any official agencies. [23465]

  Mr. Sackville
  Since cloning has not been a significant problem experienced in the Department, no preventive advice has yet been issued and no discussions have taken place with any official agencies.

  Thalidomide
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has(a) funded and (b) evaluated into the transmission of damage caused by Thalidomide across generations. [23512]
  415
  Mr. Malone
  The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. However, the Department has set up an advisory group on research into congenital limb reduction defects and a report was published in February this year recommending that a review of relevant research be carried out. The Government have also established a sub-group of the inter-departmental group on disability to focus on the delivery of health and other services. The group's report will reflect concerns of the Thalidomide action group, the trust and the society.

  A number of initiatives are being taken forward by the Government, including providing more detailed knowledge for the medical profession on the longer-term effects of disability caused by Thalidomide.

  Members' Inquiries
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times in each of the last three years the NHS Executive has issued advice to chairmen and regional directors of health authorities and trusts on how to reply to the written inquiries of hon. Members. [23396]

  Mr. Malone
  It is a primary role of the national health service executive to give advice to the NHS and

  Medium Secure Units: Places 1991–1995 by Regional Health Authority

  Regional health authority 1994

  Regional health authority 1994

  January 1991

  January 1992

  January 1993

  June 1994

  March 1995

  East Anglian

  East Anglian and Oxford

  34

  34

  34

  89

  121

  Oxford

  25

  25

  25

  North East Thames

  North Thames

  14

  14

  14

  108

  108

  North West Thames

  46

  46

  48

  South East Thames

  South Thames

  85

  85

  85

  90

  90

  South West Thames

  —

  —

  —

  South Western

  South West

  60

  60

  65

  94

  108

  Wessex

  26

  28

  29

  West Midlands

  West Midlands Trent

  77

  77

  77

  77

  77

  Trent

  Trent

  45

  48

  48

  48

  48

  Yorkshire

  North East and Yorkshire

  44

  44

  44

  101

  101

  Northern

  21

  25

  27

  North Western

  North West

  82

  82

  82

  110

  139

  Mersey

  36

  36

  36

  Total

  —

  595

  604

  614

  717

  792

  Source: DH census returns and NHS Estates surveys for the medium secure central capital programme.

ENVIRONMENT

  Capital Finance Regulations
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will amend the capital finance regulations to enable local authorities in England to fund new energy efficiency measures in local authority housing through operating leases without these counting against the authority's capital spending limits. [22267]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The capital finance regulations do not specify the kinds of equipment which may be the
  416
  it has done so on numerous occasions during the past three years.

  Medium Secure Units
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by regional health authority and by district health authority the current number of beds in medium secure units run by health authorities in England; what were the figures for each of the last four years; and if she will make a statement. [23506]

  Mr. Bowis
  The figures for regions are shown in the table. They do not include places in national health service interim secure psychiatric units—many of which are of medium secure standard—or those funded by health authorities in independent sector facilities. Information for individual districts is not available centrally.

  These places have been funded from the NHS central capital programme. Nearly 400 more places funded from this source are due to open by the end of next year.

  Total central NHS capital investment in the medium secure programme amounts to more than £100 million—at 1993 prices—of which over £47 million was allocated between 1991 and 1995. In addition, further medium secure places are being developed by regions from mainstream NHS capital programme.

  There were no purpose-built NHS medium secure places in 1979, despite the fact that the Glancy committee had recommended them in its 1974 report.

  subject of operating leases. Instead, they lay down general criteria for such leases which ensure that the risk of ownership remains with the lessor. It is for local authorities and their auditors to decide whether these criteria are met in any particular case.

  Local Government (Derbyshire)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people were employed by each local authority in Derbyshire(a) full-time and (b) part-time excluding teachers in each year since 1983. [22164]
  417
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information is given in the table.

  The levels of employment in individual authorities are not directly comparable because of variations in, for

  Numbers employed by Local Authorities in Derbyshire: General services (excluding teachers/lecturers and law and order) at March of each year

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Authority

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Derbyshire

  9,232

  14,261

  9,338

  14,626

  9,525

  15,206

  9,226

  18,411

  9,470

  19,538

  9,591

  21,108

  Amber Valley

  558

  73

  575

  87

  561

  86

  557

  82

  554

  84

  547

  97

  Bolsover

  528

  68

  536

  57

  495

  82

  481

  81

  466

  90

  460

  106

  Chesterfield

  1,343

  157

  1,382

  160

  1,431

  75

  1,482

  183

  1,137

  159

  1,154

  189

  Derby

  2,405

  275

  2,386

  280

  2,333

  253

  2,294

  256

  1,939

  242

  1,974

  248

  Derbyshire Dales

  368

  139

  384

  145

  369

  149

  347

  150

  358

  132

  372

  137

  Erewash

  648

  93

  634

  96

  624

  94

  634

  98

  649

  106

  641

  106

  High Peak

  479

  82

  478

  96

  483

  114

  467

  125

  465

  140

  470

  135

  North East Derbyshire

  672

  165

  669

  158

  661

  158

  665

  153

  684

  149

  690

  141

  South Derbyshire

  305

  63

  310

  79

  315

  90

  320

  90

  327

  85

  321

  105

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  19941

  Authority

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Pan-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Derbyshire

  9,795

  22,383

  9,846

  21,824

  9,935

  21,199

  9,490

  20,498

  9,402

  20,049

  8,275

  18,364

  Amber Valley

  526

  70

  513

  64

  487

  55

  510

  72

  510

  94

  517

  114

  Bolsover

  459

  100

  455

  95

  429

  89

  419

  87

  411

  100

  395

  98

  Chesterfield

  1,139

  191

  1,251

  263

  1,174

  302

  1,134

  244

  1,063

  245

  1,047

  254

  Derby

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,438

  174

  1,460

  242

  1,458

  240

  1,401

  245

  Derbyshire Dales

  371

  140

  331

  135

  349

  116

  353

  112

  351

  121

  313

  134

  Erewash

  613

  101

  552

  111

  543

  148

  551

  183

  573

  184

  552

  186

  High Peak

  447

  142

  476

  166

  488

  169

  465

  159

  472

  166

  475

  186

  North East Derbyshire

  718

  144

  777

  139

  759

  135

  770

  165

  769

  171

  737

  190

  South Derbyshire

  328

  118

  326

  115

  358

  129

  362

  153

  373

  153

  352

  161

  Notes:

  1 Provisional data.

  n/a: Data not available.

  1. Within General Services, education, highways, fire services and social services are administered by Derbyshire County Council. The other authorities shown are District Councils which, amongst other services, administer housing, planning and refuse collection.

  2. Polytechnics and higher education institutions were transferred from the local authority sector in April 1989.

  3. Further education institutions became the responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council in April 1993.

  Source:

  Joint Staffing Watch for England.

  Avian Pest Species
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on avian pest species. [22343]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 1 May,Official Report, column 22.

  Peregrine Falcon
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to protect the peregrine falcon. [22344]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  All naturally occurring wild birds in the UK are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which fulfils the UK's obligation under the EC birds directive to protect wild birds. Additionally, anyone found guilty of an offence against this species is liable to a special penalty.

  Article 4.1 of the birds directive requires member states to take special conservation methods for certain vulnerable species, including the establishment of a network of special protection areas and breeding peregrine falcons are found on several classified sites.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many licences for taking wild
  418
  example, population structure and social characteristics, the extent of the use of private firms and contractors and the level of work undertaken for other authorities and public bodies on an agency basis.

  peregrine falcons have been issued in each year since 1984; [22359]

  (2) how many quarry licences for falconry were issued in each year since 1984; and what quarry species were involved. [22360]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Details of licences issued under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are contained in the reports by the United Kingdom to the European Community on derogations under article 9 of the directive on the conservation of wild birds, 79/409/EEC. Copies of the derogation report are held in the Library. Figures are not yet available for 1994.

  Wild Birds' Eggs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what circumstances it is possible to confiscate wild birds' eggs which have been illegally collected after the Protection of Birds Act 1954 came into force; how many cases have occurred of eggs collected after 1954 but before 1981 being confiscated in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [22345]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Under the Protection of Birds Act 1954, section 1(c), it was an offence to take or keep wild bird eggs except in specified circumstances. The present
  419
  law regarding the possession of wild bird eggs is set out in section 1(2) and (3) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Section 12(1)(b) of the 1954 Act enabled the police to:
  "seize and detain for the purposes of proceedings under this Act any wild bird, whether alive or dead, or any egg or nest of a wild bird, or any weapon or other article capable of being used to kill or take wild birds, which may be in that person's possession."

  Section 19(1)(d) of the 1981 Act contains similar provisions for offences committed under that Act.

  No records of court confiscations are kept centrally.

  Migratory Geese
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the killing of migratory geese. [22346]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  All wild birds, including migratory species, in the UK are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which enacts our statutory obligations under the EC birds directive. Those migratory geese—greylag, pink-footed and white-fronted—which are included on schedule 2 to the Act can be hunted outside the close season. Licences may be given for killing geese and other birds for the purposes specified in section 16 of the Act.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, by name, the planning applications for opencast mining in the United Kingdom which have been refused by the local planning authorities and which have gone to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate in the last 10 years; how many have been successful and approved by the Planning Inspectorate; how many have been rejected by the Planning Inspectorate followed by the reversal of the decision by him; and how many have been successful and approved by the Planning Inspectorate but rejected by him. [22609]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The provision of information on planning appeals is the responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Shepley to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 5 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about planning applications for opencast mining which have, on appeal, been decided by the Planning Inspectorate or the Secretary of State in the last 10 years.
  Information on planning appeals decided before January 1988 is not available. Since then, 80 appeals involving opencast coal extraction have been determined-49 by Inspectors and 31 by the Secretary of State after exercising his power to recover jurisdiction of the appeals. 47 appeals were allowed (30 by Inspectors and 17 by the Secretary of State), and 33 were dismissed (19 by Inspectors and 14 by the Secretary of State). Details of these appeals are given in the enclosed tables.
  Decisions taken by Inspectors are final, and the Secretary of State has no powers to overrule them. In respect of the appeals decided by the Secretary of State, his decision was not in accord with an Inspector's recommendation on only one occasion—that for the former Stagshaw Colliery, Corbridge, Northumberland (R2900/A/91/190575) which was dismissed on 18 February 1993.
  As the tables are too long to be printed in the Official Report, arrangements will be made for a copy to be deposited in the Library.

  European Regional Development Funding
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the projects within the Greater London area that have received European regional development funding in each of the last three years. [22405]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department's records are as follows:

  Name of project

  Borough

  Amount paid £

  1992–93

  Kings Cross Technology Project

  Camden

  23,000.00

  Central Hackney Computer Project

  Hackney

  275,425.00

  North London Technopark

  Haringey

  150,577.20

  Financial Services Sector Training

  Islington

  21,282.50

  Interactive Multi-Media Workshop

  Islington

  67,500.00

  Mobile Employment and Training Advice Project

  Islington

  1,644.50

  WELLSTEC Training Centre

  Islington

  64,441.00

  Angell Town Enterprise Centre and Workshop Units

  Lambeth

  456,220.00

  Atlantic Road, Brixton

  Lambeth

  135,734.50

  Milton Court Childcare Centre

  Lewisham

  57,000.00

  Pepys Community Enterprise Units

  Lewisham

  152,443.50

  CADCAM (computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing) Centre

  Southwark

  421,142.50

  Bethnal Green Training Centre

  Tower Hamlets

  242,000.00

  St. Marys Ward West

  Tower Hamlets

  247,500.00

  Total grant paid in 1992–193 from European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for projects within Greater London

  2,315,910.70

  1993–94

  Miller's House Housemill

  Newham

  15,533.50

  1994–95

  KONVER (a Community Initiative assisting regions heavily dependent on the defence sector)

  Greenwich

  76,717.00

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many licences were granted for the taking of birds of prey from the wild; and how many birds of prey were taken under such licences, by species, in each year since 1982; [22361]

  (2) how many falconry licences were issued in each year since 1982, broken down by the categories and numbers of prey species involved; and if figures are collected by the Department in respect of the numbers of prey taken. [22362]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Details of licences issued under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are contained in the reports by the United Kingdom to the European Community on derogations under article 9 of the directive on the conservation of wild birds, 79/409/EEC. Copies of the derogation report are held in the Library. Figures are not available for 1982, 1983 or 1994.

  Accounting Officers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment how many times in the last 10 years, and on what dates, his departmental accounting officer has issue a minute in that role; and what was the issue in each case. [22566]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Where a Minister overrules an accounting officer's advice on an issue of propriety or regularity or one of value for money the accounting officer should request a written instruction from the Minister to take the action in question.

  I am not aware that any such instruction has been issued to the accounting officer of my Department during the period in question.

  All such instructions are reported to the Comptroller and Auditor General who, after making whatever investigations he considers appropriate, will report his findings to the Public Accounts Committee.

  Opencasting, Tinsley
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he or any of his Ministers gave approval to the agreement between Sheffield development corporation and Budge which split responsibility for the provision of the infrastructure for an airport at Tinsley, Sheffield, and the opencasting of the Tinsley site; [22705]

  (2) if he will undertake a public inquiry into the agreement between Sheffield development corporation and Budge, in relation to the profit accruing to RJB Mining from opencasting at Tinsley, Sheffield, and the liquidation of A. F. Budge and the effect on the infrastructure for an airport; [22711]

  (3) what involvement and knowledge he and his Department had about the agreement reached between Sheffield development corporation and Budge which divided responsibility for providing the infrastructure for an airport at Tinsley, Sheffield, and the authority for operating the site. [22713]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There was never a joint agreement covering coal extraction and the construction of an airport at Tinsley. Coal extraction was subject to an agreement between A. F. Budge (Mining) Ltd. and British Coal Opencast and operated from 1989.

  In 1990, Ministers in my Department gave approval to the sale of land by Sheffield development corporation to A. F. Budge (Mining) Ltd. for the construction of an airport under a development agreement with the corporation.

  Ministers were not involved in the later transfer of this agreement from A. F. Budge (Mining) Ltd. to Sheffield Airport Ltd. a subsidiary of the A. F. Budge parent group. Sheffield development corporation informed my Department of the proposed transfer but no further approval was necessary from my Department as the parent company guarantee was to remain in place.

  We have no plans for a public inquiry.

  Housing Association Tenants
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenants of housing associations in the west midlands have brought their homes for each 422
  year since 1979 under (a) right-to-buy legislation, (b) shared ownership schemes or (c) voluntary sales by housing associations. [22760]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The table below shows the numbers of tenants of housing associations in the west midlands who have bought their homes since 1989–90 under right-to-buy legislation and voluntary sales by housing associations; and the numbers of people purchasing properties under shared ownership schemes. Figures before 1989–90 are not available.

  Right to buy

  Shared ownership schemes

  Voluntary sales

  1979–80—1988–89

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1989–90

  5

  —

  2

  1990–91

  35

  —

  5

  1991–92

  229

  9

  23

  1992–93

  133

  2

  38

  1993–94

  132

  7

  29

  1994–95

  143

  4

  41

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many housing association tenants have taken up the tenants incentive scheme, or the previous home ownership for tenants of charitable housing associations scheme in the west midlands for each year since 1979. [22761]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The table shows the number of housing association tenants in the west midlands who have taken up the home ownership for tenants of charitable housing associations scheme and the tenants incentive scheme since 1984–85, when the home ownership scheme began.

  Home ownership for tenants of charitable housing associations

  Tenants incentive scheme

  1984–85

  8

  —

  1985–86

  64

  —

  1986–87

  33

  —

  1987–88

  45

  —

  1988–89

  20

  —

  1989–90

  156

  —

  1990–91

  —

  143

  1991–92

  —

  276

  1992–93

  —

  540

  1993–94

  —

  853

  1994–95

  —

  679

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 1 May, column 24, if he will make a statement on the possible conflicts of interest involving special advisers, listing the names of the individuals, the nature of the conflicts concerned and how the matters were resolved. [22904]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In accordance with their appointment letters, special advisers have reported any possible conflicts of interest emerging during their periods of service to senior officials or Ministers, and have followed the advice they received about the action required to avoid actual conflicts emerging.

  Right-to-buy Scheme
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information is available on the right-to-buy scheme in London. [23316]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The right-to-buy performance of London authorities has been monitored by my Department for a number of years. Annual monitoring is carried out of each authority's performance at the end of September, with poor performers submitting additional reports on a monthly basis. Data from the latest survey are given in the table.

  RTB2 and S.125 delays monitoring September 1994

  RTB2 delays

  September 1994 S125 delays

  Total delays

  September 1993 total delays

  Change from September 1993–94

  RTB sales in 1993–94

  City

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  24

  Barking

  0

  2

  2

  10

  -8

  424

  Barnet

  1

  7

  8

  8

  0

  1241

  Bexley

  0

  0

  0

  2

  -2

  1 2355

  Brent

  2

  2

  4

  1

  3

  1218

  Bromley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  4

  14

  18

  3

  15

  1361

  Croydon

  0

  0

  0

  3

  -3

  224

  Ealing

  7

  5

  12

  4

  8

  1332

  Enfield

  1

  5

  6

  8

  -2

  185

  Greenwich

  2

  1

  3

  17

  -14

  415

  Hackney

  5

  0

  5

  51

  -46

  1300

  Hammersmith

  3

  4

  7

  0

  7

  197

  Haringey

  1

  15

  16

  18

  -2

  1307

  Harrow

  3

  1

  4

  3

  1

  144

  Havering

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1196

  Hillingdon

  0

  3

  3

  16

  -13

  3594

  Hounslow

  2

  6

  8

  40

  -32

  1219

  Islington

  12

  31

  43

  118

  -75

  1308

  Kensington

  n/a

  0

  0

  6

  -6

  1153

  Kingston

  0

  4

  4

  0

  4

  89

  Lambeth

  5

  4

  9

  8

  1

  249

  Lewisham

  15

  7

  22

  19

  3

  400

  Merton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  127

  Newham

  5

  10

  15

  12

  3

  3340

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2207

  Richmond

  4

  5

  9

  6

  3

  144

  Southwark

  8

  12

  20

  22

  -2

  4582

  Sutton

  0

  6

  6

  12

  -6

  105

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5508

  Waltham Forest

  0

  13

  13

  15

  -2

  120

  Wandsworth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1389

  Westminster

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1295

  Total

  80

  158

  238

  403

  -165

  8,652

  London average

  2

  5

  7

  12

  -5

  262

  Notes:

  1 Incomplete date for 1993–94—available quarters data is grossed.

  2 Borough does not operate RTB but a similar scheme.

  3 No data for 1993–94 last available figures (1990–91) given.

  4 No data for 1993–94 last available figures (1991–92) given.

  5 No data for 1993–94 last available figures (1992–93) given.

  Objective 1 Programme
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much objective 1 money for Merseyside the Government are holding in(a) the Consolidated Fund, and (b) in other accounts; to what extent such money is yet allocated for projects, and if he will make a statement. [23162]
  424
  I am pleased to report that data for September 1994 show that the number of tenants whose applications are being unduly delayed continues to decline. Across London as a whole delays beyond statutory deadlines have fallen by over 40 per cent., from 403 to 238. This compares with over 15,000 delayed cases in March 1989 when the Government's "tenants sanctions" procedures came into effect.

  Only Hackney was monitored on a monthly basis in 1994. I am glad to say that Hackney's performance has continued to improve and I have recommended that monthly monitoring can now cease. To September 1994, over 185,000 dwellings have been sold under the right to buy schemes in London.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Merseyside objective 1 programme was approved in July 1994 and since then the European Commission has transferred £55.283 million to Government. These resources are held not in the Consolidated Fund but in accounts operated by Departments until they are claimed by, and paid to, project sponsors.
  425
  To date, £23.704 million has been authorised for payment to project sponsors. The balance continues to be used in funding the £65.498 million of schemes already approved in the first round of project submissions. The speed at which the funds will be paid to project sponsors is overwhelmingly dependent on the speed at which they deliver their schemes.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary. of State for the Environment whether he is ready to announce the conclusion of the review of radioactive waste management policy. [23587]

  Mr. Gummer
  In May last year, I announced that my Department would be heading a review of radioactive waste management policy to be conducted in parallel with, but separately from, the nuclear review. Reappraisal of the policy was necessary in view of the developments that had taken place in the 10 years since the Department published its strategy for the long-term management of radioactive waste. Our primary aim in conducting the review has been to ensure that radioactive waste, irrespective of whether it is produced by public sector or private sector operations, is managed in such a way as to ensure that people and the environment are not exposed to unacceptable risks either now or in the future.

  The review's preliminary conclusions were published in a consultation paper last August. All the responses received have been carefully considered and the final conclusions of the review will be published in a White Paper this summer. In advance of that, I am ready to announce the conclusions that have been reached on two issues—the timing of UK Nirex Ltd.'s proposed repository for intermediate-level waste, ILW, and the Government's policy in respect of decommissioning nuclear plant. These matters are relevant to the conclusions of the nuclear review, which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is announcing today. There are also proposals in the nuclear review White Paper about the future structure of Nirex.

  The Government continue to favour a policy of deep disposal rather than indefinite storage for ILW and consider it appropriate that Nirex should continue with its programme to identify a suitable site. The question had been raised of whether a delay of 50 years in construction of the repository might have advantages. However, the review concluded that the balance of argument was against any such delay. The Government therefore believe that the repository should be constructed as soon as reasonably practicable once a suitable site has been found, although the precise timetable will depend on the granting of planning consent and compliance with regulatory requirements, including the establishment of a sound safety case.

  We are aware of the concern expressed by environmental groups and others and that the options available to future generations should not be foreclosed by irreversible action taken now. However, given the length of time needed to develop the repository and the period over which it will remain operational, action now to pursue deep disposal leaves options open until at least the latter half of the next century.

  A planning inquiry is due to be held later this year into Nirex's application to construct a rock characterisation facility RCF, at Longlands farm near Sellafield to test
  426
  further the geology and hydrogeology of the site. I have already outlined the matters about which I particularly wish to be informed to help me reach my decision on this case. These do not include the merits of national policy on the deep disposal of ILW. It has been established through the courts that while, of course, Government policy can be a material consideration that may be taken into account at a local planning inquiry, it may not be disputed and made a central area of debate. Policy on deep disposal of ILW has, in any case, already been the subject of wide consultation in the course of the review.

  On the decommissioning of nuclear plant, the Government's view is that this should be undertaken as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so, taking account of all relevant factors. The Government will in future ask all nuclear operators to draw up strategies for decommissioning their redundant plant. These will need to include justification of the timetables proposed and a demonstration of the adequacy of the financial provision being made to implement the strategies. As with all other operations on nuclear sites, decommissioning will be undertaken in accordance with conditions attached to the nuclear site licence by the nuclear installations inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive in order to ensure the safety of the site, workers and the public. Disposal of wastes arising during decommissioning will be subject to regulation under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 by the environment agencies which will replace Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and, in Scotland, Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate.

  The current decommissioning strategy for Magnox and AGR power stations involves three stages—defuelling immediately on shutdown, dismantling buildings external to the reactor shield five to 10 years later, and demolition of the reactor itself 100 years after shutdown. Given that regulatory approval for decommissioning is required on a case-by-case basis, the Government believe—as we said in the preliminary conclusions of the review—that it would be unwise at present for the operators of nuclear power stations to take steps which would foreclose technically or economically the option of completing the decommissioning process on an earlier timescale should that be required, and that they should recognise, when provisioning, the potential uncertainties regarding the timing of the second and third stages. Nevertheless, the Government confirm the preliminary conclusion of the review that there are a number of potentially feasible and acceptable decommissioning strategies for nuclear power stations available to the operator, including the safestore strategy proposed by Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear. To ensure that operators' decommissioning strategies remain soundly based as circumstances change, they will be reviewed quinquennially by HSE, which will consult the environment agencies.

  The Government recognise that, in addition to nuclear power stations, a variety of other nuclear facilities are in the process of being decommissioned, or are to be decommissioned in the future. As with power stations, decisions on decommissioning these facilities should be taken on a case-by-case basis and the same general principles apply in respect of timing. Proposals for dealing with such facilities will need to be included in the operators' decommissioning strategies.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Overtime
  David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each agency and the central Department for which he is responsible(a) the total hours of overtime worked for which payment has

  1992–93

  Total hours of overtime worked

  Total amount paid in overtime £

  Days lost through sickness

  Department

  Education

  12,513

  119,238

  7,899

  Economic Development

  42,351

  376,740

  n/a

  Health and Social Services

  54,822

  620,099

  n/a

  Finance and Personnel

  77,900

  814,130

  n/a

  Northern Ireland Office

  1,564,319

  15,126,206

  99,933

  Environment1

  n/ad

  2,323,104

  n/ad

  Agriculture

  non-industrial

  127,609

  1,626,541

  n/a

  industrial

  148,173

  905,598

  16,715

  Agency

  Training and Employment Agency

  20,391

  181,758

  n/a

  Rate Collection Agency

  n/a

  126,871

  n/ad

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  n/a

  18,111

  n/ad

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  n/a

  257,227

  n/ad

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  n/a

  75,975

  n/ad

  Social Security Agency

  457,481

  4,868,448

  122,769

  Child Support Agency

  n/es

  n/es

  n/es

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  n/es

  n/es

  n/es

  Notes:

  1. Compensation Agency included in the Northern Ireland Office figures.

  1 Excludes Industrial Staff for whom information is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  n/a = Not available.

  n/ad = Not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  n/es = Not established.

  1993–94

  Total hours of overtime worked

  Total amount paid in overtime £

  Days lost through sickness

  Department

  Education

  14,492

  146,650

  8,794

  Economic Development

  38,879

  338,530

  12,664

  Health and Social Services

  37,953

  453,858

  14,605

  Finance and Personnel

  68,191

  679,487

  15,999

  Northern Ireland Office

  1,624,865

  15,931,760

  106,213

  Environment1

  n/ad

  2,171,950

  62,084

  Agriculture

  non-industrial

  105,868

  1,347,460

  38,496

  industrial

  130,931

  835,767

  19,751

  Agency

  Training and Employment Agency

  18,045

  157,357

  22,219

  Rate Collection Agency

  n/ad

  146,339

  4,371

  Ordnance Survey of NI

  n/ad

  10,450

  2,679

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  n/ad

  287,938

  2,572

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  n/ad

  29,619

  4,003

  Social Security Agency

  414,039

  4,397,492

  110,786

  Child Support Agency (NI)

  20,453

  214,298

  2,513

  Belfast Child Support Agency Centre (CSAC)3

  61,813

  684,619

  6,197

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  1,384

  16,123

  n/ad

  Notes:

  1. Compensation Agency included in the Northern Ireland Office figures.

  1 Excludes Industrial Staff for whom information is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  2 Costs for Belfast Child Support Agency Centre are wholly re-imbursed by CSAC (GB).

  n/ad = Not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  428
  been made, (b) the total amount paid in overtime and (c) the total time in days and its monetary equivalent lost through sickness in each of the last three years. [19679]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is listed. However, the monetary value of days lost through sickness cannot be provided, as there are too many variables involved and it would be difficult to rely on the accuracy of any such calculation.
  429

  1994–95

  Total hours of overtime worked

  Total amount paid in overtime £

  Days lost through sickness

  Department

  Education

  12,409

  117,052

  9,060

  Economic Development

  40,649

  357,019

  12,711

  Health and Social Services

  36,485

  461,455

  12,501

  Finance and Personnel

  80,419

  800,372

  12,442

  Northern Ireland Office

  1,601,193

  16,868,091

  n/a

  Environment1

  n/ad

  2,324,292

  57,035

  Agriculture

  non-industrial

  105,833

  1,374,491

  37,421

  industrial

  125,115

  801,189

  14,471

  Agency

  Training and Employment Agency

  14,656

  128,947

  21,705

  Rate Collection Agency

  n/ad

  107,437

  4,646

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  n/ad

  9,541

  2,928

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  n/ad

  401,024

  2,895

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  n/ad

  67,730

  4,258

  Social Security Agency

  409,197

  4,475,962

  125,313

  Child Support Agency (NI)

  29,262

  293,664

  3,700

  Belfast Child Support2 Agency Centre (CSAC)

  82,284

  939,126

  10,894

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  1,642

  16,570

  3,002

  Notes:

  Compensation Agency included in the Northern Ireland Office figures.

  1 Excludes Industrial Staff for whom information is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  2 Costs for Belfast CSAC are wholly re-imbursed by CSAC (GB).

  n/a = Not available.

  n/ad = Not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Social Need
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will list the plans in each Government Department for targeting social need, and if he will make a statement. [22109]

  Mr. Ancram
  Targeting social need is one of the Government's expenditure priorities in Northern Ireland and is an integral part of departmental policies and programmes. Departments seek to ensure that resources in all relevant programmes are targeted on areas of greatest need. The following specific measures have a particular TSN impact: the Department of Education skews financial resources to board areas and individual schools with highest social need. Current initiatives include measures to raise standards in under-achieving schools and projects under the "Making Belfast Work" programme and the Londonderry initiative.

  The Department of the Environment takes account of targeting social need in resource planning for each functional area. Budget areas with the most direct impact on social need objectives are "Making Belfast Work", the Londonderry development office, the regional development office, housing and public transport.

  The Department of Health and Social Services made targeting health and social need one of the priority themes in its regional strategy for health and personal services 1992–97. The strategy addresses inequalities in health status and social well-being in the Northern Ireland population.

  The Department of Economic Development in 1994 commissioned a review of how the objectives of TSN relate to those of the Department. Following the review's recommendations for improvements to the existing mechanisms for monitoring progress in the targeting of resources, guidelines on the application of TSN are being
  430
  drawn up. In addition, each agency is preparing a three-year action plan which will establish its current baseline, set out its proposals for action, and consider any need to adapt existing programmes or create new ones.

  The Department of Finance and Personnel seeks to ensure that mainstream expenditure focuses resources on the most disadvantaged areas and people. TSN aims are consonant with the strategic objectives of the Northern Ireland single programming document 1994–1999 and are reinforced by many of its sub-programmes. Two specific targeting social need measures within the physical and social environment sub-programme aim to enhance employment opportunities in the most disadvantaged areas and to encourage the acquisition of educational and vocational qualifications.

  The Department of Agriculture administers the rural development programme, which is targeted on areas of disadvantage.

  The Northern Ireland Office applies TSN principles in funding crime prevention initiatives and the Probation Board's community development initiatives.

  Unemployment (Catholic Males)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans and strategies he will implement in order to reduce Catholic male unemployment in Northern Ireland. [22110]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Government are strengthening the Northern Ireland economy and reducing unemployment through increasingly successful efforts to attract inward investment, develop tourism, encourage exports and encourage higher innovation in Northern Ireland companies. Through the targeting social need initiative, the Government seek enhanced economic activity in disadvantaged areas.
  431
  In addition, the Training and Employment Agency has recently introduced in areas of greatest unemployment the new jobskills programme and pilot community work programmes are now in operation. Along with the existing action for community employment scheme, these provide high-quality training and additional work prospects for all those who are long-term unemployed.

  Punishment Beatings
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many punishment beatings have come to the attention of the Royal Ulster Constabulary since the ceasefire; which organisations are thought to have carried them out; and how many arrests have been made of instigators of punishment beatings in the current year. [23041]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Between 1 September 1994 and 30 April 1995, a total of 92 so-called punishment beatings took place, of which 35 were attributed to Loyalist and 57 to Republican groups; 80 of these have taken place since 13 October 1994.

  Figures for the number of arrests which have been made of instigators of punishment beatings in the current year are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the number and species of birds of prey poisoned in each year since 1987. [22366]

  Mr. Moss
  There is no information available to enable an estimate to be made of the number of birds of prey poisoned in each year since 1987. The number scientifically examined and found to have been poisoned is as follows:

  Year

  Number of birds poisoned

  Species

  1987

  0

  —

  1988

  0

  —

  1989

  2

  2 Buzzards

  1990

  0

  —

  1991

  1

  Red Kite

  1992

  0

  —

  1993

  1

  Peregrine Falcon

  1994

  2

  2 Buzzards

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he will take to ensure that the upper limit of housing benefit entitlement may be waived in circumstances where it is more cost-effective for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to pay higher benefit than to pay the costs of temporary accommodation for homeless or A 1 families or individuals. [22354]

  Mr. Moss
  There is no upper limit on housing benefit entitlement.

  The amount of housing benefit may be restricted where the Northern Ireland Housing Executive considers the dwelling is larger than is reasonably required by the householder and his family, or where the rent is considered unreasonably high compared with that for suitable alternative accommodation.

  Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the current cost of bed-and-breakfast accommodation to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for a family of two parents and seven children at 237 Kilkeel road, Annalong; and if he will give the equivalent full entitlement to a housing benefit for a similar family in four-bedroomed accommodation. [22355]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and I have asked the chairman to write with the details requested.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals or families are currently in bed-and-breakfast or similar accommodation at the expense of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, in each region, pending rehousing from the homeless, or A1 housing waiting lists. [22356]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive; The chief executive has advised me that at 1 May 1995 the numbers with homeless or AI status in temporary accommodation are as follows:

  Region

  Bed/breakfast accommodation

  NIHE hostel

  Belfast

  67

  60

  North East

  25

  10

  South East

  34

  33

  South

  7

  Nil

  West

  92

  30

  Total

  225

  133

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total cost of bed-and-breakfast or similar accommodation to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in each region in each of the past three quarters, for the placement in temporary accommodation of homeless or Al category families or individuals. [22357]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive but the chief executive has advised me that the information requested is not readily available for the last three quarters. However, for the year 1994–95, the total costs of temporary accommodation for households accepted as homeless and awarded 'A1' waiting list priority, households where investigations are not yet completed and households where an appeal against a homelessness decision is pending, are as follows:

  Region

  Bed/breakfast accommodation £

  NIHE hostel £

  Belfast

  487,002.95

  380,393

  North East

  192,242.04

  53,870

  South East

  278,827.73

  147,398

  South

  102,572.56

  19,762

  West

  825,262.69

  97,392

  Total

  1,885,907.97

  698,815

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average weekly cost to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in each region for housing homeless or Al category families or individuals in temporary accommodation for(a) a single individual with

  433
  no dependants, (b) a couple with no dependants, (c) a couple with two children and (d) a couple with four children; and if he will give equivalent entitlements to full housing benefit for suitable accommodation. [22358]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but the chief executive has advised me that the information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Accounting Officers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times in the last 10 years, and on which dates, his departmental accounting officer has issued a minute in that role; and what was the issue in each case. [22563]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Where a Minister overrules an accounting officer's advice on an issue or propriety or regularity or one of value for money the accounting officer should request a written instruction from the Minister to take the action in question.

  No such instructions have been issued in the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments in the last 10 years.

  Education Authorities
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the education authorities in Northern Ireland together with the total number of pupils for which each education authority was responsible in the year ended 31 March. [23317]

  Mr Ancram
  The education authorities in Northern Ireland are the five education and library boards which are responsible for the management of the controlled sector. The number of pupils for which each board was responsible in 1994–95 is as follows:

  Area board

  Pupils

  Belfast

  22,680

  Western

  18,843

  North-Eastern

  45,165

  South-Eastern

  40,107

  Southern

  27,994

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations his Department has made to the Department of Trade and Industry concerning the need for legislation to prevent the cloning of mobile telephones. [23476]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Medium Secure Units
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by regional health authority and by district health authority the current number of beds in medium secure units run by health authorities; what were the figures for each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [23507]

  Mr. Moss
  There are no medium secure units in Northern Ireland.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the number of women in work in Leeds, West(a) full-time and (b) part-time; and what percentage of the work force these figures constitute. [21626]

  Miss Widdecombe
  As the hon. Member will be aware, information for areas of this size is available only from the census of employment. Results of the latest census, for 1993, will be available in September 1995.

  Results from the autumn 1994 labour force survey for west Yorkshire showed 222,000 women in full-time work and 195,000 in part-time work as employees or self-employed, equivalent to 23 per cent. and 21 per cent. respectively of the total.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many changes have been made since 1979 to the categories of persons included as unemployed in the data issued by his Department; and if he will list those categories and the numbers eliminated or added at each change. [21627]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  There have been nine changes to the benefit system which have significantly affected the claimant count. In order to maintain consistency, we produce a series of figures taking account of these changes for comparison purposes. These changes do not, of course, affect the Department's other measure of unemployment, the labour force survey which is based on the International Labour Organisation standards.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the size of the work force currently in employment; and what was the equivalent figure a year ago. [21630]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  There were 25.6 million in the work force in employment in the United Kingdom in December 1994 compared with 25.4 million in December 1993.

  Long-term Unemployed People
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the Government's policies on helping long-term unemployed people to find jobs. [21628]

  Mr. Paice
  In April we introduced Jobmatch, job finder's grants, Workwise and 1–2–1, four new national programmes. In addition, we extended community action and expanded work trials. There are 240,000 places on these programmes alone.

  EC Employment Direction
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts about future EC employment direction; and if he will make a statement. [21629]

  Mr. Portillo
  At every meeting of the Social Affairs Council, I have urged my fellow Employment Ministers to make job creation the first priority and not to pursue new labour market restrictions and regulations which can only destroy jobs.

  Spanish Employment Minister
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the Spanish Employment Minister to discuss labour markets and competitiveness; and if he will make a statement. [21631]

  Mr. Portillo
  I last met the Spanish Minister of Labour at the end of March. We share the view that European countries need in their own ways to improve the performance of their labour markets, to increase competitiveness and achieve sustainable reductions in structural unemployment.

  Take-home Pay
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent evidence he has to show how take-home pay in the United Kingdom compares with that in other EC countries. [21633]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Independent research shows that British workers' average take-home pay is among the best in the European Union, better than France, Italy or Denmark and comparable with western Germany.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met other EU employment ministers to discuss youth unemployment. [21635]

  Mr. Paice
  Employment matters feature regularly in the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has with ministerial counterparts. I am pleased to say that the rate of youth unemployment in the UK is well below the Community average.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effects of labour market regulation on levels of youth unemployment. [21642]

  Mr. Paice
  The Government believe that labour market regulation damages the level of employment, particularly for young people.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures the Government are taking to encourage unemployed people to try different jobs. [21636]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Employment Service advisers encourage unemployed people to apply for a wide range of vacancies. Last year, the ES placed 1.87 million people in work. The Government also provide 1.5 million opportunities to help unemployed people to improve their employability, job search activities and skills.

  Age Discrimination
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what the "Too Old, Who Says?" campaign aims to achieve; and what assessment he has made of how successful it has been. [21637]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The aim of the campaign is to counter age discrimination in the workplace. Through the "Too Old, Who Says?" booklet, supporting roadshows and media coverage, we offer help, advice and support to older people seeking work. It is too early to judge the success of the campaign which is still on-going. The initial response has been very encouraging.
  436
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of whether the "Too Old, Who Says?" campaign is achieving its aims. [21640]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, (Mrs. Knight) earlier today.

  Unemployment, Ealing, Southall
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the rate of unemployment in the constituency of Ealing, Southall in 1979; and what is the latest figure calculated using the same methodology. [21638]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Claimant unemployment rates are not available below the level of self-contained labour markets known as travel-to-work areas.

  Employment Select Committee Report
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his response to the proposals made in the first report of the Employment Select Committee, Session 1994–95, "Mothers in Employment". [21639]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We are considering the report and will respond to the Committee in due course.

  Wage Rates
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees are being paid at a rate of £2.50 an hour or less. [21643]

  Mr. Oppenehim
  The results of the latest new earnings survey show that, for full-time and part-time employees in Great Britain whose pay was not affected by absence, some 17 per 1,000 earn £2.50 per hour or less.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what improvements are being made to the running of the careers service. [21645]

  Mr. Paice
  We have been establishing clear quality standards and making significant investment through contracts and competition, which give accountability with innovation.

  Stockport Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the cumulative total paid by Stockport training and enterprise council to the Damar Group of St. Petersgate, Stockport(a) in total since the TEC was established and (b) in each year. [21174]

  Mr. Paice
  Training and enterprise councils are private companies and the contracts they enter into are subject to commercial confidentiality. Accordingly, the information requested is not collected by the Department.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which Minister in his Department has responsibility for equal opportunities issues. [21460]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have responsibility for sex equality issues, people with disabilities and older workers.
  437
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), deals with race equality issues, while my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South (Mr. Paice) is responsible for special needs training.

  Teesside TEC
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, what has been the expenditure of Teesside TEC on the East Cleveland training and employment group in each of the last 10 years. [21436]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: Training and enterprise councils are private companies and the contracts they enter into are subject to commercial confidentiality. Accordingly the information requested is not collected by the Department.

  Training for Work
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much his Department plans to spend on training for unemployed people living within the Greater London area in the present financial year. [22404]

  Mr. Paice
  The budget for training for work for unemployed adults for the London training and enterprise councils for the 1995–96 financial year is approximately £94.4 million.

  Graduate Unemployment
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the present level of graduate unemployment; what proportion of trainees on Government schemes move from their training into related areas of employment; and what forms of assistance are accorded to trainees to move from training into such employment. [22530]

  Mr. Paice
  The latest estimates from labour force survey for autumn 1994 show that 185,000 graduates of working are ILO unemployed.

  There are a number of ways that the Government help to equip trainees for entry into the labour market. Training and enterprise councils are encouraged to give jobsearch help to trainees and training for work is now more jobs focused with payment being made for outcomes achieved. We are working towards a target of 50 per cent. of leavers going into jobs by 1997–98. Training enables young people to gain nationally recognised vocational qualifications and receive advice and guidance which equips them to compete in the labour market.

  The tables show what proportion of trainees move from their training into related areas of employment:

  Percentage of those who trained in each occupational area and who got a job, where that job was in the same occupational area as their training

  TFW

  England and Wales

  Per cent.

  1993–94 leavers

  Management or administration work

  27

  Professional work

  15

  Science or engineering work

  32

  Health associated work

  59

  Legal or business associated work

  2

  Literary or sport professional

  6

  438

  Percentage of those who trained in each occupational area and who got a job, where that job was in the same occupational area as their training

  TFW

  England and Wales

  Per cent.

  Clerical work

  27

  Secretarial work

  12

  Skilled construction work

  39

  Skilled Engineering/electronic work

  30

  Metal/welding work

  29

  Motor vehicle work

  29

  Textile work

  53

  Printing/woodworking/horticulture or craft work

  20

  Protective service occupation

  23

  Catering/waiting work

  39

  Health/childcare occupation

  42

  Hairdressing/personal Service work

  36

  Buyer/sales Representative work

  24

  Sales assistant/checkout operator/other sales occupation

  37

  Industrial/plant machine operating work

  19

  Transport operatives/drivers occupation

  47

  Agriculture/forestry/fishing

  11

  Other elementary/manual work

  30

  Source: TFW Trainee database and follow-up survey.

  Percentage of those who trained in each occupational area and who got a job, where that job was in the same occupational area as their training

  Youth Training England and Wales

  Per cent.

  1993–94 leavers

  Science and engineering professions

  12

  Sport/creative/artistic work

  15

  Secretarial work

  12

  Engineering work

  25

  Vehicle trades

  26

  Printing /woodworking work

  10

  Cooking/food preparation etc.

  35

  Security work/police/HM forces

  n/a

  Hairdressing/beautician work

  70

  Sales work

  20

  Industrial plant machine work and assembly

  11

  Nursing and medical technicians

  n/a

  Clerical work

  21

  Building/construction work

  26

  Metal forming, welding and related trades

  8

  Making textiles and clothing

  27

  Health and childcare work

  13

  Buying and sales reps

  n/a

  Transport workers and drivers

  n/a

  Farming, fishing or gardening work

  14

  Other elementary work

  23

  Source: YT trainee database and follow-up survey.

  Training Provisions
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many places were provided by each TEC in(a) the current year, (b) the previous three years for (i) special needs trainees, (ii) those unemployed for 12 months or over and (iii) those unemployed for 24 months or over; [22994]

  (2) what is the average length of stay for (a) men, (b) women, (c) each ethnic group and (d) special needs trainees on (i) youth training and (ii) training for work or employment training; and, for each programme, how many trainees and, what proportion have been in training for (1) more than 20 weeks, (2) between 20 and 52 weeks,

  439
  (3) more than 52 weeks but under 104 weeks and (4) over 104 weeks; and what were the corresponding figures in each of the last five years; [22993]

  (3) how many people (a) applied for and (b) were in receipt of (i) enterprise allowance and (ii) business start-up allowance for each TEC area, in each region, and for Great Britain as a whole in each of the last five years; [22995]

  (4) in each of the last three years, what has been the number of NVQs achieved, and at what levels, by entrants to (a) the YT programme and (b) the training for work programme for each TEC in (i) each region and (ii) the United Kingdom; [22952]

  (5) how many (a) men, (b) women, (c) members of each ethnic group and (d) special needs trainees currently have places on (i) YT and (ii) training for work or ET for each TEC in (1) each region and (2) for each country of the United Kingdom; and what were the figures in each of the last five years; [22988]

  (6) what is the average length of stay on (a) training for work and (b) YT programmes broken down by (i) gender, (ii) ethnic group and (iii) those with a disability or health problem for each TEC in (1) each region and (2) the United Kingdom. [22951]

  Mr. Paice
  As this information is contained in a number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Employment Measures (Disabled People)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made since the introduction of special contracts arrangements to employ more people with a disability. [22702]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The special contracts arrangement was introduced on 29 November 1994 to help supported employment programme providers compete for contracts tendered by Government Departments and agencies.

  Ninety-one workshops have now registered under the special contracts arrangement and the size of the supported employment programme has remained steady at around 21,000 severely disabled participants.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of his Department's budget is allocated to initiatives which have been undertaken to secure private finance for his Department's projects. [22799]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Options for securing private finance are considered as a part of normal project arrangements in the Department. No specific element of the budget is set aside for this purpose.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many, and what proportion of, vacancies advertised by his Department and by each of his Department's agencies in the last three years have listed the attainment of NVQs as an acceptable entry requirement; and, of those, how many have required(a) level 1 NVQs, (b) level 2 NVQs, (c) level 3 NVQs and (d) other level national vocational qualifications. [22990]
  440
  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Special Contracts
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment his Department has made of the success of the special contracts arrangements [22701]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on 15 March 1995,Official Report, column 624.

  Accounting Officers
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many times in the last 10 years, and on which dates his departmental accounting officer has issued a minute in that role; and what was the issue in each case. [22562]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I know of no such cases.

  Employment Services (Targets)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on what basis he decided the target of 9.5 per cent. of initial claim inquiries made to the Employment Service not to be pursued as new claims, target No. 7 in the Employment Service's annual performance agreement for 1995–96; what factors have led to an increase in this target from the equivalent target in the annual performance agreement for 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [23048]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The purpose of this target is to ensure that each client has been: informed of all the conditions necessary to qualify for unemployment benefit; referred to make a claim for the appropriate benefit and offered any suitable vacancies before attending a new claims interview. It is the client's decision whether or not to pursue a claim to benefit.

  In deciding the target level for 1995–96, a number of factors have been taken into account. These include performance against the target during 1994–95 and the labour market and the operational context in which the Employment Service will be working in the coming year.

  Employment Service (Claims)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list(a) the total number of claims made to the Employment Service which were referred to adjudication, in each case giving the reason for referral to adjudication, (b) the total amount spent on adjudication services in the Employment Service and (c) the percentage of the Employment Service budget spent on adjudication services for each year since 1988; [23047]

  (2) if he will list (a) the number of claims for unemployment related benefits made to the Employment Service which are referred to adjudication and (b) the percentage of those cases where the adjudication officer has decided in favour of the Employment Service's referral, in each case giving the reason for referral to adjudication for each year since 1988. [23049]
  441
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Harriet Harman, dated 9 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about claims referred to adjudication, and about the cost of adjudication services in the Employment Service (ES).
  Unfortunately information is not available in the form you have requested. We record the number of adjudication decisions and opinions given rather than the number of cases referred to adjudication. Decisions are recorded as allowed, disallowed, reviewed in the claimant's favour, reviewed adversely to the
  442
  claimant, referred to the Social Security Appeal Tribunal for a decision, or not reviewed.
  Information on the number of adjudication officer's decisions and opinions is contained in a published document entitled "Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions". This provides information on all the main entitlement questions arising on claims. Copies of this document are held in the Library of the House. The latest available information relates to the quarter year to December 1994.
  Approximately £25.2 million was spent on adjudication services in the ES during the year April 1994 to March 1995. This figure includes the cost of salaries, general administrative expenditure, and premises costs, and represents some 2.4% of the total ES Gross Running Costs Budget for the year. I am sorry that this information is not available for the earlier years. 1994/95 was the first year for which total adjudication costs have been calculated.
  I hope this is helpful.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.
Lord Carew Lord Carew—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his Father.

Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that Her Majesty has appointed General Sir Edward Jones KCB, CBE, to be Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, in succession to Admiral Sir Richard Thomas KCB, KCVO, OBE, and that he is at the Door ready to receive your Lordships' commands.
Whereupon the House directed that he be called in. Accordingly he was called in and officiated in his place.

Tributes to Sir Richard Thomas
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, today we wish Godspeed to Admiral Sir Richard Thomas, who has served the House faithfully during the three-and-a-half years he has been Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
Those years have seen substantial increases in Black Rod's responsibilities. Indeed, Sir Richard took up his post in January 1992, just as the House was beginning to implement the Ibbs recommendations, which, as noble Lords will remember, suggested that both Houses assume responsibility for their own services. His burden was further increased when, in April of the same year, he shouldered a greater responsibility for House of Lords works.
2
Black Rod is perhaps most associated in the public mind with ceremonial duties both in the Palace of Westminster and in respect of his work at the Garter Ceremony. However, I emphasise the administrative side of his work because, as so often, perhaps the most onerous are those tasks which remain hidden from the public eye.
Black Rod's duties are as varied as those of any office holder in the Palace of Westminster. In addition to those that I have already mentioned, they range from matters of order and security to the regulation of visitors. However, it is in the realm of accommodation and works that we shall remember Sir Richard most. His enthusiasm for carrying forward improvements in both areas was reassuring, and to a marked degree they will remain as his enduring memorial: the restored stonework, culminating in the final burnishing, of the Victoria Tower; the splendidly restored Nos. 6 and 7 Old Palace Yard; the new parliamentary data and video network, still yet to be made operational; the conversion of Black Rod's Garden. The House should be grateful to Sir Richard for his perseverance and the part that he played in all these projects.
I for one will always remember Sir Richard for something else: his courage. The fortitude with which he faced the consequences of his stroke, and the example that he has given to all of us who might one day be cursed with the same illness, have been—I can put it no higher than this—in the best traditions of both Wales and the Royal Navy. The House will salute him for it.
Therefore, on behalf of the whole House, as Sir Richard leaves to spend more time in his garden and with his devoted family, I wish him good health and a long and happy retirement.
Finally, I also take this opportunity to welcome General Sir Edward Jones as his successor. I know that he will fill the post with the greatest of distinction, and that your Lordships will give him a warm welcome. But above all, perhaps he will allow me to say that I hope beyond anything else that he will enjoy his time with us and find the job a happy and fulfilling one.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support the warm tributes that the Leader of the House has

3
just expressed. But perhaps I may first, on behalf of the whole House, convey to him, as the Minister responsible for the weekend's activities, our congratulations on the way in which they were organised. I think they went well. In relation to last Friday, somebody used the word "seamless". I believe that it was. It was in the best traditions of Parliament as a whole. We thank him for it and for the rest of his work.
It is a very great pleasure indeed to support the warm tribute paid by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to Sir Richard Thomas. The post of Black Rod must be a very difficult one. There are two distinct sets of functions attached to it. There are the administrative functions, to which the noble Viscount referred, in particular in the fields of security, accommodation and looking after the building. That responsibility has been particularly important in the past few years.
There are, too, very important ceremonial functions, particularly on great state occasions when this House is involved. It is difficult to get the balance right. I am sure that the House will feel that Sir Richard, given the position in which he found himself, got that balance as right as it could have been. We admire greatly the way in which he discharged both those functions. He discharged them with a distinction and, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said, with great courage. We all particularly admire the courage with which he has carried on his duties since he became ill.
Sir Richard was always helpful and kind to the Opposition. I cannot say that everybody connected with this House is always helpful and kind to the Opposition; but certainly he was, and we are indeed grateful to him for it. We wish him and Lady Thomas a long and happy retirement.
As the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said, during Sir Richard's time in office much was achieved. On behalf of the Opposition, I thank him for his efforts on behalf of the House as a whole. Finally, I take this opportunity to welcome Sir Richard's successor, General Sir Edward Jones, and to wish him well. We look forward to working with him in the future. I hope that he too will treat the Opposition with kindness and consideration.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, my memories of Black Rods go back to Sir Brian Horrocks, who, I believe, took office in 1949. I can think of nobody since who has so splendidly looked the part of Black Rod as has Admiral Sir Richard Thomas. It was therefore a peculiar and bitter tragedy that he was struck down so soon after taking office. As the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal so eloquently said, we have all greatly admired the courage with which Sir Richard fought back.
I personally will retain as a vivid and special memory the sight last Friday morning, in Westminster Hall, of Sir Richard getting triumphantly and at the same time elegantly to the top of that long and exposed flight of steps. Fate has cruelly deprived us of a notable public
4
servant of Crown and Parliament. We lose greatly by his departure. We ask him to take our respect and affection into his retirement.
Lady Hylton-Foster: My Lords, we on the Cross-Benches also bid farewell to Admiral Sir Richard Thomas, and at the same time endorse the tributes and thanks that have already been expressed. Sir Richard came with a distinguished record of service in the Royal Navy and, having held such senior appointments in NATO, he faced a different type of challenge when he came to the House as Black Rod. First, there is the shortage of accommodation for all of us and the staff; there was the preparation for the wonderful commemoration ceremony held in Westminster Hall last Friday; and there were the arrangements for the alterations to the West Wing, among many other things.
Sadly, nearly two years ago Sir Richard suffered a severe stroke. Those who saw him at that time and understood the extent of his disability were amazed at his dogged determination to regain much of his mobility and clarity of mind in order to return to his normal duties. In a short period of time and with the support of his office, he succeeded in many achievements, including the pedestrian crossing, which I understand is about to be put into operation and which will be a blessing for many years to come.
We commend his courage in adversity. We wish Sir Richard and Lady Thomas every happiness on the road ahead. At the same time we extend a warm welcome to General Sir Edward Jones and hope that he will be extremely happy in this House.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, to some extent I and my colleagues on this Bench are elusive. We come and go on duty in short bursts and thus must cause considerable trouble to Black Rod and his staff.
On behalf of my colleagues I express our gratitude to Black Rod and to the members of his staff who, time and again, patiently answer our questions. In particular, we pay tribute to Sir Richard's very high standard of commitment. Commitment is often thin on the ground in our society and thus we admire it, recognise it, and salute it.
We also place on public record our appreciation of his personal care and the charming way in which he has dealt with this House and its Members. We wish him and his family much grace and blessing and a measure of health that will take him on for many years to come. In expressing our appreciation, we welcome General Sir Edward Jones to the post. We look forward to his help and hope that we on this Bench do not cause him too much trouble.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
The Agricultural Tenancies Act.

BBC Charter and Agreement
2.57 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that the new Charter and Agreement between the BBC and the Department of National Heritage will apply exactly the same high standards of impartiality to the corporation as are applied by the Independent Television Commission under Section 6 of the Broadcasting Act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, the Government intend that the obligation on the BBC to observe due impartiality will be stated in the Agreement. The wording will follow very closely the formulation used in Section 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1990.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer, and for making clear that we shall have a further occasion on which to debate this matter in this Chamber. I hope that all parts of the House will join in.
Can my noble friend say whether the Representation of the People Act 1983, already somewhat out of date, which lays down that there should be at least 25 working days between a broadcast with political consequences and an election—whether local elections or a general election—is supervised? If so, is it supervised by the BBC? The Clause 4 debate was conducted five days before the local elections, not 25 days as laid down in the Act. I am not clear where the responsibility for monitoring lies.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Representation of the People Act 1983 has a narrow purpose. It is designed to prevent an election candidate taking part in a broadcast about his or her constituency without the consent of other candidates. Broadcasting a programme which breaches the statute is an unlawful act and enforcement of the requirements is therefore a matter for the courts and not for the Government. However, the Act provides no criminal sanction against broadcasters. The courts may issue an injunction to prevent an unlawful broadcast. In drawing up the code on impartiality, which gives guidance on the rules to be observed, the BBC must take account of any Act of Parliament which is relevant to its duties.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the duty of impartiality for public service broadcasters is at the heart of their obligations to informed democracy? Is he aware also that the BBC's judgment in these matters seems to have gone badly to pot recently? Does he remember that it was ready to give the Prime Minister the rights of "Panorama" on the eve of the Scottish local elections which had to be stopped by the Scottish courts? When it came to the Clause 4 debate by the Labour Party, the BBC bent over backwards under Tory pressure, so much so that it cut short Mr. Tony Blair's final speech. Is it too much to hope that when the new Charter and Agreement are finally in operation the BBC's self-confidence and wisdom will be restored?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, mentioned the "Panorama" programme. I understand that that may be the subject of further action in the courts and therefore it would be wrong for me to comment on the facts of the case. However, the BBC producers' guidelines are designed to help producers stay within the BBC's obligation to be duly impartial. They must have regard to those guidelines. It is for the BBC's governors to ensure that they do. For the avoidance of doubt, the new Agreement will require the BBC governors to draw up a code as to the observance of the rules in exactly the same way as the ITC presently does for commercial broadcasters.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, can my noble friend say—I am not clear from his Answer—who is responsible under the present arrangements for monitoring the impartiality of the BBC? Also, who is responsible for initiating such action as can be taken in the event of clear breaches of that impartiality?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is the responsibility of the governors of the BBC to ensure that it keeps to the terms of its Charter and Agreement. In regard to Section 93 of the Representation of the People Act, which covers elections and broadcasts, it would be a matter for the prosecuting authorities to take any action if they felt that there had been a breach of the statute.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, can the noble Viscount inform the House what, if any, are the sanctions that can be imposed when the so-called "guidelines" are flagrantly breached, and by whom they are imposed?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the governors of the BBC must ensure that their guidelines are adhered to by the producers. That is subject to the Agreement between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage and the BBC. My right honourable friend must ensure that the Agreement is kept.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I suspect that the difference between impartiality and partiality often lies in the eye of the beholder. Can the Minister assure the House that ahead of the next general election there will be no efforts by senior members of the party opposite to intimidate the BBC in the way that occurred before the last two general elections?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, Ministers have as much right as anyone else to point out to the BBC instances where they feel that it has failed to meet the high standards we expect of it. Having said that, we must remember that the BBC is a robust institution. It has an annual income of £1.8 billion; it employs 25,000 people; it broadcasts 300,000 hours of programmes in this country each year; and it reaches over 90 per cent. of all households.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, without wishing to enter into the merits of any specific case, can my noble friend say whether it is acceptable that there should appear to be a different form of dispensation on either side of the Border?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend draws me on the difference between English and Scottish law. I am afraid that I cannot answer his question. If I may, I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is it not disingenuous of the noble Viscount to say that Ministers have as much right as anyone else to make representations to the BBC when in fact Ministers who telephone the BBC get straight through to the director general while other humble mortals have to make do with the duty officer?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I never manage to get through to anyone but the duty officer.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does what my noble friend said in relation to sanctions on the BBC being exercised only by the Government confirm my suspicion that the Broadcasting Complaints Commission has no powers whatever to alter the standard or content of broadcasts by the BBC? Will that block to an official watchdog and monitor be removed in the new Charter?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we see a continuing important role for a merged Broadcasting Standards Council and Broadcasting Complaints Commission in policing standards in two areas of particular public concern: the question of taste and decency and the fair treatment of individuals. These powers relate to both the BBC and commercial broadcasters.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that while I am second to none in my respect for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I believe that it is a very dangerous road to go down to be suggesting sanctions against the BBC? There are a variety of opinions about various programmes but the independence of the BBC should be respected by Government and by Opposition at all times.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. What matters is that we get the Charter of the BBC and the Agreement between the BBC and the Government absolutely right. Your Lordships' House will have the opportunity to debate both those instruments.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, to go back to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, does the Minister agree that regulatory bodies which are unable to impose sanctions must have a dubious place in the regulatory system? What is the point of having them?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the BBC governors have sanctions over their own employees. It is up to the BBC and the board of management to make sure that their employees follow their guidance.

Inter-Governmental Conference 1996
3.1 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in good time before the Agenda of the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference is settled, they will
8
convene an all-party conference in the United Kingdom to discuss the desirability of incorporating in the agenda such amendments to the convergence criteria set out in the Maastricht Treaty as will provide for the avoidance of an unacceptable level of unemployment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, no. The Government have no intention, at the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference, of seeking to amend the "convergence criteria" contained in the Treaty on European Union, as agreed at Maastricht.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that there is growing opinion throughout Europe, not confined to any political spectrum, that the monetary conditions laid down in the Maastricht Treaty under the protocol are not helping to cure unemployment and in fact may increase it. Will he bear in mind that the policies contained in the employment White Paper of 1944, which was drawn up after collaboration between the two main parties, were successful in this country for at least 20 years after the war, until the oil crisis? Does he not think that, with the United Kingdom being one of the most powerful nations in Europe, it is up to us, through the existing party leadership and through the Opposition as well, to give Europe and the countries of Europe the lead that they require?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I could agree with much of what the noble Lord said. I could agree that many countries are having problems with unemployment. I remind him that unemployment in this country is coming down and has been coming down for very many months indeed—and far earlier than has been the case in most other countries in Europe. If the noble Lord seeks further criteria for the convergence criteria in Article 109 he will know that right at the very end it refers to examining the development of unit labour costs. That is a point at which other countries could look. They could also look at the inflexible labour markets with which they are burdened— with which, fortunately, we are not burdened in this country.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the truth of the matter that paper guarantees are not what we want in this sphere? What we want is a sustained and sustainable level of demand for goods and services.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. We also require good government to deliver exactly the right conditions so that people can provide the goods and services that are necessary to lower unemployment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that an all-party group to deal with the very matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was convened? It was the European Communities Committee of your Lordships' House, to which the noble Lord made a notable contribution. The committee came to the conclusion, after close examination of the White Paper from the European Commission, that there was no need to change the convergence criteria relating to unemployment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord

9
Bruce, will have noted. I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, who is about to make a further intervention, explaining exactly what he meant.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the recollection of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, as to what the Select Committee report contains is remarkably short? It does not contain the reassurance the noble Lord requires. Is he further aware that unemployment in Europe is a most serious problem and that unless some endeavour to reduce it is undertaken there will be social unrest not only in Europe but perhaps even in our own country?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall not join the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Thomson, in their argument about the contents of Select Committee reports. I am sure that all noble Lords can go along to the Library, have a look at the report and come to their own conclusions. Other than that, I have to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. Unemployment is very, very important. It is a serious problem in Europe. The fact is that it is decreasing in this country because of our flexible labour market. Most of our friends have problems because they do not have the same flexibility in their labour markets. One has only to look at the extra labour taxes as a percentage of hourly labour costs imposed on employers in Europe. In this country they are 15.5 per cent.; in Germany, 22.8 per cent.; in Belgium, 27 per cent.; and in France, 28.8 per cent. No wonder unemployment in those countries is that much higher.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord give an assurance that at the Inter-Governmental Conference the Government will resist any move from any quarter which would in any way diminish the ability of Her Majesty's Government and properly elected Parliament to run the economy of this country in accordance with the judgment of the Government and Parliament elected by the British people?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord's question goes slightly beyond the Question on the Order Paper. But I believe that the assurance he requires has been made quite clearly by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, in respect of the Maastricht criterion, which limits government fiscal deficits to 3 per cent. of GDP, do the Government consider that figure to include, or exclude, public sector capital expenditure?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the level of the deficit is an important matter. We would seek to bring it down. It is coming down in this country and we are one of the very few countries which, in terms of its deficit and overall debt, might be somewhere near meeting the criterion by the year 1997. That does not mean that all the criteria as set out in Article 109 will be met. As regards the noble Lord's detailed question, I would prefer to write to him.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord of the question I asked. Does the Maastricht criterion limiting government fiscal deficits to 3 per cent. of GDP include, or exclude, public sector capital expenditure? If the noble Lord does not understand the
10
Maastricht criterion, perhaps it would be a good idea to have the conference which my noble friend Lord Bruce suggests so that he might learn something.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord's point was really a very silly one. The noble Lord's noble friend, with whom he does not exactly agree most of the time, was suggesting a cross-party conference. Since I believe that the noble Lord's party is for once actually in agreement with Her Majesty's Government on the convergence criteria, I do not believe that such a conference would be necessary. I also offered to write to the noble Lord on his substantive point.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, has my noble friend noticed that the closer we get to the Inter-Governmental Conference the thicker and faster the questions from various politicians become? My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been described as the best negotiator in Europe. How can he possibly be expected to negotiate if all his cards are on the table, having been elicited by such questions?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have made that point on many occasions when we have refused to divulge, as my noble friend put it as a celebrated bridge player, our cards. No doubt the questions will continue to get thicker and faster, but I have not noticed that they have been particularly unthick and unfast in the past.

London Hospitals
3.8 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will convene a conference involving nurses, doctors and other medical specialists with a view to ensuring that doubts about hospital closures in London are resolved and that the Government's policy in this area is fully understood.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Government's policy in this area is clear and has been stated on many occasions over the past two years. It has been the subject of wide public consultation in those parts of London where change is moving forward. The Government have taken account of all views put forward, including those of medical, nursing and other healthcare professionals, before reaching decisions.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. She must be aware that there are other aspects of the matter which are causing great concern. Is she aware that since the beginning of this decade the Greater London area alone has lost about 30 hospitals and that this has been reflected particularly in the number of older people dying earlier? Is the Minister further aware that the number of National Health Service beds has been reduced? What is harmful and hurtful is that those who can afford it can take private beds because there are now more of them than National Health Service beds. These

11
factors are upsetting nurses and all members of National Health Service staff who give such magnificent service to our country.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have been over a great deal of this ground before. Perhaps I may just reiterate that it is not the beds which are important but the treatment which people get in hospital. That is changing very fast. Without the private sector, London and other parts of the country would be much the poorer. We should remember that 20 per cent. of the membership of the Royal College of Nursing is employed in the private sector.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is much concern in a good many hospitals that the threat of closure still hangs over them? Will she take speedy action to end that alarm by making it clear that no further closures will take place?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Indecision is bad for staff. They need to go forward with certainty, which is the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. We are doing something which should have been done decades ago.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, while discussions are taking place with the professional people involved, public views are being totally ignored. What is happening to the Patient's Charter? Has it been thrown on a bonfire? What is happening to the many millions of pounds paid in contributions by members of the public, including Members of this House, for the upkeep and survival of many of the hospitals they most care about? What is happening to that money and why are the views of the general public being ignored by the Government?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government have to take into account a whole range of views. The noble Baroness is right; the Patient's Charter is an important principle and one of our major policies. Part of that charter is to reduce waiting times for treatment. I can announce today that over the past year the waiting time for patients in the Thames regions has been reduced. A year ago 3,000 patients were waiting more than a year for treatment, but today they are not. Increasingly, we are seeing more patients more quickly. We also take into account medical views. Dr. Chris Paine, the president of the Royal College of Radiologists, Professor Geoffrey Smith, president of the Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons, Mr. Rab Hide, a distinguished Glasgow neuro-surgeon, Professor Norman Browse and Dr. Howard Baderman are very eminent professors and clinicians who have chaired our specialty reviews. They have all come to the view that if London is to survive as a world leader it has to consolidate its medical services into fewer specialist hospitals where it can build on its expertise. The last thing we want to do is to see London lose its place as a world leader.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I asked about the money.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that people are automatically and naturally
12
fond of any establishment near them which they know? Is she aware of the report in today's newspapers that recovery from breast cancer is very much better in hospitals which have more specialised facilities? Does the Minister also agree that if she was involved in a severe road accident she would prefer to go to a hospital having a full accident and emergency trauma centre, with neurological and cardiological back-up, rather than a hospital with an accident and emergency department that was really more a casualty department for local people to attend?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that we owe something to Dr. Jarman, who has questioned the statistics of the Department of Health? Does she agree that we do not need a large conference to sort out these matters? Could not Dr. Jarman, and perhaps a representative of the London Health Economic Consortium, meet with officials of the department to see whether the discrepancies between their figures can be resolved? When I try to do so, I cannot make head nor tail of them.
Perhaps I may ask a second question of the noble Baroness. There is a lack of nursing homes and other facilities for the elderly in inner London, and for that reason they are often occupying acute beds in hospitals. Is there any way of obtaining funds in order to increase the number of nursing homes etc. for the elderly and thus relieve pressure on the hospitals?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the first question asked by the noble Lord concerning Professor Jarman's work. That has been very closely studied by the chief executives of the inner London health authorities. Although there was some agreement, there was also some disagreement as regards the figures which Professor Jarman used. He was working from a different base both in time and in the area he covered. It is no good in looking back all the time; we have to look forward. The future undoubtedly lies in greater specialisation but with very strong community support for primary care. The noble Lord is right in saying that we have to invest more in services for the long-term care of elderly people. We are putting in £210 million over the next three years to improve those services and also to improve primary care, GP services and community nursing.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, having nursed for many years, I know that we all have our favourite hospitals and are loth to see any of them go. Does my noble friend agree that already in 1902 the newspapers were asking for London hospitals to move out of the capital and that that time is now overdue?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. All staff have loyalty to their institutions. But hospital provision in London has been a long-standing problem and it is time that it was resolved.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that the fourth Question on the Order Paper is not to be asked. With the leave of the House, I ask the Minister this. If, in the debate in the other place tomorrow, the intended

13
undertakings to be announced by the Secretary of State as regards certain London hospitals are not given, what will that mean about the London strategy? Will it have been shelved?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is no question of that situation arising tomorrow.

Business
3.17 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the nuclear review.

Business of the House: Debates, 10th May
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My
Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Carter set down for Wednesday next shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Desai set down for the same day to two-and-a-half hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Children (Scotland) Bill
3.18 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Children (Scotland) Bill which your Lordships are considering today is a major milestone in Scottish children's legislation. It builds on the principles and fulfils the undertakings set out in our White Paper Scotland's Children. The Bill defines the responsibilities and rights of parents. It promotes the welfare of children. It improves the protection of children. It brings adoption law up to date.
The Bill which is now before your Lordships is the result of a great deal of preparation, and welcome extensive public debate in Scotland. Its origins are in the child care law review which reported in October 1990. Since then there have been a number of important reviews and reports which have contributed to our proposals, notably the reports of the Orkney and Fife child care inquiries.
Before I turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill, I would like to say a word about the procedure which is being followed in this Bill. We have already made substantial use of the new procedures for legislation set out in our White Paper Scotland in the Union. The purpose of those procedures is to enable Scottish legislation to be dealt with in a distinctly Scottish fashion. Part of that legislative process took place in Scotland itself. The Second Reading of this Bill took place in the
14
Scottish Grand Committee sitting in Edinburgh. This was followed by three sessions of evidence-taking by the Special Standing Committee which considered the Bill in another place. Evidence was heard by that committee in both Edinburgh and Glasgow. A wide range of interests gave evidence, from directors of social work to young people who had been in care. As the Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for home affairs and social work, I too gave evidence to the committee. We, and I believe the Special Standing Committee, found this a most useful and informative step in the process.
We made it clear that we would take careful note of the points raised both in the evidence-taking and during the Committee discussions in another place. For their part, the Opposition made it clear that they would not treat this Bill in a party political way—I am very grateful for that. The co-operative and practical approach has been extremely fruitful. The substantial number of government amendments which were brought forward at Report in another place is a clear illustration of our willingness to respond to the useful points made in Committee.
Following our general consideration today of the principles underlying the Bill, it will be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, off the Floor. As is known, it is an experimental procedure which was recommended by the group which considered the Sittings of the House and which was endorsed by the House in a debate a year ago. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that any noble Lords—not only those who are Scottish—who wish to do so may attend the proceedings of the Committee. I am confident that that procedure will continue to allow the co-operative approach we have enjoyed up until now. I am grateful for that and for the constructive contribution made by the all-party parliamentary group on children under the chairmanship of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun.
I would now like to turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill. The Bill is in three main parts. The first deals with parents, children and guardians. The second deals with the promotion of the welfare of children by public authorities. The third part contains amendments to the law on the adoption of children.
The provisions in Part I are drawn from the Scottish Law Commission's report on family law which was published in 1992. We are grateful to the Scottish Law Commission for all the detailed work and consultation which it carried out, much of which is reflected in this part of the Bill.
The first three clauses of the Bill set out the main responsibilities and rights of parents for the upbringing of their children. This is a clear and important statement of their statutory responsibilities, first, for safeguarding and promoting the child's health, development and welfare; secondly, for providing appropriate direction and guidance; thirdly, for maintaining personal relations and contact with the child in cases where the parent is not living with the child; and, finally, for acting as the child's legal representative.
The statement also extends to the rights which are required to enable parents to fulfil their responsibilities. Those responsibilities and rights underpin our central belief contained in the Bill, which is that children are best looked after by their parents. Importantly, it is those

15
provisions (coupled with those in Clause 11 which deals with court orders) which will lead us into a new climate where the emphasis will be on both parents—not just one—playing an active part in raising their children.
At present a father who is not married to the child's mother does not have rights in relation to the child. This recognises that in a number of such cases the father has no interest in the child—and is usually absent. No change is made to that general position. However, under the terms of Clause 4 we will make it easier for an unmarried father who does take an interest in the raising of his child to acquire both parental responsibilities and rights by agreement with the child's mother.
Clauses 11 to 14 set out the duties and powers of the courts in relation to children. These represent a fundamental change in existing law. They replace the concepts of "custody" and "access", which in the past have too often proved to be divisive and damaging to the child and his or her upbringing. Instead the courts will be allowed to make residence and contact orders, which are properly focused on the child and which should be more readily adjustable to the circumstances of individual cases and to the problems that might confront an individual child.
I would now like to turn to Part II of the Bill. This part contains the public law provisions concerning children. It both introduces new provisions and provides a substantial restatement, with amendment, of existing areas of child care law. Local authorities, courts and children's hearings will be required to have regard to the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration in any decisions which they make, subject, of course, to the need to take account of any risk of serious harm to others. They will also be required to take the child's views into account when reaching those decisions. That will relate also to the needs of children with disabilities. I am referring not only to children who themselves have disabilities but to those who are affected by disabilities within their families. Their needs are addressed in Clause 21, which imposes a responsibility and duty on local authorities. The new provision is designed to minimise the effect of the disability on the child and to give that child the opportunity to live a life which is as normal as possible.
Local authorities will be given special duties and powers in relation to children who have been in local authority care. We know all too well that such children need good support after they leave care if they are not to become homeless or encounter a wide range of other problems—and too often descend into criminality. Local authorities will have a duty to assist all young people who were in their care at the time of leaving school up to and including the age of 18. This is an extension of their present duty. Local authorities will additionally have the power to provide assistance to young people up to the age of 21 who were in care at the time of leaving school if they consider this necessary.
Chapter 2 and part of Chapter 3 of Part II of the Bill deal with the distinctive children's hearing system in Scotland. The children's hearings retain their central place in the provisions for child welfare and juvenile justice in Scotland. This part of the Bill is substantially a restatement of the 1968 Act and remains firmly based on
16
the principles in Lord Kilbrandon's report that children who offend and children who are offended against may be equally in need of help. However, we are introducing a number of important changes which will strengthen the hearings and clarify their powers.
One of the main forms of action open to a children's hearing is to make a supervision requirement in respect of a child. New provisions in the Bill will clarify the effect of a supervision requirement and allow the hearings to specify important matters such as the responsibility for determining parental contact with children, giving authority for a child's medical examination and disclosing a child's whereabouts.
Chapter 3 of Part II of the Bill is principally about the protection of children, and here we are introducing important changes following very largely on the recommendations made by Lord Clyde after his extensive Orkney inquiry. What is presently called a place of safety order will be given a new name: the child protection order. The procedure for obtaining such an order will be changed to introduce new safeguards for parents and children.
Particularly important is the introduction of a new direct appeal to the sheriff, available to both parents and the child in situations where a child has been removed from home to a place of safety. In addition to that important change and the improved arrangements for the child protection order, two new orders will be introduced.
The first is a child assessment order which will enable an authority to obtain access to a child where it is concerned about the child's welfare. That may make unnecessary the removal of the child from home under a child protection order by providing a statutory right of access for purposes of that assessment.
The second new order is the exclusion order which would allow a sheriff on the application of a local authority to make an order to exclude a suspected abuser from the family home as an alternative to removing the child from that home. That is an important new power which has been widely welcomed in Scotland. Notwithstanding that, the provision has been the subject of substantial evidence and debate. The key point at issue has been whether such an exclusion order should be available on an emergency basis; that is, should it be possible to exclude a suspected abuser without giving the person to be excluded intimation and the opportunity of being heard by a sheriff before the exclusion order is granted. In the light of the evidence and discussions in another place, the Government have made it clear that the Bill will be amended in order to make possible exclusion on that basis. The necessary amendments will be brought forward in Committee.
In addition, we will bring forward amendments to make it possible for new evidence, which may be relevant to a case being considered by a children's hearing, to be brought forward without the need for resort to the nobile officium of the Court of Session. Those with any familiarity with recent cases in Scotland will appreciate that that amendment flows from a recent case in Ayrshire involving a number of children.
Further amendments will be brought forward to introduce provisions arising from the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill, and a number of other points. Finally, Part III of the Bill and Schedule 2 deal with amendments

17
to the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. It follows on from the review of adoption law in Scotland. One of the most significant outcomes of the review was, I am glad to say, the widespread confidence expressed in the existing legislative framework for adoption.
Notwithstanding that, the key changes to adoption law we propose are: an obligation on adoption agencies to consider all the options for the long-term care of the child; a simpler procedure for step-parent adoption; a requirement to seek the views of the children's hearing when considering a freeing order or an adoption placement; and a requirement to draw up timetables for adoption proceedings. Those will all improve existing adoption procedures in the interests of the child.
I should emphasise that Part III does not deal with inter-country adoption. Legislation on that aspect of adoption, which has grown increasingly important in recent years for a number of good reasons, needs to be framed on a UK basis.
The Bill is a coherent and ambitious statement of children's law in Scotland based on clear principles designed to benefit the children of Scotland and their families. Your Lordships' approval of the principles upon which it is based is eagerly sought, and your Lordships' later detailed scrutiny of the provisions is awaited with interest. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
3.35 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear exposition of the details of this important Bill. I wish to place on record from this side of your Lordships' House the appreciation of those involved in the welfare of children in Scotland for the care and concern which the Minister has shown for a considerable period of time and ultimately—perhaps through political pressure—for bringing this important Bill before the House. We are happy to co-operate in taking the Bill off the Floor of the House. Were it perhaps a year from now, we might have been hearing it in Edinburgh in an assembly different from your Lordships' House, but that is another matter.
The Bill represents a long-awaited step in legislation affecting children in Scotland and the relationship of the parents and, where they are involved, local authorities in Scotland. It is 26 years since the previous piece of significant legislation affecting children in Scotland was before a Parliament and the measure is long overdue.
The Bill carries with it all-party support, but that does not mean that it is a perfect Bill. When enacted it will govern, in so far as is possible within the realms of human relationships, the multifarious problems arising out of relationships among children, parents and local authorities, wherever the latter are involved.
The Bill has come from another place, where it was subjected to considerable scrutiny on all sides in the hope that, emerging from the work done on the Bill, there would be a statutory framework regulating the relationships involving the family and the community which would serve the individuals concerned and the
18
community in a constructive manner. The expectation is that that will help to eliminate some of the problems which arise from those relationships.
It is no doubt unfortunate that this legislation lags five years behind the equivalent English and Welsh legislation. But, on the other hand, perhaps the lessons learnt from the operation of the Children Bill south of the Border will make the legislation for Scotland better than it might otherwise have been once it has gone through the parliamentary procedure. No doubt those issues will be considered in Committee.
It is proper that due credit be given not just to the organisations which have been involved in the demand for legislation but to those which have made constructive suggestions throughout the Bill's passage in another place, and which have no doubt supplied Members of your Lordships' House who are known to have an interest in the subject with a considerable amount of valuable information and comment. Perhaps I may say in passing that I am extremely disappointed at the response to the Second Reading debate from Scottish Members of your Lordships' House or even Members south of the Border with a Scottish interest.
The formation of an all-party parliamentary group to press for and progress the legislation is in itself an indication of the universal recognition of the many problems arising in this complicated field of human relationships. Recognition of the work of those organisations has already been recorded elsewhere and I do not intend to repeat it. I would put on record that I am sure that all sides of your Lordships' House are grateful for the information and suggestions which we have received, with all of which we shall not necessarily agree, but they have assisted many Members to make a reasoned and considered judgment of the issues involved in the Bill, and they will of course be of value during the more important Committee stage. Continued representation throughout the passage of the Bill will be more than welcome, because every area of expertise has its place in our considerations of the Bill.
One of the many problems involved in a piece of legislation such as this is the striking of a balance between the philosophical approach to family relationships, the definition of those relationships and the practical application of the perceived consequences of the relationships within society. The Minister said in passing, as a broad proposition, that children are best looked after by their parents. Of course, that is true, but as regards today's society and the area towards which the Bill is directed, perhaps the use of the word "parents" is the exception rather than the rule. I am not satisfied that even with the best will in the world the Bill strikes that difficult—indeed, many may say, impossible—balance between the philosophy of family life and the practicality of enforcing it. I cannot for the life of me see how we can enforce family life upon either parents or children.
I make no criticism in saying that one of the problems of the Bill is that it has no teeth. Clauses 1 and 2 deal with parental rights and responsibilities, access to children and so forth. They are very fine and philosophical in content but they cannot, and can never be, enforced.

19
We live in a country of broken marriages, divorces and child victims of those marriages, established single-parent families, with one child or more involved, and the so-designated "absent parent". All of those issues are dealt with in the Bill. Arising out of that is the involvement of the local authorities and their obligations to the children who, through no fault of their own, are caught up in what can only be described as a mess of human relationships, with the consequent financial and other problems involving, as it appears, considerable public expenditure.
The question raised by the Bill is: how do we go about regulating those situations in the best interests of the individuals involved, child and parent, and the local authorities which in many cases will carry the financial burdens imposed upon them in many clauses and supplemented by the powers given to the Secretary of State to become involved in imposing burdens by regulations?
The guesswork as regards the financial consequences of the Bill is £4 million. I do not know how anyone can work out the financial consequences of a Bill such as this. There are approximately 22,500 homeless people in Scotland. Where is the accommodation to come from? Is it to be newly-built accommodation? How will it be provided? Who will pay for it?
It will be interesting to know what lessons have been learnt from the Children Act since it came into force in England. Has it worked out as anticipated? Have the local authorities been able to meet the obligations imposed upon them in the Bill? Perhaps in Committee the Minister will tell us what the position is south of the Border. He will be able to give us real and not imagined figures.
During the passage of the Bill many issues will require close scrutiny. Not least will be the stated duties of the absent parent. In many cases the very fact of absence will reflect that parent's non-concern for the welfare of his or her child—in many cases children—who has been left with the other parent to be brought up. Care must be taken to ensure that any statutory provision takes into account that, once a parent has absented himself or herself from the family, in the broad sense of the word, a new family relationship may have been created by the deserted partner into which the intrusion of the absent parent, perhaps after a considerable period during which he has provided no support to the child or children whom he has deserted, would be of no value whatever to the deserted partner or to the children. I am of the view—and perhaps I express a personal view—that the Bill cannot and must not be seen as a statutory passport to the parent who has taken the easy way out and deserted the partner, who is given the task of bringing up the family alone, to return to the family network.
For the purposes of our consideration of the Bill, it would be interesting to know whether the Child Support Agency has statistics showing how many people in Scotland have been identified or categorised as absent parents, the average length of stay from the family home and the lack of support for the child or children involved.
Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to go through the Bill clause by clause or line by line. That is not the purpose of a Second Reading debate.
20
In another place the Government were put on notice as to the issues which concern Members in all parties. We look forward to an informed and constructive debate on the many issues raised. Although I have not counted, I understand that there have been up to 70 matters in relation to which the Government have indicated that they wish to consider their position. As a result of the speed with which the Bill was brought before Parliament, that is perfectly reasonable and I make no criticism whatever. However, in those circumstances it is difficult to have a Second Reading debate.
Indeed, today the noble and learned Lord the Minister spoke of amendment after amendment. When I read my copy of the Bill I do not know whether it is the Bill which we shall be discussing in Committee. Therefore, to some extent we are talking in a legislative vacuum. Nonetheless, the Second Reading is now before the House and your Lordships will have to put up with the situation. We must do our best.
Not least of the questions that will be asked is that relating to the exclusion orders which are dealt with in Clause 70. It is the exclusion of an alleged offender or a child abuser, to put it in the broad sense. It is difficult to make any observations on the application of the clause because I understand that in another place the Minister said that the Government were still thinking about it—and quite properly too. Similarly, in relation to the appointment of "safeguarded" for children who are involved in proceedings, the situation is not yet clear. There may be many other areas in the Bill upon which the Government are having second thoughts. It is to be hoped that, by the time the Bill reaches the Committee stage, the issues raised in another place in respect of which the Government gave undertakings to consider the position will be clarified by government amendments, as the noble and learned Lord has indicated.
Perhaps it would be sensible to suggest that we do not discuss the Bill at all until we see those amendments, but I believe that that would be silly. The Bill should not be designated for the benefit of parents, married, absent or otherwise. The prime concern is the welfare of the children, present and future, and those in the care of local authorities who must be helped after their release from that care. Perhaps rather than imposing an absolute duty to give help, advice and assistance to persons who have left local authority care, it might be proper to provide that every child leaving such care should be advised of the availability of help, advice and assistance. They would then know that at any time until the age of, say, 21 they could go back to the local authority.
The provisions relating to exclusion orders and interim exclusion orders will be of great concern. They pose problems not only to the person excluded but to the child or children involved and to the family as a whole. The Bill is unclear as to whether a sheriff, having heard all the evidence relating to an exclusion order but not being satisfied that the finality of an exclusion order is appropriate, can still make an interim order based on the evidence that he has heard presented by the local authority. The difficulty in interpreting this part of the Bill arises out of the definition of an exclusion order in Clause 70(8). That appears to exclude an exclusion order as covering an interim order. Many of your Lordships may

21
consider that that sounds like gobbledegook. However, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Minister will take the point on board. Perhaps the Government will look at that matter as it is of some practical importance, in particular where the safety of the child may be in balance.
That part of the Bill is one of great difficulty and has potential for causing considerable harm to many of the individuals involved in the matter: for example, what will be the employment prospects of the alleged abuser when he has been excluded without proof of guilt of anything; what of his standing in the community, in particular in a small community; and if the alleged abuser is found to be innocent at the end of it all, from where and whom does he get recompense for the damage done? We all recognise abuse, sexual or otherwise, for the evil that it is, but that problem must be approached with great care. Not least in the catalogue of problems is at what point the views of the child or children, as the case may be, are to be taken into consideration and how their evidence is to be taken and evaluated.
I noticed in a newspaper report today that the Minister has taken active steps to train people in taking evidence from young children. I believe that the Minister and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate are working together to draw up a set of rules in relation to the questioning of young children, which is very welcome. To some extent, that may answer the questions that I posed.
I wonder also how important are the views of the child. There was an unfortunate report in a newspaper on Monday which told of a tragic case of a 14 year-old boy who was faced with that very predicament—to choose between his mother or father. We all know that one of the great problems in abuse cases is the guilt complex which is thrust upon the child because the child feels guilty, whatever happens: if the father goes to prison, the child feels guilty; if the household is broken up, the child feels guilty. Very often the other members of the family begin to niggle the child, or the mother may abandon him. Those are very grave problems. If the newspaper report is correct, in the case to which I have referred the young man took the absolute solution and hanged himself. That really shows the difficulties in that very complex area of human relationships.
Before Committee stage I should like to raise one matter in relation to exclusion orders and interim exclusion orders. They can be applied for only by the local authority. Should there be a role for the reporter in those proceedings? In other words, there could be a joint application by the local authority and/or the reporter. There is an obvious danger in casting the net too widely in relation to applications for exclusion orders because inevitably there will be a multiplicity of applications from a variety of persons or groups asking for exclusion orders for a variety of reasons —genuine, evil or otherwise. Therefore, I suggest that it would be better for any such concern to be channelled through the local authority and/or the reporter service.
Perhaps I may raise two further matters in conclusion. The first is as regards the situation of children attending independent and grant-maintained schools. I have no doubt that the Government have been alerted to that matter. If the Title of the Bill—the Children (Scotland) Bill—has any meaning whatever and if we are taking
22
account of what the United Nations and the Scottish Royal Commission have said, no child in any school or establishment should be treated in any way differently from a child in any other establishment.
As I read the provisions of this Bill, there is an indication that independent and grant-maintained schools will be free from any investigative process at the instance of any inspecting authority to ensure that the rights and welfare of children attending such schools and establishments are being properly regulated and protected. The rights of children in Scotland should be the same, wherever they are. When a parent signs a child into a particular school, giving full parental authority to that establishment to treat the child as though the school were the parent and to administer corporal punishment to that child, that is surely a prima facie failure to recognise the rights and views of the child which are central to this Bill. The wishes of the parents are neither here nor there. Throughout, the Bill refers to the views of the child. How are the views of the children in those establishments to be ascertained if nobody can get into them to see what on earth is going on? I am sure that your Lordships will be familiar, either through experience or by reading of it, with what happens in certain schools.
If I have misread that part of the Bill, I shall he delighted to be told so. But I seek an assurance that no children's rights, in the light of the provisions in the current conventions, are being or are likely to be abused in any school in Scotland.
Secondly, there is the question of chastisement of children. That matter was raised in another place and did not find favour with the Government. The Scottish Law Commission has recommended that no implements should be used for the chastisement of any child. That did not find favour with the Government. It may well be that it will find favour in your Lordships' House. But the matter must be taken one stage further because, although I do not have the report before me, I believe that reference is made in one report to an educative slap. There is no such thing.
The Minister and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will know from their experience of the Crown Office that some of the most tragic cases of which we know are those where an angry parent, a frustrated parent, a father who cannot cope with a crying child, has picked up the child and has either shaken it to death or given it a slap across the head which has caused the brain to he damaged. Therefore, we are looking for a system through which to educate parents. Physical violence towards a child cannot be regulated and if we had a perfect society no child would ever be assaulted. It would be unrealistic to say that that is what will happen, but we should start an educational process, just as we have in relation to motoring accidents and drink-driving, to educate young parents in particular that any form of violence towards young children is liable to have fatal results.
Many other important issues will arise in the course of the Committee stage. As was said in another place, this side of your Lordships' House will do all in its power to put this Bill on the statute book because it recognises the principles enshrined in it. We shall do nothing to halt the progress of the Bill. However, that assurance does not mean that there will not be debates on the issues involved

23
in this wide-ranging piece of legislation. Indeed, there may be occasions on which the opinion of the House will be sought. I hope that any amendments brought forward will be treated by the Government as being constructive and not in any sense destructive. We all wish to do our best for Scotland's children and in particular the deprived and under-privileged children who are the victims of today's society.
No Act of Parliament will ever solve those problems. We can only do our best. I look forward to the further stages of this Bill which, when enacted, it is hoped, will give children in Scotland and the community a better protection within the law and a better opportunity of a reasonable life than can be foreseen at present.

Nuclear Industry: Review
3.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I repeat a Statement which has been made by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, with permission I would like to make a Statement about the conclusions of the Government's nuclear review. This will be followed in due course by a debate. The findings of the review are set out more fully in a White Paper which I and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland are publishing today and placing in the Libraries of both Houses and the Vote Office.
"First let me say that safety has been a paramount consideration throughout the review. The review has confirmed that nuclear power plays an important role in meeting the UK's energy needs and should continue to do so, provided that it is competitive and is able to maintain rigorous standards of safety and environmental protection. The nuclear industry argued the case for additional nuclear power stations. The appropriate test of this case is the potential availability of private sector finance for a project to build a new nuclear power station. There is, at present, no case for government intervention to distort the electricity market by providing finance or guarantees to one form of generation over another. While the market will ultimately be the judge, the review concluded that, on the basis of the figures provided by the industry in the review and in the light of the returns available from alternative generation projects, private finance is unlikely to be available at present for new nuclear construction.
"The review also examined whether, and over what time-scale, privatisation of the nuclear generators would be feasible. The benefit to consumers from the privatisation of most of the electricity supply industry has been clear: domestic electricity prices are now lower in real terms, even after VAT, than two years ago, with further reductions in the pipeline. The average
24
price paid by industrial consumers has fallen by more than 10 per cent. in real terms since 1989, the last year in which the industry was in state ownership.
"The nuclear stations had to be excluded from electricity privatisation then, because investors were concerned about the risks of substantially increased nuclear costs; about the performance of the advanced gas cooled reactor, or AGR stations; and about the costs of financing new pressurised water reactors, or PWRs.
"The situation today is very different. The generators have removed many of the uncertainties about the costs of managing spent fuel and waste and decommissioning plant. They have completed the first stage of decommissioning Berkley Magnox station and the costs have been about one-third lower than originally estimated. The performance of some AGRs has vastly improved. Sizewell 'B' has been built within budget and is now in operation.
"As a result, the Government have decided to privatise the more modern nuclear stations—the seven AGR stations and the PWR station at Sizewell—during the course of 1996. The liabilities associated with those stations will also be transferred to the private sector.
"The Government have decided to create a holding company, with the parts of Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear which are to be privatised as its wholly-owned subsidiaries. The holding company approach has been designed both to preserve the identities of Scottish Nuclear and Nuclear Electric and to establish a significant holding company to be registered in Scotland, where its headquarters will be located. The headquarters will include all key group functions. A chairman independent of both Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear will be appointed.
"Scottish Nuclear will continue as a separate entity with its own board; its continued existence will be protected by special shares in the holding company and in Scottish Nuclear Limited. The functions currently carried out by Scottish Nuclear at its headquarters in East Kilbride will continue to be carried out there. In addition, it is expected that engineering functions within the group will be reorganised to bring more jobs to Scotland. In all, those developments are expected to bring at least 100 jobs to Scotland.
"The new subsidiary companies will continue to participate in their respective markets in England and Wales and Scotland. There will be no change in the market share held by Scottish Nuclear in Scotland but the establishment of the new separate Magnox company in England and Wales will mean that Nuclear Electric's private sector successor will have a smaller market share than Nuclear Electric does at present.
"In private ownership, the holding company will be free to compete, both domestically and overseas. Privatisation will provide powerful incentives for the two subsidiary companies to benefit their customers by raising efficiency and reducing costs.
"The new company will be totally committed to maintaining the exemplary safety record of the nuclear power generating industry. Safety is of paramount

25
importance, and will not be compromised. As the Health and Safety Commission said about the transition to the private sector in its evidence to the review:
'The system of nuclear regulation in the UK … is internationally recognised as a rigorous system for ensuring a high level of safety. It is essentially sound, and there is no reason to change it in any fundamental way to deal with whatever structure emerges'.
I agree. The Government's commitment to the continuation of a rigorous safety regime remains absolute.
"The Government intend to safeguard financing of long-term liabilities to be passed to the private sector as a result of those proposals through the creation of segregated funds or similar arrangements.
"The review also considered the future of the Magnox stations. The Government do not believe that the Magnox stations can be privatised. The review did identify, however, opportunities for reducing the costs of discharging their liabilities, which potentially fall to the taxpayer.
"The Government propose in the first instance that all the Magnox stations and their liabilities should be held in a stand-alone company owned by the Government. That will create a new baseload nuclear generator with 8 per cent. of the English and Welsh market. In due course, that company will be transferred to BNFL, giving BNFL a clear incentive to maximise the revenues from Magnox generation, to minimise reprocessing and other backend costs, and to optimise the economic life of the stations.
"Finally, the review examined the fossil fuel levy in England and Wales and the Nuclear Energy Agreement in Scotland. Both Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear have achieved significant improvements in their financial performance and in defining and reducing their liabilities. In the case of Nuclear Electric, the company and its public and private sector successors should now be able to meet the full costs of liabilities as they fall due without further help from the fossil fuel levy.
"The Government have therefore decided that, at the time of privatisation, that part of the fossil fuel levy to which Nuclear Electric is entitled should be abolished, at least 18 months earlier than previously expected. Electricity prices in England and Wales will fall by up to 8 per cent. in a full year as a result of that decision, with the average annual household electricity bill falling by as much as £20. Lower prices will also give a major boost to the competitiveness of British industry.
"Comparable arrangements will be put in hand in Scotland. The nuclear premium there will be ended, and those savings will be passed through to franchise customers in Scotland. Due to those and other savings already in train, domestic electricity prices in Scotland will fall by around 8 per cent. in real terms between 1994 and 1996.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is making an announcement today about issues relevant to the nuclear review, which have been examined in his parallel review of radioactive waste management policy.
26
"Madam Speaker, the proposals that I have announced today will make for a more competitive nuclear generation sector operating to continuing, rigorous safety standards. They will strengthen the ability of British companies to market nuclear services abroad. That is the right way forward for this key industry. At the same time, the changes in the fossil fuel levy and the equivalent step in Scotland will bring significant benefits to consumers. I commend the proposals to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I must first thank the Minister for repeating to the House the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend. I find myself in an even more difficult position than is normally the case when dealing with Statements. This is an immensely interesting subject, but one which is technically difficult. I shall make my usual complaint: it is absurd that one is supposed to get up and begin to discuss such matters off the cuff. The position is made even more absurd by what appears to be, at a glance, a remarkably interesting White Paper. I must apologise to your Lordships and admit that I have just flicked through the pages, so there is no possibility that I can comment upon its contents.
The second sentence in the Statement reads:
"This will be followed in due course by a debate".
We always have to understand that as meaning that the Statement will be followed by a debate in another place; it is never followed by a debate in your Lordships' House. One of the most ridiculous things about the arrangements in your Lordships' House is that we have debates on all sorts of subjects but because, obviously, the Opposition do not choose to use their very scarce time for such matters the Government never choose to find time to debate such fundamental issues. I can only repeat what I have said many times. I do not believe that that is making full use of all the skills and strengths of this House. The thought that today is the only time we shall have this remarkable White Paper before us does not fill me with any pleasure. Noble Lords have heard me say that before; that will not stop me saying it today or, indeed, in the future.
I have a number of questions to ask and a number of comments to make. First, am I right that the proposals contained in the Statement will not require legislation? I am not entirely certain of that, but I think it is the case that, because of previous legislation, this will simply happen. Incidentally, if that is true—I would like confirmation—it underlines my point about debates. It means that we shall not even debate the matter as legislation. We should be told whether I am right that legislation is not required.
I now discuss the detail. The Statement says that the Government feel, to use their word—I think it is the wrong word here—that there is,
"no case for government intervention to distort the electricity market by providing finance or guarantees to one form of generation over another".
I object to the word "distort". Until this point the Government have taken a view—not one I necessarily disagreed with—that a balanced energy programme was

27
a sensible one, and that that kind of diversity might well require government support for one kind of generation rather than another. I would not use the word "distortion" as regards achieving that end; rather, the words "rational economic calculation".
Essentially the Government are saying that they no longer feel any further diversification is required. As the Government feel that way, and the Statement says that,
"private finance is unlikely to be available at present for new nuclear construction",
am I right to infer, putting the two together, that that means the end of nuclear construction? Am I right to infer that the stations we have are the ones we shall have and that there will be no more? The Government will not put up any money and the document states that the private sector will not do so either. Although I am quite interested in science fiction, I cannot believe that our friends from Mars will come down and finance a nuclear station. I shall not comment on whether that serious matter is right or wrong, but it represents an important moment in the history of nuclear power.
I now deal with the question of decommissioning, liabilities, and all that. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel was, I believe, dealing with the matter when it was previously discussed. I believed then that the matter was simple and straightforward, that the private sector was simply not willing to bear the risk of decommissioning, and that that was why it did not happen. That appeared to come as a surprise to the Government. I remember the very hour it happened. However, it appears now that something has changed, if only slightly. The Magnox stations will stay nationalised. That has always struck me as being the reverse of what one might call traditional Adam Smith doctrine. Adam Smith essentially enunciated that the government were the place for safe projects and that the private sector was the great risk bearer. However, when it is a matter of nuclear generation it appears that the private sector will not go within a million miles of any risk taking and therefore the risks of not knowing the costs of decommissioning must be borne by the public sector.
My main question is the following. Does the review show that now we can calculate the costs of decommissioning the non-Magnox stations pretty accurately? Is that what has now been demonstrated? That leads me to another question. The Statement says:
"The liabilities associated with these stations will also be transferred to the private sector".
When I refer to stations, I refer to the AGRs and the PWR. The Statement continues:
"The Government intends to safeguard financing of long term liabilities to be passed to the private sector as a result of these proposals through the creation of segregated funds or similar arrangements".
That seems to me to be gobbledegook for saying that the private sector must put in train an amortisation fund which will amount in due course to the costs of decommissioning the AGRs etc. Am I right that that is what it means? That takes me to a related question. Does it therefore mean that this calculation can now be done; namely, that someone can say that the cost of decommissioning an AGR station can now be correctly
28
calculated—given long-term rates of interest expected to last over the next 50 years of perhaps 8 per cent. net and 5 per cent. real—and that we now know how to set up the relevant fund? Is that what this is meant to say?
Can the proposal in the Statement on segregated funds be carried out without legislation? Does the Companies Act ensure that the new privatised sector will be obliged to create sufficient funds? It is not obvious to me that that will be so. It is worth bearing in mind that this is a special kind of risk because if, in due course, a privatised nuclear power company has not set aside enough funds for decommissioning, and decommissioning is required, there is not the slightest possibility that the Government could then say, "Well, too bad, that is your problem". The Government would have to take on that risk if the privatised companies had not set aside sufficient funds. Two things follow. The obvious point is that they must be legally made to do that in the first place. It seems to me absurd to place this matter in the private sector. If one ever set up a classic economic argument for why something ought to be in the public sector, the risk and decommissioning costs here exemplify that well. However, that does not stop the Government.
My next question and/or comment concerns the bizarre state of affairs in Scotland. I am delighted that we can calculate with such accuracy that the number of jobs created will be 100. With an unemployment rate of 2.5 million, I am delighted that we can calculate to a fineness of 100. However, that is by the way. And 100 is better than 50, which was the alternative calculation offered to me. However, I cannot see why the holding company is being set up, and why, if we are going to privatise, the two companies are not being privatised separately. I just cannot understand the logic of that argument. The regulator seems to have taken a different view and several other economic commentators have also taken a different view. What one ought to have done was to concentrate on competition here rather than on anything else.
As I have not had the chance to read the White Paper, I have to ask the Minister whether it demonstrates that the holding company—putting the two companies together—is the correct answer. Is there research that shows that? And is that research set out in the White Paper? It certainly puzzles me that that is so. I have another question. I take it that the new body, given that it will not build any new nuclear stations and given that its capacity is then fixed, will be allowed to go into other methods of generation. Will the Minister confirm that there is nothing to stop the new body going into other methods of generation, especially if and when the Gas Bill goes through your Lordships' House and becomes law?
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me as I am speaking for longer than I would wish. That emphasises how important this subject is. I am not clear from the Statement what the role of the special shares in the Scottish company is. Is the role to prevent it being "de-Scotticized"—I am inventing the word—in order to please the Scots and to ensure that there will be a Scottish element? Are the shares intended as a pledge to the Scots that they will always have one bit of the English company, and that one bit of the English company will be forever Scottish? Is that the point of the shares? Perhaps the Minister can tell me. Will he also say how that can

29
possibly be a guarantee because, so far as I know, the Secretary of State could have such shares but could sell them at any time he or she fancied selling them? Therefore, one cannot give the Scots that kind of guarantee by means of the shares. Nevertheless I ask that question because I want to know the answer.
Happily, I have nearly reached the end of my remarks as 10 minutes is long enough to speak. I have some final comments. The Minister said that the nuclear levy is coming to an end. Does he agree that ending the fossil fuel levy has absolutely nothing to do with the privatisation proposals? One can end the fossil fuel levy at any time one chooses. It is useful to refer to the two matters in the same Statement but they have nothing to do with each other as regards privatisation. Can we also be told what the effects of the abolition of the nuclear fossil fuel levy will be? Has there been any forecast or analysis of the effect on renewable energy?
My last comment concerns safety. I am not anti-nuclear. I have always favoured an energy market which was both diverse and efficient. It does British industry no good to have inefficient energy production. If nuclear energy is efficient, then I am in favour of nuclear energy. If it is inefficient, I am against it. That goes for any other form of energy supply. However, I accept the diversification argument. There is no difference between the Government and us. However, safety is central. We have to bear in mind that the general public are particularly sensitive to safety in this area and do not like smart alecs telling them not to worry. I speak as a smart alec.
My concern is whether, once the industry is privatised, the role of the inspectorate—which, as the Statement says, is recognised worldwide as outstandingly good—will be fully safeguarded. Does the sentence,
"The Government's commitment to the continuation of a rigorous safety regime remains absolute"
mean that, in so far as they are able to give a guarantee, the Government guarantee the position of the inspectorate and will support its continued existence?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. I wish to declare that I am chairman of a group of energy companies, which includes one which provides advisory services on electricity.
I should like to put a number of questions to the noble Earl. First, why are the Government convinced that they can be more successful this time in selling off the nuclear enterprises than they were in 1989? The Statement referred to that, and the Government seem to believe that they will be successful. However, are the financial institutions convinced? Will it be necessary, in order to convince them, to sell off the assets at a relatively low price? There have been indications of that having been done in the past.
Secondly, the form which the privatisation is intended to take, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, also puzzles me. According to press reports an argument raged as to whether the industry should be privatised as a whole, in which case there could have been benefits of scale, or privatised separately, in which case there could have been benefits of competition. If the industry is privatised as now proposed neither the benefits of scale
30
nor the benefits of competition can be achieved. The holding company will supervise two quite separate enterprises which will continue, as before, with their relative market shares. There will therefore be no competition between them, and presumably no rationalisation. That does not seem to me to be a sensible proposition. Perhaps the noble Earl can convince us otherwise.
Thirdly, I listened with care to what the Statement had to say about the levy. It does not appear that the levy as a whole will be removed but only that part of it relating to Nuclear Electric and the special arrangements relating to Scottish Nuclear. That implies that some part of the levy will continue, presumably that which relates to the Magnox stations and, I presume also, that which relates to stimulating renewable energy. According to my calculations that probably represents about 20 per cent. of the levy. Will the noble Earl indicate whether that is correct and whether that will continue until 1998 or for a period beyond that?
Fourthly, I presume that the decommissioning fund will take the form of an amount of money which will be among the assets which will be sold on privatisation. Can we be assured that there will not be some corresponding reduction in the value of the other assets to be sold in order to make that proposition more palatable? I hope that the noble Earl will agree, on the basis of past performance in respect of sales of the public utilities, that we are entitled to have some doubts about the value which will be placed on those assets as a whole when offered for sale.
Finally, like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I return to the question of safety. Quite rightly, the Statement emphasises the importance of safety. However, can the noble Earl say whether the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate will be given all the time it needs in order to prepare for adequate licences for the private operation of these installations? The public must be absolutely convinced beyond any possible doubt that there will be no conceivable relaxation of safety standards on the privatisation of the nuclear industry.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the remarks they have made about the Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that it was interesting and exceedingly difficult to understand. I agree that it is a highly complicated matter. The noble Lord therefore said that he found it difficult to speak on the subject. Having said that, he did not do too badly. He asked a number of penetrating questions, which I shall do my best to answer as succinctly as possible without discourtesy to the noble Lord or the House.
The noble Lord complained that there was no debate. That is a matter for the usual channels. I agree with him that this would be a most inappropriate form of debate as your Lordships have not seen the White Paper. Therefore, this is necessarily only a cursory response to the fact that the Government have announced that they are issuing a White Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked whether the proposals would require legislation. He was right: they will not require legislation.
The noble Lord referred to the fact that the Statement said that it was not correct to distort the electricity industry by subsidy. He questioned whether that meant

31
that the Government had no interest in the future composition of the electricity industry. It is the Government's view that it is the market which should determine the best form of electricity generation. In 1989 70 per cent. of electricity generation was by coal. The situation has now completely changed and there is a greatly improved balance. It will be for the market itself to decide the proportions supplied by the various forms of generation.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, referred to the fact that the White Paper mentioned that it appeared that there was no commercial argument for new nuclear energy and asked whether that meant that nuclear energy would come to an end. The noble Lord is not quite right in that respect. The National Economic Research Associates went into the matter in some detail and reported to the review. They considered, having taken all the information into account, that at present that was the case. However, if the private industry decides that the facts and figures have changed over time it is entirely possible for nuclear energy stations to be built.
The noble Lord asked whether Magnox decommissioning costs could be predicted fairly accurately. We now have a good deal of experience in relation to decommissioning costs. The costs are less than originally envisaged. Therefore, the cost of decommissioning nuclear generators as a whole is less than expected. Of course, it is impossible to give a simple answer which will cover every conceivable circumstance, but we can get a fairly broad idea now that we know that decommissioning is less expensive than it was expected to be.
It is perfectly true that when the companies are in the private sector they will have to accept liability for decommissioning. That will have to be taken into account when bids are made. How that decommissioning is carried out, whether through a sinking fund or some other method, is a matter for the companies.
The noble Lord was a little scathing about the 100 extra jobs in Scotland although he just about welcomed them. The moving of the headquarters, and the other repair mechanisms, to Scotland is a considerable advantage to Scotland.
The noble Lord asked, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, whether the holding company was a good idea. He asked whether the purpose was to enable Scottish Nuclear to remain basically for Scotland. That is, in fact, one of the main purposes. By having a holding company, one would have Nuclear Electric and Nuclear Scotland operating under a holding company. The purpose of having the special shares is to enable the Secretary of State, should he feel so inclined, to ensure that that remains the case. The White Paper discusses the benefits of the holding company, as the noble Lord will find when he reads it. Such a holding company is compatible with a regulatory regime and gives the least description to the existing companies.
The noble Lord also referred to the end of the fossil fuel levy. He stated that it was nothing to do with the White Paper. He may be strictly correct on that, but the matter is of considerable concern and interest. We thought it appropriate to put it in the White Paper. The only element
32
of the levy which will remain—the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to it—is the 1.0 per cent. to 1.5 per cent. levy raised for the renewals element.
The noble Lord asked whether the Magnox element of the levy will remain. It will not remain because the levy has obtained sufficient money to cover the decommissioning of the Magnox reactors.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked why we should be more successful privatising now than in 1989. The answer is that in 1989 there was considerable concern expressed about decommissioning, and the effect of nuclear energy on the environment. A lot more is now known about decommissioning. That has been undertaken. Therefore, not only the Government but the industry also know more about it.
The noble Lord referred to the holding company. I answered that point. He also referred to the levy. I believe that I answered that point. He referred, too, as did the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to safety. I can give both noble Lords the assurance that safety is paramount. The simple answer is that the regulations control whether or not a system is safe, not the methods of generation. Whether the generation is in the public or private domain, it is the regulations which ensure the safety. It is our intention to ensure that that safety will continue to be of the highest order.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend now answer the question which was very properly put by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as to whether this matter will be debated by your Lordships' House when the White Paper is available? I hope that my noble friend will not reply that that will be a matter for the usual channels because it is certainly my experience that the usual channels generally become gummed up when there is any question of your Lordships' House discussing really important matters.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may say so, that is precisely the reason that it is a matter for the usual channels.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, perhaps I, too, may support the view expressed that the Statement is unusual in length and complexity, in the mixture of issues raised by it, and the importance of the matter generally. While one would not lay the responsibility for running the business of the House on the noble Earl, I should be grateful to think that he was at least sympathetic to the idea that we could have a serious, sensible debate on the White Paper at some time.
Perhaps I may raise two other points. There are a number of issues, but surely a major issue is the existence now of a massive international market in nuclear distribution in this area which is already in excess of £5 billion a year and growing quite rapidly. The British nuclear industry is superbly placed to exploit that market if the constraints of public ownership are taken away.
Finally, I should be grateful if the noble Earl will say whether these golden shares, special shares, are purely to ensure that the offices and the activities are located in

33
Scotland, or are there other factors? I am highly suspicious of privatisations where governments retain reserve powers.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, first, I understand the noble Lord's concern that this is an important Statement. It is a technical Statement. In no way did I wish to be curt to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as he might have considered that I was, in saying that it is a matter for the usual channels. However, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is, if I may say so in a most gracious way, an old war horse at these games. He knows perfectly well that the Government cannot say that there will be a debate, because it is a matter for the usual channels. Having said that, I agree with him and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that these are important matters. We are talking about high technology. As the noble Lord rightly says, British industry has an enormous capacity to lead the world in this area, and the world market is considerable.
Part of the reason for privatising is to enable the industry to become more competitive—to compete better in the world than it has in the past. I believe that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, the assurance he seeks, but it would have to be couched in fairly generous terms.
The point regarding the special shares is to ensure that the Scottish part remains Scottish. It is not supposed to be a hamper on the development of either the Scottish or the English nuclear industry. That is the whole purpose of the privatisation. It is to make the industry more competitive; it is not to be a fetter.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Cross-Benches have had their turn. Let us do this right.
I should declare a couple of interests. First, Nuclear Electric pays me a small pension which I earned when I was employed by the CEGB. Secondly, I am an adviser to UNISON.
My first question is this. In repeating the Statement the noble Earl said that there had been great improvements in the performance of the AGRs and that the PWR at Sizewell had been built to time. Under those circumstances, since the industry has been such a success under public ownership, why on earth do we wish to privatise it?
My second question is this. While consumers may well benefit from the early ending of the nuclear levy, what other benefits will the consumers gain arising from privatisation? The Statement made no reference to the benefits which consumers are likely to achieve from privatisation. Perhaps the noble Earl will outline those.
Regarding privatisation, shall we once again have the spectacle of the chairman's salary being increased many times over for doing the same job? Will the chairman and other members of the board be made millionaires because they will be granted share options?
Finally, I ask the noble Earl about the £70 million of pensioners' money which was used by Nuclear Electric to sack 2,000 people in order to fatten up the industry for privatisation. Can he say whether that £70 million—again
34
I declare my interest—which was used to make 2,000 people redundant will now be returned to the pensioners where it properly belongs?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that was a good old controversial speech, was it not? I see that I shall have to give the noble Lord a lesson on the advantages of privatisation, but now would not be a particularly appropriate moment. I merely record the fact that new Labour is just as determined to carry on with nationalisation as was its predecessor.
If the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, were to examine all the different companies, he would see that the benefits of privatisation were enormous—not only to those employed by the companies but also to their customers. The noble Lord asked: if the industry has been so successful thus far, why bother to privatise it? I come back to lesson number one on privatisation: namely, if an industry is privatised it generally works better, more cheaply and more efficiently. That is why we believe this privatisation to be necessary.
The noble Lord asked who will benefit from privatisation. I come to lesson number two of the privatisation sermon: the customers will benefit.
He then turned to the good old controversial subject of chairmen's salaries. I have no idea what the chairman's salary will be. But it is important that those who run our organisations are paid the rate for the job, whatever that rate happens to be. If you do not do that, you merely lose them to other organisations.
The noble Lord asked about the £70 million of pensioners' funds used to fatten up the industry. That was rather a vulgar way of putting it. If people are made redundant, they are entitled to a pension. If they are made redundant, it is in order to make the business more efficient. I cannot think that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, believes in his heart of hearts that it is right to employ more people than is necessary, at the ensuing cost to the public and to customers.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, so far my noble friend the Minister has been subjected to a whole list of detailed questions, but there has been very little praise and very little condemnation for this policy of the Government. I congratulate the Government because of what was in the Statement, not so much because I am an arch Right-wing privatiser—although I recognise that if the Government are not prepared to put up development capital, industries will starve unless somebody else does. In this particular case, as indeed in other privatisations, it has been the City that has done just that.
In the Statement (I do not have the words exactly right) it was made pretty clear, to me at least, that the Government would not finance any additional nuclear power stations and that the market would be the judge. How can the market be the judge in the current circumstances, when 75 per cent. or thereabouts of the electricity generation market is in the private sector and 25 per cent. or slightly less in the public sector?
I also have a detailed question for my noble friend. So far, many millions of pounds have been raised through the fossil fuel obligation, popularly known as the nuclear

35
levy, for the decommissioning of Magnox stations. That pot of money is somewhere in the system. Who owns it, and what will happen to it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for congratulating the Government. That was a very wise move and one that is greatly appreciated. He asked how the market can be the judge among the different systems of electricity generation. The fact is that people know the cost of generation. That is what the market is about, whether it is a matter of nuclear generation or any other kind of business. There are different methods of generating electricity. It is for the market to decide, as opposed to the Government subsidising, and therefore distorting, costs across the board. It is for the industry to decide whether there should be nuclear generation of electricity.
My noble friend asked what had happened to the "pot of money". A pot of money has been produced by the levy. That money is available for decommissioning the Magnox reactors and will be available for that purpose. The cost of the liabilities will be the cash in hand, some £2 billion; the remaining levy from the industry until it is privatised; and the privatisation proceeds—plus of course the expected reduction in the costs of decommissioning, which were estimated to be about £1.1 billion. The money that has been raised will be there and will be used for the decommissioning of Magnox reactors.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the issue of safety. I ask the noble Earl to remember the case of the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island. At the inquiry it emerged with painful clarity that the cause of the accident was that the company, which was privately owned, had brought the plant into operation before it was ready in order to get it into the old financial year and to secure a tax rebate of 5 million dollars (I believe that was the sum, although I would not answer for it). I decided then that I would never trust nuclear safety to the power of the profit motive. Can the noble Earl tell me why I should change my mind?
I regret that a change of this magnitude can be brought in without primary legislation. Does that not illustrate the danger of leaving unexploded vires lying about in the statute book?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Earl referred to a specific example, in which I believe there was no escape of radiation from the building. However, that does not answer the noble Earl's real concern. He said that a company brought the station into operation before it should have done. Perhaps I may return to a remark I made to an earlier point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. What controls safety is the regulations that are attached to an organisation. There are many safety aspects, on roads, for instance, and in the air. Rigorous safety is accorded to organisations that are privately run. The reason why safety will be assured when nuclear generation is privately run lies in the regulations that apply to it, which will be just the same as those that apply to it now. If the noble Earl is doubtful about that, I would
36
ask him to consider the example of air traffic, which is pretty hazardous if the regulations are not very tightly controlled, as they are.
With regard to the noble Earl's last argument about "unexploded vires", I have to work out exactly what unexploded vires are. But I understand his generality of concern. I shall explain only that that is the position of the law at the moment and that is why the Government do not see a need for further legislation.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, do not the questions that have been raised in the short time following the Statement show the immense importance of noble Lords being vouchsafed a debate? Has not the other place been told in the Statement that it will have a debate? Why should this House be denied one? Is it not proper for the noble Earl to say that there will be a debate, and at a convenient time to be arranged through the usual channels? Is not this hesitation symptomatic of much that is going on in the way of an attempt to marginalise this House in the legislative process? There were a minimum of three working days between Report and Third Reading of the Pensions Bill so that there was no time to correspond with the Ministers. The Finance Bill was put in on a Friday, on a day when the House does not normally sit, and at very short notice. Does not all that show that your Lordships' activities are being subordinated to the Government's desire to use your Lordships merely for processing a vast mass of government legislation? Should not the noble Earl now say, "Yes, there will be a debate and the place and time are for discussion through the usual channels"?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that was a forceful intervention by the noble and learned Lord. Indeed, he always makes forceful interventions on matters of constitutional propriety. He will realise that I was repeating a Statement. In the Statement, my right honourable friend said that in another place there would be a debate. But the other place has its own methods and system of arranging debates. It would be inappropriate for me to say that we in your Lordships' House will be guaranteed a debate. I shall undertake to consider very carefully and closely the concerns which have been expressed, not only by the noble and learned Lord but also by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and others. This is a subject which could and should be debated.
What I do not intend to do—I hope that the noble and learned Lord will acquit me of discourtesy—is give a guarantee that that will happen. That is not the way that such things are done in your Lordships' House. They are done through the usual channels and I believe that that is the right way. But I shall certainly bear in mind the concerns that your Lordships have expressed.
Perhaps I may also say that if the noble and learned Lord and indeed anybody else are concerned about this matter, they have the opportunity to table Questions and debates. It is not solely the responsibility of the Government. But I understand the concern that has been expressed.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, this is the disposal of yet another public asset. In the early years of privatisation, the

37
Government pointed out the extent to which the proceeds of those sales enabled a reduction of public debt. Is there any possibility at this late stage in the Government's life of a return to that form of financial rectitude? Alternatively, if that is not the case, is there any possibility that the proceeds of Scottish Nuclear should be applied to making more capital available to projects in Scotland?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that one of the ways in which a diminution of public debt is effected is by selling things that are in the public arena. That reduces public debt. There is nothing new about that.
I should like to give a little thought to the noble Lord's question about Scotland and perhaps I may write to him on that point.

Children (Scotland) Bill
4.54 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, we have before us today the much heralded and welcome Children (Scotland) Bill, with which, due to effective lobbying, I feel that we have been living for the past six months. The Bill is the first comprehensive look at the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 which dominated the lives of my fellow social work students 26 years ago.
The Bill begins by making general statements about the position of children and their parents, upgrading a child's status and giving some guidance about how children should be brought up and parenting conducted even after estrangement. The Bill goes on to look at what happens when effective parenting and family life break down. The much admired children's panel system is overhauled in the light of practical experience and the reorganisation of local government. I am always surprised that, although the system earns so many accolades, it has not been implemented anywhere else in the world.
The vast majority of families who are assisted by the social work departments are helped on a voluntary basis. From the children's panel the Bill moves on to the local authority's duties as discharged by the social work and education authorities. The Bill places a duty on the social work department to prepare, publish and review its plans for child care services. That is set in the context of a new emphasis on the welfare of the child as the primary focus, with a proviso that the protection of the public allows for the use of secure accommodation.
The child's right to give an opinion about its future care is enshrined in the Bill. That increase in the child's right to consent to the care package must be limited to prevent the child from determining how it will be brought up. The child's background must be determined by its parents.
New assessment procedures are to be put into place for children with disabilities and those children affected by the disability of their carers. I am concerned that the "children in need" category may be too narrowly defined and open to misinterpretation. I believe that it should be extended and described as a general welfare duty to supply services to all children in the area. That will prevent a minimalist approach to child care services.
38
There are proposals to extend the aftercare of children brought up at some time in care. That is okay but I should prefer to see the local authority's duty to those young adults extended beyond 21 and up to 25. I believe that it would be more beneficial if the social work departments were able to keep open the cases of children formerly in care, so that they would, if needed, know who had been their social worker, rather than try to reopen the case with the intake and assessment team when difficulties have arisen.
Within the care system there is a popular belief that getting out of care and away from social workers is a priority. Unfortunately, that subcultural thought contributes to the disturbingly high incidence of homelessness among ex-care people. I strongly urge that those cases should be retained as open but perhaps dormant cases until age 25. That would mirror the continuing interest taken by parents in their children as they progress through adolescence and early adulthood and on to their own parenthood.
There is also new provision for the inspection of private schools—I understand by the advice given by some lobbyists about the way that some of those schools may be conducted in a somewhat above-the-law style. It is not good enough to allow parents to hand over their children on an in loco parentis basis to people who may treat the children in a manner which may be traditional but may also be illegal. A licensing and inspection system would resolve those difficulties.
The Bill goes on to sharpen the measures for child protection, creating in its wake child assessment orders and child protection orders. That development of the current place of safety order hinges on the new exclusion order which enables the alleged abuser, rather than the child, to be removed from the home. That is a difficult legal rights situation. I am sure that the lawyers among us will be able to help us understand the dilemmas, as indeed they already have done.
I should like the exclusion orders to be on a 60:40 basis, as I recognise that there is a risk of false accusation. That has to be set against the appropriateness of such a measure where the allegation is true. There is also concern that there is no emergency provision for temporary exclusion if a sheriff cannot be contacted. That would result in the child's temporary removal from home for a couple of days after being abused. The provision is better than the status quo but is perhaps not ideal. Reports from abused children suggest that any removal from home is a double insult. It would be helpful if an exclusion allowance could be provided to the excluded person under Section 12.
The Bill moves on to deal with the final breakdown of family life. The local authority will be able to apply for a parental responsibility order. That is new terminology for the assumption of parental rights by the local authority. That measure has the merit of allowing continuing parental contact and perhaps even home placement. It deals with parental inadequacy rather than child behaviour.
Should the parental situation deteriorate totally, then adoption becomes a distinct possibility. The Bill allows adoption agencies to make available an adoption allowance to the adopters of older children who may not otherwise be acceptable for adoption. Recognising that

39
adoptions now are not usually of babies, that provision makes good sense. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a clear path to adoption from the children's panel. I hope that that can be remedied for it is procedurally difficult at present.
Finally, I return to the first clauses and the general guidance that the Bill gives to parents. I welcome any attempt to give guidance to parents as I believe that many of today's parents have lost confidence in their own ideas regarding the style and shape of family life. The ever-widening knowledge of different lifestyles which invades the home through all forms of media has knocked away traditional values and left uncertainty. Also, it would be helpful, for example, if the Bill confirmed that open-hand smacking is OK but that the use of closed hands or instruments such as sticks is not.
I presume that Clause 5 means that all baby-sitters will have to be 16 or over. If so, it will have a profound effect on teenage pocket money.
I welcome the Bill and hope that its reach can be extended. It will certainly improve the child's lot in Scotland.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I cannot conceal from your Lordships the pleasure which I feel in being able to contribute in a small way to this debate. My introduction to your Lordships' House came just too late for me to play any part in the debates on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. That is something which I regret. But I am fortunate in that I am the holder of two judicial offices, not one. I can change the colour of my robe according to the subject matter, rather like a chameleon. In criminal matters my eyes and ears are those of the Lord Justice General; in civil matters, especially those which affect the work of the Court of Session, my eyes and ears are those of the Lord President. It is a matter of particular pleasure to me that this Bill is dealing almost entirely with matters which affect my responsibilities as Lord President.
That is significant for one specific reason; it underlines one aspect of what has been achieved in the past 25 years as a result of the enactment of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which Part II of this measure will largely replace. As the noble and learned Lord the Minister reminded us earlier, the provisions relating to children are not restricted to children who have been the victims of abuse; they extend also to children who have committed an offence. We should not forget that that was one of the primary objects of the legislation which this measure is intended to strengthen.
The effect of those provisions was to remove almost entirely from the criminal law the activities of the juvenile offender. I can speak with experience as to the effect of those measures. I sit four days each month as chairman of a criminal appeal court in Scotland. We hear cases coming from every kind of court of criminal jurisdiction in Scotland, dealing with many matters. But, as I look back over my years as Lord Justice General, I can recall hardly any case which involved the position of a child offender. It is true that the procurator fiscal can prosecute in the
40
criminal court if he regards it as necessary in the public interest. But for practical purposes the system which was set up replaced the criminal jurisdiction. For that, Scotland owes much to the inspiration and humanity of Lord Kilbrandon, who was the architect of the measure.
This important Bill has been the result of the work of many hands. From my perspective I pay tribute to two bodies which contributed so much to what we find in the Bill. The first is the work of the Scottish Law Commission which, as your Lordships were told, provided the basis for what we see in Part I. That was set out in a report in May 1992 and the measures contained in the clauses are largely those set out in the draft Bill appended to the report. The other tribute I wish to pay, through the Minister, is to the Social Work Services Group, which played an active role in Scotland and whose work has been reflected by much of what we see in later provisions in the Bill. I hope that it will continue to play a part in its implementation.
The work of the Scottish Law Commission in the field of family law has been outstanding since the date it was set up. It is no exaggeration to say that it has virtually transformed the structure and substance of family law in Scotland. Indeed, much of the language which was current only 30 years ago has been altered with a view to creating a better understanding of what the aims are of the various principles upon which family law is based. That we see in the provisions in Part I of the Bill, where Scottish lawyers will have to learn new words for familiar concepts. It is right that they should do so because it will help lawyers, and indeed judges, to understand the purpose of those concepts.
With the work which has been done by the Scottish Law Commission and the measures which have been enacted as a result of its reports, Scotland can look forward into the next century with confidence that it has a system of family law in keeping with the needs of modern society. No doubt there will be some who will say that that work is incomplete, and with that I am bound to say I would agree, for this reason. In this field one can never stand still; there will always be work to do. But the achievements are positive. I am delighted to see that the report has been implemented with comparative speed and that it has been possible to bring it forward before your Lordships in the form of Part I of the Bill.
In relation to the Social Work Services Group—I pay this compliment through the Minister, if I may—as the Minister hinted earlier today, in recent years Scotland has had to contend with a number of difficult cases. My own court sometimes had to deal with those cases in the exercise of the extraordinary power which the court in Scotland has to deal with situations for which legislation has not provided. I am not convinced that that is a satisfactory way to deal with these difficult matters, and for that reason we have a responsibility, so far as possible, to fill those gaps.
The cases which have caused concern have resulted in personal tragedy for many people who are particularly vulnerable. The clock cannot be turned back in these cases. One regrets that, but it is a fact of life. But what we can and must do is to learn from the mistakes and by all means possible strive to avoid anything like that happening in the future. So far as legislation is concerned,

41
that means giving sufficient powers to deal with these matters and giving the flexibility as well which will enable the court to meet the situation of the case.
Scotland is fortunate in one respect in particular—its legal system. I use the words "legal system" in the broadest sense to include social workers, mediators, civil servants and other agents who all work together in this field. Distances are short, informal contacts at all levels are frequent and there are few informal barriers to overcome. I find that visitors from other jurisdictions are surprised by the ease with which we can communicate with each other and are impressed by the high degree of mutual trust which exists. That is a strength on which we can build in looking to the future. The work which has been done, with the encouragement of the Minister, has been very important in curing some of the difficulties that have been created for us in the past. I have tried where I can to give this work my support, and I hope very much that it will continue.
This is not the time to comment in detail on the Bill and I do not wish to detain your Lordships for much longer. There are, however, two matters which I should mention. The first is the provision about taking the views of children, to which the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, referred earlier. The second is the provision about appeals. There is nothing new about taking the views of children so far as the court is concerned. Judges have attempted to do this in various ways in the past, frequently at second hand by means of reports and sometimes by interview, but views have varied as to the way in which this should be done and indeed have varied as to the effectiveness of the exercise. I see this clause as placing a responsibility on me to see that, by rule-making and, if necessary, by practice note, I can give the direction which is needed to unify practice so that we eliminate trial and error in this important field. But the request I make of the noble and learned Lord is that I may be offered the opportunity of consulting on this issue, because I would rather that we knew precisely where we were going before the measure leaves this House in case amendments are required to be made to the clause.
So far as appeals are concerned, there is a provision which will introduce an option of appeal to the sheriff principal. There will then be a choice of appeal direct to the Court of Session or, alternatively, to the sheriff principal. But if there is a decision of the sheriff principal with which either party is dissatisfied there will be the option of an appeal further to the Court of Session. I can see advantages and disadvantages in that system. I shall not trouble your Lordships with those just now but I am concerned at the risk that this may simply create an extra rung in the ladder of appeal, which would involve expense and delay. I can assure your Lordships that, in this field above all, both I and my officials work hard to try to eliminate precisely those features which can cause such damage in cases arising from family law.
42
With those brief remarks I offer my warm support for the principles of the Bill. There is much to be discussed but I entirely support the principles which have brought it before the House.
5.14 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is customary for the speaker following the maiden speaker to pay tribute to the maiden speaker's speech. For me it is a real and genuine privilege to have the job of congratulating the noble and learned Lord. I have a sense that today the mountain has come to Mahomet. We make the laws in this House. The head of the legal system in Scotland has come to us and has made a speech which has reminded us of that exciting new development.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, is a most distinguished lawyer and a most distinguished Scot. He learnt some of the tricks of the trade when he did his national service in the Seaforth Highlanders. He has been an advocate in Scotland. He became an advocate 30 years ago. He has been Dean of the Faculty of Advocates and he has been the editor of and a contributor to a number of key and not particularly slim volumes about Scots law. Now, as he has reminded us, he is Lord Justice-General of Scotland and Lord President of the Court of Session. It is a real privilege to have him among us. We have been fascinated by his speech and we look forward to those speeches which are to come.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, flying south yesterday afternoon after the VE service at St. Giles' Cathedral in Edinburgh and travelling by Underground from Heathrow to Westminster, it was striking how friendly and amiable and communicative we passengers seemed to be. The offering of seats and of help with heavy suitcases and the agreeable chat between strangers were clearly in tune with the spirit that had been growing all weekend. It seemed to me during that journey that the VE Day happenings, whatever else they had done, had reminded us of certain things that matter to us all, and we found it a heartwarming experience. To an extent this Bill seems to be heartwarming in the same kind of way. The speeches so far in the debate have borne that out.
The Bill is about something which we can all agree matters to every one of us in Scotland. It is about our children and how they are brought up and cared for in a changing world and amid changing patterns of family life. It is not just because we are all concerned about children that the Bill has been welcomed in Scotland. It is also because, as noble Lords have indicated, its contents have been the subject of particularly widespread consultation and careful, unhurried preparation. The noble and learned Lord the Minister made sure that there was very thorough consultation and preparation.
It has also had the benefit of the new procedures for consideration by another place. Discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh attracted a good deal of public attention. The involvement of experts in the subject in the very thorough proceedings during the Special Standing Committee enabled Scottish MPs to make contact, during the passage of the Bill, with their

43
constituents and others. That has contributed to extremely positive and very good improvements being made to it. The process has been facilitated by the sensitivity with which my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie and Ministers in another place have treated the Bill.
It is encouraging that the Law Society of Scotland welcomes the Bill. It has written that it is a substantial contribution to the rationalisation, improvement and reform of the law relating to children in Scotland. Likewise, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the consortium of organisations working for children in Scotland and Family Mediation Scotland, which also have much experience in these matters, all express general approval of the Bill. Of course, all these bodies have some detailed concerns and we shall doubtless be considering a number of them. The overall welcome is very encouraging indeed.
There is one general point I wish to make about the detailed views so far sent to me. Both the consortium and CoSLA have written mainly, although not exclusively, about concerns they have as regards Part II of the Bill and the public law provisions relating to the role of local authorities, children's hearings and the like, in promoting children's welfare. I hope that will not mean that our discussions in Committee concentrate so much on Part II that we do not look carefully at the private law provisions in Part I regarding the rights and responsibilities of parents who are separated or divorced, and the way they relate to their children and to one another in the interests of those children.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said that in this context parents are irrelevant. We must get Part I of the Bill right because a child's home life and his or her relationship with the parents, including the absent parent, is, as we all know, absolutely critical to the development of a child's personality, welfare and life chances. Many of the problems which of necessity have to be dealt with by the provisions in the rest of the Bill would not in fact occur at all if children's home lives and parental relationships had gone better.
There are a number of points, particularly in relation to Part I of the Bill, which concern Family Mediation Scotland. I hope that we shall look carefully at them in Committee. As I know from working with Family Mediation Scotland on the Private Member's Bill which I steered through this House—now the Civil Evidence (Family Mediation) (Scotland) Act and, I am happy to say, received Royal Assent last week—that organisation has a great deal of hands-on experience in children's law matters. It feels that the Bill would be improved if it did more than it does to put responsibility on divorced parents to consult and co-operate with one another in the best interests of their children.
Perhaps the parent with whom the child lives should be required, as far as possible, to enable that child to have good relations with the other parent. I regard that as an important point and I hope that we shall look at it. Family Mediation Scotland is also concerned that where, in Clause 11, court orders are provided for in relation to parental rights and responsibilities, guardianship and the like, and the court is required to have regard, so far as is
44
practicable, to the views of the child, there may need to be a statutory mechanism for finding out what the child's views are. It is a skilled and sensitive job. As has been said, talking children who may be torn between the views of warring parents, and who have divided loyalties and much emotional distress, is not an easy task. I am told that at present the system does not work very well. It is not something which most lawyers are well placed to do. It would be good if a better way can be found. It would be good if training were undertaken. There was discussion in another place on that point and I hope that we are going to continue that discussion.
Another point has been taken into consideration in the Lord Chancellor's recently published White Paper for England and Wales. It is the question of whether greater use should be made than at present of family mediation and the supply of information to parents who want to divorce. Family Mediation Scotland welcomes the power of the court provided in Clause 12(2) to delay matrimonial cases in order to ascertain as fully as possible the best interests of the child and how these might be met. Perhaps my noble friend who is to reply can tell the House whether the Government see the Lord Chancellor's thinking in this respect as the course to follow in Scotland and whether the Government would welcome an amendment to this Bill including a referral to mediation and an information session. My noble friend may or may not be able to answer that question, but I hope that at least he will say that it is going to be looked at, because it is of great interest to many people.
Noble Lords have already mentioned the general concern of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Law Society of Scotland about the financing of the provisions of the Bill and the timetable for its implementation, given the changeover to the new local authorities on 1st April next year. We shall doubtless want to look at these and other points. I follow the noble and learned Lord the Lord President of the Court of Session in his excellent speech. I welcome this Bill most warmly and I hope your Lordships will give it a fair wind.
5.27 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before I say anything about the Bill and its contents I would like to put on my hat as joint convenor, with Mr. Norman Godman, Member of Parliament for Greenock and Port Glasgow, of the Scottish all-party parliamentary group for children. Wearing that hat, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, for having produced this Bill. I thank him both for the tribute he paid to us and for the way he met us and listened to our concerns. I believe that the Bill is very dear to his heart, as it is to ours, but we all know what fierce competition there is between ministries for parliamentary time, of which there is never enough to go round. He is to be congratulated on having fought and won the battle for this Bill. I suspect that it was quite a hard fight.
I pay tribute also to the valuable help the group received from the consortium for children and Children in Scotland in particular both in organising evidence, which not only the group heard but also the Committee in another place, and in drafting amendments. As a result, considerable improvements have been made to the Bill. However, I

45
believe that there is still room for further improvements. The views I shall be putting forward about one or two things are my own personal views. I am not speaking for other members of the group whom I leave to speak for themselves.
The group is still concerned that the Bill, unlike the Children Bill 1989, does not open with a statement to the effect that the interests of the child shall be paramount—what it calls the "overarching principle". This was much discussed in another place and I believe that the Minister was of the opinion that the principle was stated while it was applicable. I do not know that the statement of principle at the beginning of the English Bill made it a better Act at the end of the day. I believe that that Act has shortcomings because of provisions which were left out which perhaps should have been in it or because parts of it are being disregarded. No amount of "overarching principles" stated at the beginning of a Bill will make up for deficiencies in that Bill. Besides, in family life, there is a balance to be maintained between the interests of the parents and the interests of the children, and if the interests of the parents are unduly subordinated to the apparent interests of the children, the children's interests may suffer in the long run.
In Clause 25(1), like other members of the group, I should like to see the age ceiling up to which a local authority must advise, guide or assist a young person who has been in its care raised to 21. I should also like to see the permission in subsection (2) of the clause extended to a ceiling of 25 years of age. I do not believe that to do that would be nearly as expensive in the long run as the Government fear. Both the Association of Directors of Social Work and the Child Care Law Review report disagree with the cost given by the Minister in another place, but one must also set against the cost the savings in trying to deal with young people who have got into difficulties and turned to crime, prostitution, drugs, etc. These savings are not easily quantifiable but are real nevertheless.
More importantly, I think there is a real moral duty here. No decent parents kick their children out of the family home at 18 and then have nothing more to do with them. If you take children from their homes into your care you have surely a duty to make sure that that care is as near as possible to that which they would have received from good parents in a good home. I wonder sometimes whether local authorities should be running homes or whether it is best done privately. I am sure there are very good local authority homes, but I am sure also, from some of the evidence I have heard, that there are also rather bad ones. I have always heard that Barnardo's homes were very good indeed.
Moving on to Clause 34, I keep wondering why the Orkney children had to be sent to the mainland. Presumably the social work department did not have any refuges, safe houses or foster parents available on the islands. I should like to see "may" in subsection (1) (a) changed to "shall". Perhaps, however, there was some other reason for sending the children so far away.
I am sorry that the Minister, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, was so adamant at Committee stage in another place that it would not be possible to appoint a curator ad litem in the case of an emergency protection
46
order under Clause 53. I cannot help thinking that there may have been some misunderstanding between him and Mrs. Ewing, the Member of Parliament for Moray, who was not suggesting that the order should be in any way delayed but simply that as soon as the order had been made a curator ad litem should be appointed so that he could start discussions with the child before the children's hearing. Perhaps if that had been done in the case of the Orkney and the Ayrshire children, and had the curators been any use, the outcome might have been different.
I listened with interest and sympathy to Mr. George Robertson moving New Clause 1 at Report stage in another place last week; I read also with great interest the Minister's reasons for not accepting the new clause. That was the clause which made it illegal to chastise a child with an implement. I wondered whether it would not be possible to come to some accommodation which would at any rate outlaw the use of hard objects as implements of chastisement. It has always seemed to me that if you hit a child with an object which cannot itself feel pain and which, being an extension of your arm, by the simple law of dynamics, enables you to hit a good deal harder than you could have done with your hand, you cannot gauge the pain you are inflicting in the same way you can if you do it with your bare hand. I said this to one of my daughters last week. She said no, as far as she was concerned the new clause would not be acceptable. She said, "If I were cooking in the kitchen and I had a wooden spoon in my hand, and one of my children tried to poke a pencil into an electric socket, I wouldn't have time to think about putting the spoon down first, I should just have to stop it as quickly as possible by hitting him, probably over the hand with the spoon. His life could be at stake." So there you have the practical view of a young mother. Having heard that view, I rest content with the present situation. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, spoke about the necessity of educating parents. He has a very good point.
I know that many members of the Scottish all-party children group would like to see the provisions in the Bill for the exclusion of alleged abusers under Clause 70 extended so as to apply also to emergency protection orders, and that the Government are considering this. Where violence is the problem and a child may be at risk of his life or in danger of grave injury, I would support this, but subject to the discretion of the sheriff, as set out in Clause 70.
Where violence is involved, it is likely that the mother and others in the family may have been subjected to the same treatment. It is probable also that it is quite clear who the abuser is and that all except the abuser will be happy to see him removed. But where it is a case of suspected sexual abuse, it is very much more difficult. For example, the alleged abuser may be the mother's live-in lover, her "bidey-in", and she may well regard an abused daughter as her rival. You have to consider the child's quality of life if he or she remains in the home.
There may be situations where the alleged abuser is not only the breadwinner but earns his living by working largely from home, possibly with a computer and video link. This is an increasing trend and should perhaps be taken into account when considering exclusion orders. Where a chap occupies a tied house because, for example,

47
he is the caretaker of premises and the insurance on those premises depends on an authorised person's presence on them he could not only lose his job for being absent, but if a break-in or a fire occurred the insurance could refuse to pay. I wonder whether the owner would have any remedy.
Where sexual abuse is involved, it has probably been going on for some time. I wonder whether emergency procedures should be involved in these cases. There may be other considerations to be taken into account, and it is a very difficult area in any case. I just do not want us to go overboard for exclusion without thinking very carefully what we are doing and without adequate safeguards.
I hope and trust that the Government will disregard the suggestion from the Law Society of Scotland that persons other than the local authority, such as siblings, grandparents or the child himself, should be able to apply for an exclusion order. Like the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, I can envisage all kinds of malicious applications, such as from a girl who did not like her stepfather and wanted rid of him.
Moving finally to Chapter 4,I am not quite convinced that "relevant persons" includes other relatives of the child such as grandparents, uncles and aunts, and cousins. The concept of totally cutting a child off from his family is a terrible one and should be avoided wherever possible. I am convinced that many psychological problems arise from rootlessness and not belonging to anyone. Every possible effort should always be made to keep a child in the family by which I mean the wider family where it exists and where it is possible, and just not the nuclear family, which, I am sorry to say, is what the word "family" seems to mean to so many people nowadays.
5.38 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, and I should like to begin by making a small appeal. Your Lordships will note that today's Order Paper states:
"Bills marked § have been set down before the expiry of the recommended minimum interval between stages".
I hope that the Bill does not go into Committee too soon. Given that six new clauses have been added and Clause 29 has been rewritten, I shall need time to study the Bill between the conclusion of Report stage in another place and its detailed consideration in this House. With that number of clauses, all one's sequences have been thrown out.
While I accept the principles of the Bill, which are clearly intended to protect children's welfare and nurture—the drafting emphasises that the child's welfare is of paramount consideration—this is not an easy Bill to follow or to understand fully because there are so many cross-references between one clause and another.
Although I agree that the mother should be primarily responsible for her child, there does not seem to be the "whom failing provision" in Part I for a grandparent, uncle or aunt to fulfil that gap. I feel that few young married persons would have the foresight to appoint a guardian in the event of their death.
48
In Chapter 1 of Part II, it is the local authority that is mainly responsible for dealing with problem children. I make a further appeal, that when the Bill comes into force DSS staff co-operate with local authority staff and elected councillors better than they have in the past. Perhaps I may give an example. A clerk to a district court is not given the necessary information by the DSS of the whereabouts of a person who has failed to pay a fine to that court. The panel of a children's hearing must be given every assistance from DSS or local authority staff and not have to drag the necessary information out of the officials. After all, panel members usually have another job to do.
I was sorry to read that Section 25 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which empowers a local authority to provide assistance for apprenticeships, is being repealed. When I was in my 20s, I knew a number of people who had been assisted in that way.
Children's hearings take place only when a child, or someone connected with that child, is accused of some misbehaviour. As newspapers today seem to thrive on sleaze, regardless of the damage caused, I am concerned that under Clause 39 a press reporter is permitted to attend a hearing. Witnesses must be able to speak freely and be truthful under oath.
Clause 53, as an example, states:
"In this section the expression 'sheriff does not include an honorary sheriff.
I must admit that I do not know the difference, but it makes me wonder about other clauses when an honorary sheriff will or will not do.
There are a number of clauses in Part II where I feel that the principal reporter should be involved but has not been included.
Chapter 4 of Part II deals with parental responsibility orders. We there come across a new person—a reporting officer. Is there to be a link between the reporting officer and the principal reporter. I hope there will be better co-operation between those different authorities than I had the impression was the case in the past.
Part III deals with amendments to the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978, at which I have not had time to look. I have asked a number of technical questions. I do not expect my noble friend the Minister to answer them tonight, but I shall raise them in Committee. I hope that by the time the Bill leaves its Committee stage the many doubts that have been expressed today will have been cleared up.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I hope that, as a mere Englishwoman, my speaking on a Scottish Bill and jumping into the gap will be forgiven. My reason for doing so is my great interest in what was the Children Bill in which I played an active part. This Bill in many ways follows the Children Act, and I shall have an interest in this Bill too.
My noble friend Lord Macaulay supported the Bill, as indeed I do, but said that it was not perfect. It is to point out one of the ways in which it is not perfect that I wish to make my brief intervention.

49
In his elegant maiden speech, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, praised the work of the Scottish Law Commission—outstanding, he said it was. The Scottish Law Commission Report on Family Law proposed strict limits on physical punishment of children: that it should become an offence to hit a child with a belt, stick or other implement or in a way which could cause injury or significant pain or discomfort. But the Government did not include this proposal in the Bill when it was introduced in the other place and have opposed attempts to add it to the Bill. This provision has the strong support of the Consortium of Voluntary Organisations in Scotland and indeed throughout the UK.
In addition, when the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child examined the UK report on implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in January this year, it expressed its particular concern over,
"the national legal provisions dealing with reasonable chastisement within the family".
I should like to quote another sentence:
"The imprecise nature of the expression of reasonable chastisement as contained in these legal provisions may pave the way for it to be interpreted in a subjective and arbitrary manner".
My noble friend enlarged upon that, and I agree with all he said.
The committee went on to propose legal reform against physical punishment. Here we have the Children (Scotland) Bill. Its passage is the first opportunity that the Government have had to respond to these formal comments and recommendations from the international body responsible for monitoring compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Surely the Scottish Law Commission proposal, which has such strong support among children's organisations, should be added to the Bill.
5.48 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for jumping in as number two in the gap. It is somewhat presumptuous of me to do so because I have never worked in Scotland, although I am half a Scot. On the other hand, I have attended many panels by invitation and I am friendly with many social workers in Scotland. They have kindly invited me to the conference of the Association of Directors of Social Services in Dundee in a fortnight's time.
I wonder whether I may ask questions rather than make statements in case I am wrong and might not have understood the Bill. First, like the noble Baroness, Lady David, I took part in the passing of what is now the Children Act 1989 for England. I moved an amendment that children should be allowed to be cared for by the local authority if they had been in care until the age of 21. Believe it or not, I lost the amendment and on the grounds of cost. It has been proved that in England and Wales the introduction of the clause would have been cost-effective. Research has shown that many of the children who were not cared for by the local authority until the age of 21 became homeless and took to drugs. At the end of the day the provision would have been cost-effective.
50
I congratulate the Minister on introducing the clause and I hope that it is agreed to by your Lordships. However, its provisions will be costly, and I hope that the resources are available, in particular for housing. Perhaps the Minister will say whether the resources to pay for them will be available.
My second point relates to a Bill that is passing through your Lordships' House in relation to England and Wales; that is, the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill. If its provisions are introduced, they will help greatly as regards exclusions. Is it likely that they will be introduced, because they will be more satisfactory than the exclusion part of this Bill relating to Scotland? I have not sat in Committee on the Bill, as has the noble Baroness, Lady David, but I have been a social worker. One of the most difficult things in the world is to know what to do when a child is alleged to have been physically or sexually abused. If one leaves the child at home and there is then further trouble, one gets into trouble. If one moves the child, one is introducing a second suffering. It is bad enough to have been abused but it is even worse to be removed from one's home and family and made to feel the guilty person. As the Minister said, that is exactly what happens with children.
I and my staff were so upset by such events that we persuaded the housing department to make available an empty flat. In such cases, and if the man would not move out of the home, we were able to offer to the mother and children a flat in which they could live while the case was being discussed. Often when the man was not guilty he agreed to move out and to live with his mother or a relative. I am a little worried about the exclusion provision.
Thirdly, I turn to the views of the children. That point was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. It is very difficult for social workers and the police to know whether to listen to the child and to believe him, to listen to the mother and to believe her or to listen to the father and to believe him. I am not sure whether we have properly worked out the issues relating to the views of the child, the mother and the father. I support the noble and learned Lord, but rather deferentially.
Although I do not understand the law of Scotland, I wish that England and Wales could have had the panel system. Many years ago I talked about that to Lord Kilbrandon who said that he was sorry that we had not adopted it. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will agree that in England and Wales there is too big a gap between the allegation being made and the case coming to court. Will that be minimised in Scotland? Social workers who deal with the child cannot question him and cannot give him psychological or psychiatric treatment for fear of interfering with the statement that he may make in court. Will that gap be shortened in Scotland? It is too long in England and Wales.
My next point relates to the training of social workers. The Clyde Report stated that social workers were not adequately trained. In this House two weeks ago I tabled a Motion proposing that the training of social workers should be at university level and for three years. Since the passing of the Children Act 1989, it has become evident that social workers are entitled to, and should have, longer

51
and better training. Has that been considered in relation to Scotland? I am sure that social workers in England and Wales will agree that there are not enough of them to carry out the work of the Children Act as it should be carried out. It is a heavy responsibility.
I turn now to resources, which I hardly like to mention. No Act of Parliament can be successful unless adequate resources are available. Have the provisions of the Bill been costed? Do we know exactly what the extra cost will be, including that for extra staff? Will adequate resources be made available to carry out the provisions of this extremely good Bill?
Finally, as regards adoption, perhaps I may inform your Lordships that in England and Wales a charitable organisation has set up an international adoption society. I wish to make it clear that there is considerable difficulty as regards the adoption of children from overseas, and in England and Wales we have started a society called Adoption International.
I ask your Lordships to forgive me for raising these issues when I know so little about what is happening in Scotland.
5.58 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by declaring an interest in that I have no fewer than five children living in Scotland. Unlike most interests declared at this stage, it is far from profitable. Indeed, it is highly costly.
We have had a wide-ranging and useful debate on what is generally agreed to be a major step in legislation relating to children in Scotland. It will set a clear legal framework for the future. It is in that context that I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, on his most thoughtful and constructive maiden speech. As Lord President of the Court of Session, he has brought to the debate wide-ranging experience, wisdom and insight. We are grateful to him for his contribution to our consideration of this important area of law. The House will look forward to his further contributions on this Bill and on other related matters.
As my noble and learned friend the Minister of State pointed out, the Bill is the culmination of a wide range of work. It draws on comprehensive reviews and inquiries into particular issues. A number of noble Lords have drawn attention to some of the precedents that lie behind the Bill. In particular, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, drew attention to the Scottish Law Commission and the Social Work Services Group. They are two bodies which have made a great contribution.
The Bill takes the opportunity to recast substantial parts of the legislation affecting children in order to bring it up to date both in form and substance. An undertaking on this scale inevitably raises complex questions. Today's debate illustrates that, in particular when "gap" speakers such as my noble friend Lady Faithfull can spring up with about 20 complex and technical questions. I shall have to write to her about some of them.
The Bill is founded on principles derived from the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child; namely, the principles that each child has the right to be treated as an
52
individual and to express views on his or her care; that each child has the right to protection from all forms of abuse, neglect or exploitation; that parents should normally be responsible for the upbringing of their children; that every effort should be made to preserve the child's family home, which is one of the underlying principles of Part I of the Bill, which my noble friend Lady Carnegy rightly emphasised; and finally, that any intervention by a public authority in the life of a child should be properly justified and should be supported by services from all relevant agencies working in collaboration.
In scope the Bill goes rather beyond the provision of the Children Act 1989 for England and Wales. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, was unnecessarily cynical about the delay that there has been between 1989 and the bringing forward of this Bill. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy pointed out, that time has been put to good use and very positive improvements have been made in the text of the Bill. The sensitivity that has been introduced generally makes the Bill better than it might have been had it been rushed out earlier.
The Bill will provide Scotland with its own children Act based on Scottish law and Scottish needs. The Bill has already been the subject of close scrutiny in another place and the Government have brought forward substantial amendments in response to that. Further issues have been raised today and I should like to respond to them. Before doing so, perhaps I may say that the Government welcome the continuing co-operative approach taken in relation to this legislation. We look forward to the discussions which will take place in Committee and on Report. I hope that further improvements will be made to the Bill before it becomes law. On the point which the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, made, I assure all noble Lords that amendments proposed to the Bill will be handled constructively and objectively on their merits.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, claims that Clauses 1 and 2 are without teeth. However, I must draw the noble Lord's attention to Clause 1(3) and Clause 2(4), which give title to sue in respect of both responsibilities and rights. In other words, those clauses allow either a child or a parent as appropriate to sue against the breach of a parental responsibility or infringement of a parental right.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, stressed the view that the Bill should not allow a parent who has deserted the family to return and seek parental responsibilities and rights. Clause 3 makes it clear that a father who is unmarried to the child's mother will not have responsibilities and rights but an interested and caring father can obtain such rights and responsibilities by drawing up an agreement with the mother of the child. Otherwise, such a father can obtain those responsibilities and rights only on application to the court for an order under Clause 11. I should emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that in such circumstances, the court will grant an order only if it is in the child's best interests to do so. Therefore, if the father has shown no previous interest in the child, it is hardly likely that the court will grant such an order without having before it considerable evidence that it would benefit the child so to do. This Bill certainly

53
does not provide what the noble Lord claimed that it may provide; namely, a statutory passport for a parent who has taken the easy way out.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, sought confirmation that under Clause 5 all baby-sitters should be aged 16 years or over. I confirm that that is the case. Clause 5(1) assumes that a person given temporary care of a child will be aged 16 years or over.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy was concerned with the responsibilities of parents who are separated and that they should consult each other. That has also been an anxiety expressed by Family Mediation Scotland. On Report in another place, Clause 6(1) was amended so that, in reaching a major decision concerning a parental responsibility or right, a parent should consult not only the child concerned but also the other parent. Thus, even after separation or divorce, we hope that both parents will continue to consult each other on matters affecting the child.
My noble friend Lord Balfour suggested that a provision is needed to allow a grandparent or aunt or uncle to share parental responsibilities or rights with the child's mother. Indeed, other noble Lords have also drawn attention to the status and role of relations other than the parents. Clause 11(3) allows for such persons to apply to the courts for parental responsibilities and rights. In considering that, the court will treat the child's welfare as its paramount consideration. However, as noble Lords will recognise, that is a formal step and there is nothing to prevent the child's mother relying on the assistance of other relations as happens on a day-to-day basis in many families.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—and this was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull—mentioned the challenges and difficulties involved in seeking the views of children and the way in which the rules of court might handle that. I understand the views expressed in relation to the formulation of detailed rules of court for taking the views of children. I hope that the Bill will provide an admirable framework for that to be done and that it will assist in consulting widely and on an informed basis as to the details of the necessary rules of court. On that issue, as on many others, we shall listen carefully to the views expressed today and at later stages of the Bill.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy stressed the benefits of mediation. I should point out to my noble friend that the Government have considered carefully whether it is necessary to have a reference to mediation in the Bill. I understand that the present arrangement whereby the courts can refer cases involving children to mediation under rules of court is working successfully. If it is necessary to extend that provision, that may be done also through the rules of court.
Noble Lords will be aware that in formulating rules of court, extensive consultation is undertaken with relevant interests wherever possible. However, I should stress to my noble friend that we shall watch developments south of the Border, especially in relation to proposals made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. We shall consider whether any fresh legislation is required for Scotland in the light of those developments.
54
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, also drew attention to some of those issues and I hope that some of the remarks which I have made will reassure her. In Scotland, courts can and do refer divorcing couples to mediation. Moreover, there are provisions in Clause 12 which require a court to postpone granting a decree in a divorce case until it is satisfied that satisfactory arrangements have been made for the children. While I shall look sympathetically at any suggestions to encourage further mediation, the Government are not convinced that the time is right for any steps which would involve, for example, centrally-funded mediation.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull drew attention to the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill. That Bill contains exclusion provisions for England and Wales only and relates to the Children Act 1989. The Children (Scotland) Bill contains provisions which are parallel to those provisions but which take account of the different body of law which exists in Scotland.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, and others have drawn attention to the difficult area of physical punishment for children. As many noble Lords will know, that issue was debated widely in another place and I predict confidently that it will be debated at the various stages of the Bill in this House. The view expressed then by the Government is that both the statutory law and common law as it stands already offers sufficient protection from assault by parents, teachers or others who have charge of children. We believe that that continues to be the case but we acknowledge that that area of activity commands considerable interest, and we shall no doubt discuss the finer points of that.
Many speakers referred to the problem and challenge of resources as they see it. However, I should stress that many of the proposals outlined in the Bill can be implemented with relatively little extra cost, but sufficient resources will be made available to fund new procedures and statutory requirements.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, asked how the resources needed for the young homeless have been calculated. Figures included in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill were derived from calculations set out in the Child Care Law Review and brought up to date to take account of inflation. The £4.5 million provision made reflects the cost of providing advice, guidance and assistance from the social work authority. It does not cover other forms of assistance which may be available such as housing benefit and support from the Department of Social Security; nor do the costs cover all homeless young people. The provision covers only those who were in the care of the local authority at the time of leaving school.
The importance of ensuring good aftercare for young people who were previously looked after by local authorities is self-evident. Local authorities will have made a considerable investment in such young people; residential care is not cheap. Effective aftercare makes obvious sense not only for the benefit of young persons but also to protect the investment of local authorities. The revised aftercare provisions in the Bill set out in Clause 25 are a significant improvement on existing legislation. They contain a new duty to assist 18 year-olds who were previously looked after by local authorities. A new power

55
is also proposed which will allow local authorities to provide further assistance until a young person reaches the age of 21. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, felt that we might instead place greater emphasis on the provision of advice on the services available. However, I draw his attention to Clause 17(2) where the duty to prepare children who are leaving care is spelt out specifically.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, my noble friend Lady Faithfull and other speakers focused on the age at which such local authority duties might cease. Certainly during the discussions in another place it was suggested that local authorities should have a duty to provide aftercare for young people up to the age of 21; indeed, some speakers suggested that that age limit should be increased to 25.
I have to tell the House that such extensions would not be helpful on two counts. First, they would make major resource demands on local authorities; and, secondly, while it is extremely difficult to quantify them, resources are finite. I take the point made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and by my noble friend Lady Faithfull that costs may not be as great as has been assumed and that the cost generated by those who are not looked after properly might also be taken into account. However, we want to see services improved for those who most need them and not simply spread resources more widely. We are firmly of the view, therefore, that the duty and the resources should be concentrated on the most vulnerable youngsters; for example, 16 and 17 year-olds. We do not want to dilute that focus.
It is also worth recognising that we have proposed a new power under Clause 22 to allow local authorities to accommodate young persons up to the age 21 where that would safeguard or promote their welfare. That new provision, along with the enhanced aftercare powers, should ensure that local authorities have a sufficient range of services and powers to safeguard the welfare of vulnerable children and young persons. I should stress to the House, and specifically to my noble friend Lady Faithfull, that the Government have thought through the need for resources very carefully. We are certain that such resources are in place.
My noble friend Lord Balfour asked about the repeal of Section 25 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. He was concerned about the repeal of that section because it empowers the local authority to provide assistance for apprenticeships. I can assure him that local authorities will still have the necessary powers to assist as regards the financial costs of education and training under Clause 26 of the Bill.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, drew our attention to the Orkney children and their removal from the islands. Indeed, it has been asked fairly widely why in February 1991 those nine children had to be taken away from their home in South Ronaldsay. As she will know, the Orkney case was the subject of a very thorough public inquiry under the chairmanship of Lord Clyde. The decision to remove the children and how it was done was made by the social work authority, Orkney Islands Council. Its decision to remove the nine children from Orkney
56
reflected the number of children involved and the number of children's home and foster home places available in Orkney.
One of the recommendations made by Lord Clyde dealt with the need for Orkney to recruit more foster carers. The island's council has taken action on that recommendation. Removing a child from his or her home is a traumatic experience. It is clearly important not to remove a child to a completely different environment if it can be avoided. The expansion of foster places in Orkney is in part to reduce the need for children looked after by the local authority to be removed to the mainland.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, raised the question of appeals and expressed concern about the provisions for them in Clause 47. He wondered whether there might not be too many rungs in the ladder of provisions for appeals. In the light of the noble and learned Lord's comments, we shall certainly want to look again at the provisions in Committee. We are grateful to him for drawing our attention to the matter.
A number of speakers dwelt on the issue of exclusion orders. Such orders will no doubt be widely, deeply and thoroughly discussed in Committee and on Report. Suffice it for me to say at this stage, the Second Reading of the Bill, that the decision to introduce an exclusion order is very much in keeping with the broad thrust of the legislation, which focuses on the needs of children. The order provides for an abuser to be excluded from the family home on application by a local authority. It will thus allow the child to remain in familiar surroundings with supportive members of the family rather than be moved to foster or residential care away from home. That principle has been widely supported. As the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, knows, we shall be bringing forward government amendments to the clause. However, I can assure him at this stage that there is a right of appeal and the right to be heard by the person who is the subject of an exclusion order and that that right can be promptly exercised. But I believe that the other details that have been raised on the matter will be more successfully dealt with during our discussions on the clause in Committee.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, asked whether other relations could apply for an exclusion order. Under the provisions of the Bill, only a local authority can apply for an exclusion order, but a spouse can also apply for such an order under the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, felt that the definition of the words "in need" had been drawn too narrowly. Certainly the definition set out in Clause 84 is one that we believe quite properly targets the provision of services to those children most in need of assistance. However, in another place my honourable friend agreed to reconsider the definition of "in need" to make it reflect the positive promotion of a child's welfare. We still have the matter under consideration. No doubt it will be raised again in Committee.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull very properly drew attention to the needs and resources as regards training. We envisage that it will be necessary carefully to draw up an implementation plan for the Bill. Training has been mentioned on several occasions. We acknowledge that it has great importance. It will clearly be important to

57
sheriffs, children's panel members, reporters, social workers and other professional staff. We have already begun to identify the needs that will have to be met and have allocated £100,000 towards meeting them in the current financial year. We anticipate that those resources will be used to contribute to the preparation of training materials and training events for social work staff and children's panel members. It will be necessary to work out in detail the further training needs that will have to be addressed. But significant resources are already allocated to training for staff working in children's services, in voluntary organisations and in local authorities.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, quite correctly doubted the wisdom of an overarching principle. The matter was thoroughly debated in another place both in Committee and on Report. The Government have given careful consideration to the issues involved. It is necessary to take a hard look at what such a principle could possibly achieve without confusing the principles already laid out in different parts of the Bill.
Many detailed points have been made and questions lodged. If I have been unable to cover some of them in the time available to me this evening, I shall deal with them in writing. But I should like to conclude by saying that recommendations for improvements have formed and will continue to form an important part of the Bill. However, the Bill also builds on the successes of childcare with a greater emphasis on supporting families and the practice of keeping children in their families and communities wherever possible, while recognising that, for some, residential care may be the right choice. It builds on the strengths of the children's hearing system and the confidence in Scottish adoption law. It builds on the growing appreciation that we need to listen to children more and take their views into account. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said when
58
introducing this Bill, it is based on the view that we must do things with, and not to, families. I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him to make every effort, as I am sure he will, to ensure that the government amendments which have all the hallmarks of being a multiplicity of amendments, are available to the Members of your Lordships' House well in advance of the dates for the Committee stage? The Minister will be well aware that a considerable number of amendments were introduced in another place, I believe either the night or the weekend before the matter came before the other place. As it happened, they were all government amendments which were purely technical. But the amendments which will be discussed here will be of some substance and it will not be good enough if they are made available to Members of this House a couple of days before the dates for the Committee stage of the Bill. I know that the Minister will make every effort in this regard, I merely put down a marker that, if a substantial number of amendments which require considerable consultation on the part of Members of your Lordships' House are tabled, that may affect the date of the Committee stage of the Bill.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I can certainly reassure the noble Lord as regards the timing with which the Government will lodge amendments. I also stress to all noble Lords who might otherwise be misled that many of the government amendments that were brought forward in another place were not technical amendments rushed in at the last minute. They were tabled in response to views that were expressed in another place. Those amendments, as I say, were produced in response to the views being expressed in the other Chamber.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past six o'clock.

  Abortion and Family Planning
  Abortion and Family Planning
  Chinese Population Policy
  Chinese Population Policy
  Abortion: IPPF Policy
  Abortion: IPPF Policy
  Ambassadors: Remuneration Committee
  Ambassadors: Remuneration Committee
  Ambassadors' Pay
  Ambassadors' Pay
  European Convention on Human Rights: Breaches by UK
  European Convention on Human Rights: Breaches by UK
  Judgments in Actions Brought by European Communities' Officials
  Judgments in Actions Brought by European Communities' Officials
  London—Gibraltar via Bordeaux Air Route
  London—Gibraltar via Bordeaux Air Route
  Lloyd's Mutualisation of Losses
  Lloyd's Mutualisation of Losses
  Northern Ireland: EU Assistance and Matching Funding
  Northern Ireland: EU Assistance and Matching Funding
  Radioactive Waste Management Policy Review
  Radioactive Waste Management Policy Review